Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezekiel 4:1
Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it the city, [even] Jerusalem:
1. take thee a tile ] or, brick. The brick would be such as those found in the ruins of the cities of Mesopotamia, covered with figures and inscriptions, engraved on them when still moist. Libraries of such bricks have been found by explorers in this region, and deciphered. For the city read a city. Ch. Eze 4:1-3. Symbolical siege of Jerusalem
The prophet is commanded to take a brick (it is to be supposed still soft) and portray on it a city, even Jerusalem. Around the city he is to draw representations of siege operations, towers, a mound, camps and battering-rams. Between him and the city he is to set an iron plate to represent an iron wall. The determination of the besiegers is shewn by his attitude, he sets his face against the city. All this is symbol of a hard siege, carried on with great determination and apparatus against a lofty city.
Second Section. Ch. Eze 3:22 to Eze 7:27
The second section of the Book contains these parts:
(1) Ch. Eze 3:22-27. A preface in which the prophet is commanded to confine himself to his own house, and abandon for a time his public ministry.
(2) Ch. Eze 4:1-4. A series of symbols representing the siege of Jerusalem, the scarcity during it, the pollution of the people in exile among the nations, and the terrible fate of the inhabitants on the capture of the city.
(3) Ch. Eze 5:5-17. Exposition of these symbols.
(4) Ch. 6. Prophecy against the mountains of Israel, the seats of Idolatry.
(5) Ch. 7. Dirge over the downfall of the state.
A tile – Rather, a brick. Sun-dried or kiln-burned bricks were from very early times used for building walls throughout the plain of Mesopotamia. The bricks of Nineveh and Babylon are sometimes stamped with what appears to be the device of the king in whose reign they were made, and often covered with a kind of enamel on which various scenes are portrayed. Among the subjects depicted on such bricks discovered at Nimroud are castles and forts. Eze 4:1-8
Take thee a tile.
The ministry of symbolism
In this chapter there begins a series of symbols utterly impossible of modern interpretation. This ministry of symbolism has still a place in all progressive civilisation. Every age, of course, necessitates its own emblems and types, its own apocalypse of wonders and signs, but the meaning of the whole is that God has yet something to be revealed which cannot at the moment be expressed in plain language. If we could see into the inner meaning of many of the controversies in which we are engaged, we should see there many a divinely drawn symbol, curious outlines of thought, parables not yet ripe enough for words. How manifold is human life! How innumerable are the workers who are toiling at the evolution of the Divine purpose in things! One man can understand nothing but what he calls bare facts and hard realities; he has only a hand to handle, he has not the interior touch that can feel things ere yet they have taken shape. Another is always on the outlook for what pleases the eye; he delights in form and colour and symmetry, and glows almost with thankfulness as he beholds the shapeliness of things, and traces in them a subtle geometry. Another man gets behind all this, and hears voices, and sees sights excluded from the natural senses; he looks upon symbolism, upon the ministry of suggestion and dream and vision; he sees best in the darkness; the night is his day; in the great cloud he sees the ever-working God, and in the infinite stillness of religious solitude he hears, rather in echoes than in words, what he is called upon to tell the age in which he lives. Here again his difficulty increases, for although he can see with perfect plainness men, and can understand quite intelligibly all the mysteries which pass before his imagination and before his spiritual eyes, yet he has to find words that will fit the new and exciting occasion; and there are no fit words, so sometimes he is driven to make a language of his own, and hence we come upon strangeness of expression, eccentricity of thought, weirdness in quest and sympathy,–a most marvellous and tumultuous life; a great struggle after rhythm and rest, and fullest disclosure of inner realities, often ending in bitter disappointment, so that the prophets eloquence dissolves in tears, and the man who thought he had a glorious message to deliver is broken down in humiliation when he hears the poor thunder of his own inadequate articulation. He has his tile and his iron pan; he lays upon his left side, and upon his right side; he takes unto him wheat and barley, beans, and lentils; he weighs out his bread, and measures out his water, and bakes barley cakes by a curious manufacture; and yet when it is all over he cannot tell to others in delicate enough language, or with sufficiency of illustration, what he knows to be a Divine and eternal word. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Symbolisms not necessarily acted
Even if one hundred and ninety days be the true reading, it is most improbable that the prophet should have been on his side immovable for half a year, and it appears impossible when other actions had to be done simultaneously. The hypothesis of Klostermann hardly deserves mention. This writer supposes that the prophet lay on his side because he was a cataleptic and temporarily paralysed, that he prophesied against Jerusalem with outstretched arm, because his arm could not be withdrawn, being convulsively rigid, and that he was dumb because struck with morbid alalia. It is surprising that some reputable scholars should seem half inclined to accept this explanation. They perhaps have the feeling that such an interpretation is more reverent to Scripture. But we need to remind ourselves, as Job reminded his friends, that superstition is not religion (Job 13:7-12; Job 21:22). The book itself appears to teach us how to interpret the most of the symbolical actions. In Eze 24:3 the symbol of setting the caldron on the fire is called uttering a parable. The act of graving a hand at the parting of the ways (Eze 21:19) must certainly be interpreted in the same way, and, though there may be room for hesitation in regard to some of them, probably the actions as a whole. They were imagined merely. They passed through the prophets mind. He lived in this ideal sphere; he went through the actions in his phantasy, and they appeared to him to carry the same effects as if they had been performed. (A. B. Davidson, D. D.)
Pertray upon it the city, even Jerusalem.—
The end foretold
With the fourth chapter we enter on the exposition of the first great division of Ezekiels prophecies. The prophecies may be classified roughly under three heads. In the first class are those which exhibit the judgment itself in ways fitted to impress the prophet and his hearers with a conviction of its certainty; a second class is intended to demolish the illusions and false ideals which possessed the minds of the Israelites and made the announcement of disaster incredible; and a third and very important class expounds the moral principles which were illustrated by the judgment, and which show it to be a Divine necessity. In the passage before us the bare fact and certainty of the judgment are set forth in word and symbol and with a minimum of commentary, although even here the conception which Ezekiel had formed of the moral situation is clearly discernible. That the destruction of Jerusalem should occupy the first place in the prophets picture of national calamity requires no explanation. Jerusalem was the heart and brain of the nation, the centre of its life and its religion, and in the eyes of the prophets the fountainhead of its sin. The strength of her natural situation, the patriotic and religious associations which had gathered round her, and the smallness of her subject province gave to Jerusalem a unique position among the mother cities of antiquity. And Ezekiels hearers knew what he meant when he employed the picture of a beleaguered city to set forth the judgment that was to overtake them. That crowning horror of ancient warfare, the siege of a fortified town, meant in this case something more appalling to the imagination than the ravages of pestilence and famine and sword. The fate of Jerusalem represented the disappearance of everything that had constituted the glory and excellence of Israels national existence. The manner in which the prophet seeks to impress this fact on his countrymen illustrates a peculiar vein of realism which runs through all his thinking (verses 1-3). He is commanded to take a brick and portray upon it a walled city, surrounded by the towers, mounds, and battering rams which marked the usual operations of a besieging army. Then he is to erect a plate of iron between him and the city, and from behind this, with menacing gestures, he is as it were to press on the siege. The meaning of the symbols is obvious. As the engines of destruction appear on Ezekiels diagram, at the bidding of Jehovah, so in due time the Chaldaean army will be seen from the walls of Jerusalem, led by the same unseen Power which now controls the acts of the prophet. In the last act Ezekiel exhibits the attitude of Jehovah Himself, cut off from His people by the iron wall of an inexorable purpose which no prayer could penetrate. Thus far the prophets actions, however strange they may appear to us, have been simple and intelligible. But at this point a second sign is as it were superimposed on the first, in order to symbolise an entirely different set of facts–the hardship and duration of the Exile (verses 4-8). While still engaged in prosecuting the siege of the city, the prophet is supposed to become at the same time the representative of the guilty people and the victim of the Divine judgment. He is to bear their iniquity–that is, the punishment due to their sin. This is represented by his lying bound on his left side for a number of days equal to the years of Ephraims banishment, and then on his right side for a time proportionate to the captivity of Judah. (John Skinner, M. A.)
CHAPTER IV Ezekiel delineates Jerusalem, and lays siege to it, as a type of the manner in which the Chaldean army should surround that city, 1-3. The prophet commanded to lie on his left side three hundred and ninety days, and on his right side forty days, with the signification, 4-8. The scanty and coarse provision allowed the prophet during his symbolical siege, consisting chiefly of the worst kinds of grain, and likewise ill-prepared, as he had only cow’s dung for fuel, tended all to denote the scarcity of proviswn, fuel, and every necessary of life, which the Jews should experience during the siege of Jerusalem. 9-17. NOTES ON CHAP. IV Verse 1. Take thee a tile] A tile, such as we use in covering houses, will give us but a very inadequate notion of those used anciently; and also appear very insufficient for the figures which the prophet was commanded to pourtray on it. A brick is most undoubtedly meant; yet, even the larger dimensions here, as to thickness, will not help us through the difficulty, unless we have recourse to the ancients, who have spoken of the dimensions of the bricks commonly used in building. Palladius, De Re Rustica, lib. vi. c. 12, is very particular on this subject:-Sint vero lateres longitudine pedum duorum, latitudine unius, altitudine quatuor unciarum. “Let the bricks be two feet long, one foot broad, and four inches thick.” Edit. Gesner, vol. iii. p. 144. On such a surface as this the whole siege might be easily pourtrayed. There are some brick-bats before me which were brought from the ruins of ancient Babylon, which have been made of clay and straw kneaded together and baked in the sun; one has been more than four inches thick, and on one side it is deeply impressed with characters; others are smaller, well made, and finely impressed on one side with Persepolitan characters. These have been for inside or ornamental work; to such bricks the prophet most probably alludes. But the tempered clay out of which the bricks were made might be meant here; of this substance he might spread out a sufficient quantity to receive all his figures. The figures were, 1. Jerusalem. 2. A fort. 3. A mount. 4. The camp of the enemy. 5. Battering rams, and such like engines, round about. 6. A wall round about the city, between it and the besieging army. Hitherto the preface, containing the call and commission of the prophet; now he begins. This is the first prophecy, and it is against Jerusalem. A tile, or brick, or any square tablet on which he might engrave or carve. Lay it before thee, as carvers use to do, as engravers and painters do. Portray upon it the city; draw a map of Jerusalem, delineate or describe the city Jerusalem, whence they were come, who now are in Babylon, and probably repented that they had left Judea and Jerusalem, and murmured against them that advised to it: but let them know by this sign that Jerusalem should suffer much more than ever they suffered, that those who remained there sinning against God should bear a long siege, a very grievous famine, and cruel slaughters. 1. tilea sun-dried brick,such as are found in Babylon, covered with cuneiform inscriptions,often two feet long and one foot broad. Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile,…. Or “brick” z. The Targum renders it, a “stone”; but a tile or brick, especially one that is not dried and burned, but green, is more fit to cut in it the figure of a city. Some think that this was ordered because cities are built of brick; or to show the weakness of the city of Jerusalem, how easily it might be demolished; and Jerom thinks there was some design to lead the Jews to reflect upon their making bricks in Egypt, and their hard service there; though perhaps the truer reason may be, because the Babylonians had been used to write upon tiles. Epigenes a says they had celestial observations of a long course of years, written on tiles; hence the prophet is bid to describe Jerusalem on one, which was to be destroyed by the king of Babylon;
and lay it before thee: as persons do, who are about to draw a picture, make a portrait, or engrave the form of anything they intend:
and portray upon it the city; [even] Jerusalem; or engrave upon it, by making incisions on it, and so describing the form and figure of the city of Jerusalem.
z “laterem”, V. L. Pagninus, Montanus, Junius & Tremellius, Polanus. Piscator. a Apud Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 56.
The Representation of a Siege. B. C. 595. 1 Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it the city, even Jerusalem: 2 And lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about. 3 Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel. 4 Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. 5 For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. 6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year. 7 Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it. 8 And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege. The prophet is here ordered to represent to himself and others by signs which would be proper and powerful to strike the fancy and to affect the mind, the siege of Jerusalem; and this amounted to a prediction. I. He was ordered to engrave a draught of Jerusalem upon a tile, v. 1. It was Jerusalem’s honour that while she kept her integrity God had graven her upon the palms of his hands (Isa. xlix. 16), and the names of the tribes were engraven in precious stones on the breast-plate of the high priest; but, now that the faithful city has become a harlot, a worthless brittle tile or brick is thought good enough to portray it upon. This the prophet must lay before him, that the eye may affect the heart. II. He was ordered to build little forts against this portraiture of the city, resembling the batteries raised by the besiegers, v. 2. Between the city that was besieged and himself that was the besieger he was to set up an iron pan, as an iron wall, v. 3. This represented the inflexible resolution of both sides; the Chaldeans resolved, whatever it cost them, that they would make themselves masters of the city and would never quit it till they had conquered it; on the other side, the Jews resolved never to capitulate, but to hold out to the last extremity. III. He was ordered to lie upon his side before it, as it were to surround it, representing the Chaldean army lying before it to block it up, to keep the meat from going in and the mouths from going out. He was to lie on his left side 390 days (v. 5), about thirteen months; the siege of Jerusalem is computed to last eighteen months (Jer. lii. 4-6), but if we deduct from that five months’ interval, when the besiegers withdrew upon the approach of Pharaoh’s army (Jer. xxxvii. 5-8), the number of the days of the close siege will be 390. Yet that also had another signification. The 390 days, according to the prophetic dialect, signified 390 years; and, when the prophet lies so many days on his side, he bears the guilt of that iniquity which the house of Israel, the ten tribes, had borne 390 years, reckoning from their first apostasy under Jeroboam to the destruction of Jerusalem, which completed the ruin of those small remains of them that had incorporated with Judah. He is then to lie forty days upon his right side, and so long to bear the iniquity of the house of Judah, the kingdom of the two tribes, because the measure-filling sins of that people were those which they were guilty of during the last forty years before their captivity, since the thirteenth year of Josiah, when Jeremiah began to prophesy (Jer 1:1; Jer 1:2), or, as some reckon it, since the eighteenth, when the book of the law was found and the people renewed their covenant with God. When they persisted in their impieties and idolatries, notwithstanding they had such a prophet and such a prince, and were brought into the bond of such a covenant, what could be expected but ruin without remedy? Judah, that had such helps and advantages for reformation, fills the measure of its iniquity in less time than Israel does. Now we are not to think that the prophet lay constantly night and day upon his side, but every day, for so many days together, at a certain time of the day, when he received visits, and company came in, he was found lying 390 days on his left side and forty days on his right side before his portraiture of Jerusalem, which all that saw might easily understand to mean the close besieging of that city, and people would be flocking in daily, some for curiosity and some for conscience, at the hour appointed, to see it and to take their different remarks upon it. His being found constantly on the same side, as if bands were laid upon him (as indeed they were by the divine command), so that he could not turn himself from one side to another till he had ended the days of the siege, did plainly represent the close and constant continuance of the besiegers about the city during that number of days, till they had gained their point. IV. He was ordered to prosecute the siege with vigour (v. 7): Thou shalt set thy face towards the siege of Jerusalem, as wholly intent upon it and resolved to carry it; so the Chaldeans would be, and neither bribed nor forced to withdraw from it. Nebuchadnezzar’s indignation at Zedekiah’s treachery in breaking his league with him made him very furious in pushing on this siege, that he might chastise the insolence of that faithless prince and people; and his army promised themselves a rich booty of that pompous city; so that both set their faces against it, for they were very resolute. Nor were they less active and industrious, exerting themselves to the utmost in all the operations of the siege, which the prophet was to represent by the uncovering of his arm, or, as some read it, the stretching out of his arm, as it were to deal blows about without mercy. When God is about to do some great work he is said to make bare his arm, Isa. lii. 10. In short, The Chaldeans will go about their business, and go on in it, as men in earnest, who resolve to go through with it. Now, 1. This is intended to be a sign to the house of Israel (v. 3), both to those in Babylon, who were eye-witnesses of what the prophet did, and to those also who remained in their own land, who would hear the report of it. The prophet was dumb and could not speak (ch. iii. 26); but as his silence had a voice, and upbraided the people with their deafness, so even then God left not himself without witness, but ordered him to make signs, as dumb men are accustomed to do, and as Zacharias did when he was dumb, and by them to make known his mind (that is, the mind of God) to the people. And thus likewise the people were upbraided with their stupidity and dulness, that they were not capable of being taught as men of sense are, by words, but must be taught as children are, by pictures, or as deaf men are, by signs. Or, perhaps, they are hereby upbraided with their malice against the prophet. Had he spoken in words at length what was signified by these figures, they would have entangled him in his talk, would have indicted him for treasonable expressions, for they knew how to make a man an offender for a word (Isa. xxix. 21), to avoid which he is ordered to make use of signs. Or the prophet made use of signs for the same reason that Christ made use of parables, that hearing they might hear and not understand, and seeing they might see and not perceive,Mat 13:14; Mat 13:15. They would not understand what was plain, and therefore shall be taught by that which is difficult; and herein the Lord was righteous. 2. Thus the prophet prophesies against Jerusalem (v. 7); and there were those who not only understood it so, but were the more affected with it by its being so represented, for images to the eye commonly make deeper impressions upon the mind than words can, and for this reason sacraments are instituted to represent divine things, that we might see and believe, might see and be affected with those things; and we may expect this benefit by them, and a blessing to go along with them, while (as the prophet here) we make use only of such signs as God himself has expressly appointed, which, we must conclude, are the fittest. Note, The power of imagination, if it be rightly used, and kept under the direction and correction of reason and faith, may be of good use to kindle and excite pious and devout affections, as it was here to Ezekiel and his attendants. “Methinks I see so and so, myself dying, time expiring, the world on fire, the dead rising, the great tribunal set, and the like, may have an exceedingly good influence upon us: for fancy is like fire, a good servant, but a bad master.” 3. This whole transaction has that in it which the prophet might, with a good colour of reason, have hesitated at and excepted against, and yet, in obedience to God’s command, and in execution of his office, he did it according to order. (1.) It seemed childish and ludicrous, and beneath his gravity, and there were those that would ridicule him for it; but he knew the divine appointment put honour enough upon that which otherwise seemed mean to save his reputation in the doing of it. (2.) It was toilsome and tiresome to do as he did; but our ease as well as our credit must be sacrificed to our duty, and we must never call God’s service in any instance of it a hard service. (3.) It could not but be very much against the grain with him to appear thus against Jerusalem, the city of God, the holy city, to act as an enemy against a place to which he was so good a friend; but he is a prophet, and must follow his instructions, not his affections, and must plainly preach the ruin of a sinful place, though its welfare is what he passionately desires and earnestly prays for. 4. All this that the prophet sets before the children of his people concerning the destruction of Jerusalem is designed to bring them to repentance, by showing them sin, the provoking cause of this destruction, sin the ruin of that once flourishing city, than which surely nothing could be more effectual to make them hate sin and turn from it; while he thus in lively colours describes the calamity with a great deal of pain and uneasiness to himself, he is bearing the iniquity of Israel and Judah. “Look here” (says he) “and see what work sin makes, what an evil and bitter thing it is to depart form God; this comes of sin, your sins and the sin of your fathers; let that therefore be the daily matter of your sorrow and shame now in your captivity, that you may make your peace with God and he may return in mercy to you.” But observe, It is a day of punishment for a year of sin: I have appointed thee each day for a year. The siege is a calamity of 390 days, in which God reckons for the iniquity of 390 years; justly therefore d they acknowledge that God had punished them less than their iniquity deserved, Ezra ix. 13. But let impenitent sinners know that, though now God is long-suffering towards them, in the other world there is an everlasting punishment. When God laid bands upon the prophet, it was to show them how they were bound with the cords of their own transgression (Lam. i. 14), and therefore they were now holden in the cords of affliction. But we may well think of the prophet’s case with compassion, when God laid upon him the bands of duty, as he does on all his ministers (1 Cor. ix. 16, Necessity is laid upon me, and woe unto me if I preach not the gospel); and yet men laid upon him bonds of restraint (ch. iii. 25); but under both it is satisfaction enough that they are serving the interests of God’s kingdom among men.
EZEKIEL – CHAPTER 4
THE TILE SIGN—SYMBOLIC ACTION, v. 1-17
Verses 1-17:
Verse 1 recounts the Lord’s direction for Ezekiel as “son of man,” to select a tile, or clay brick and lay it before him, and sketch a drawing, or make a blueprint upon it, of the city of Jerusalem (city of peace), the holy city of the house of Israel’s homeland, location of the holy Temple. This was to be a sign to the house of Israel, now in heathen rebellion and Chaldean captivity, Eze 4:3.
Verse 2 directs him to lay siege against it build a fort, a watchtower, against it and cast a mount against it, or build up a high hill of dirt above its walls, as embankment from which to attack the holy city, to destroy it, Jer 52:4. As he sketched upon the tile, as the “son of man,” God’s mouthpiece, he also was told to set up the enemy camp with battering rams around the walls of the city, to batter through the walls to enter and destroy the city. This depicted God’s use of the Chaldean army to destroy Jerusalem, the ancient city of the temple center of worship of the house of Israel.
Verse 3 directs Ezekiel also to take an iron pan and set it perpendicular as an iron wall of separation between him and the city, and he was to set his face against or turn his face away, pray not for Jerusalem, because God had irrevocably decreed her destruction because of her people’s willful sins, Pro 29:1. Ezekiel was to lay siege against it in the sense that he was to recognize and witness to the Jewish captives in Chaldea that the destruction of Jerusalem was a sign to the house of Israel that they could not flagrantly sin against their God without just punishment, Eze 12:6; Eze 11:24; Eze 24:27.
Verse 4 recounts God’s mandate to Ezekiel to lie on his left side for a period of three hundred and ninety (390) days, bearing the iniquity of Israel, the ten northern tribes, upon his side. This was to reflect the low or base condition of rebellious Israel, with whom even Ezekiel was to be identified, in punishment or suffering for a determined number of years, a year for a day, v. 5. This prone posture indicated a period of specific chastisement Israel was to endure for her sins.
Verse 5 continues “for I have laid upon thee (Ezekiel) the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days,” which was 390. That was the period that the Lord commanded him to lie on his left side, bearing the iniquity or punishment of “the house of Israel” the ten northern tribes, v. 4, Num 14:34. This was to be followed by a similar posture pattern for Judah, the southern kingdom of Judah and Benjamin, as described v. 6. This was a symbol of Christ our sin-bearer, Isa 53:4; Isa 53:6; Isa 53:12.
Verse 6 then directs Ezekiel to lie for a period of forty (40) days upon his right side, also “bearing the iniquity” of Judah for this period, symbolizing forty further years, a decreed year for a day she was to endure chastisement in close ties with Israel for her iniquity or lawless, obstinate rebellion against the laws of her God, Num 14:4. This relates to the 40 years of Israel’s chastisement in the wilderness warnings and is a specific example of the Lord’s visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon their children, as found in the law, Exo 20:5. This is also relative to the 430 years of Israel’s stay in Egypt, Num 14:34; Exo 12:40-41; Gal 3:17.
Verse 7 calls upon Ezekiel to set his face (with determined purpose) toward the siege of Jerusalem, the holy city. He was to uncover his arm, as prepared to go into warfare, and immediately now start his prophecy of certain pending judgment against it, without escape, Pro 29:1; Isa 52:10.
Verse 8 offers a Divine pledge to Ezekiel to lay bands upon him, some form of restraints, Eze 3:25, so that fulfillment of the prophetic decreed utterance was to be begun upon the Lord’s opening his mouth, as that of John the Baptist’s father Zechariah, Luk 1:62-64. Whether the restraint was a disease, some malady, or a “thorn in the side,” as an infirmity given to Paul, is not clear. But it, was God-sent upon Ezekiel to restrain him in a prostrate position, first on his left side for 390 days, then on his right side for 40 days, v. 4-6; 2Co 12:7-10.
Verse 9 directed Ezekiel to take six kinds of grain: wheat, barley, beans, lentels, millet, and fitches, and mix them in one vessel to make bread from which he was to eat for the entire 390 days of his prone or prostrate position of resting, on his left side, for more than one year. This mixture symbolizes bread eaten for survival from the richest to the poorest in all Israel during their exiled punishment, indicated v. 5. It was a symbol of the low estate in which all ten tribes of Israel were to be held under the Gentiles for the 390 years.
Verse 10 adds that his meat (daily food) that he should eat, during his prostrate restraint and suffering, should be by weight twenty (20) shekels a day, an amount adequate in nutrition to sustain his life, by bare existence, yet under chastisement or a state of suffering which all Israel had awaiting them for their idolatrous rebellion against God, Exo 20:5; Gal 6:6-8. The amount of rationed daily food was said to be “too much for dying and too little for living.”
Verse 11 further directed that he should drink a ration of water during these 390 days. It was to be about one quart, a sixth of an hin, from “time to time,” believed to be from day to day, a very scant amount for a climate like that of Chaldea or Central Asia. It was a scant measure to sustain life, Jer 52:6.
Verse 12 directs that this food, made from the six mixed grains, normally eaten by the poor, v. 9, should be prepared for him like common “barley cakes.” It was to be baked in a peculiarly degrading manner, “with dung that cometh from man,” used as cooking fuel, Isa 32:12. This special preparation of Ezekiel’s food during his time of binding, while laying on his side, was to be observed by the Jewish people about him daily, as it was prepared “in their sight.” Human dung, made one unclean, under the law if left or used in the camp, Deu 14:3; Deu 23:12-14.
Verse 13 asserts “even thus”, (just like this) should the children of Israel in captivity eat their defiled bread, (putrefied bread) among the Gentiles where he would drive them among the heathen, like starving cattle or beasts of the field, Hos 9:3; Exo 20:5; Deu 28:68.
Verse 14 recounts Ezekiel’s protest against or abhorrence of the polluted bread or food of which he was to live for more than a year. Like Peter before the Lord, Act 10:14, he protested to the Lord that he had not personally eaten of any kind of food forbidden by the holy laws of Moses. He had eaten neither any thing that “died of itself,” of some disease, nor that had been mangled or torn then offered him as food, Isa 65:4; Yet, he was determined to suffer, on a national scale, with the masses of Israel who had done these law-forbidden things, verifying that the sins of parents did and does cause their children to suffer. As surely as the “fathers eat sour grapes their children’s teeth will be set on edge,” Eze 18:2; Exo 20:5. Flesh of animals three days killed was prohibited as food, Lev 7:17-18; Lev 19:6-7.
Verse 15 recounts the Lord’s response to his prayer to protest of his personal innocence of defiling the food for cooking laws of Israel, as given by Moses. Instead of human dung as fuel for cooking his food the Lord responded by giving for fuel cow’s dung to “prepare his bread therewith.” Even today the use of dried cow dung, mixed with straw and dried, is widely used by the Arabs as cooking fuel. Against this fuel use Ezekiel did not protest, apparently considering it not polluting to the food cooked with it.
Verse 16 then declares that the Lord will break the staff (life support) of bread in Jerusalem, causing it to be scanty, though not polluted, during the forty days he was to lay on his right side, v. 6. See Lev 26:26; Psa 105:16; Isa 3:1; Eze 5:16; Eze 14:13. Judah’s suffering was to be certain and fixed but not so severe or long as that of Israel. They were destined to eat food by weight-rationing, and drink water by measured-rationing, fearful that it might cease for a period of some 40 years.
Verse 17 asserts that this period of national famine for Judah and Jerusalem was sent, that they might be in continual or repeated want for food and water, that they might consume or pine away for their sins, and come to acknowledge that they “lived, moved, and had their being in Him,” and without Him they “could do nothing,” Act 17:28; Joh 15:5; Lev 26:39.
Here God begins to speak more openly by means of his servant, and not to speak only, but to signify by an outward symbol what he wishes to be uttered by his mouth. Hence he orders the Prophet to paint Jerusalem on a brick Take therefore, he says, a brick, and place it in thy sight: then paint on it a city, even Jerusalem This is one command: then erect a tower against it. He describes the form of ancient warfare; for then when they wished to besiege cities, they erected mounds from which they filled up trenches: then they moved about wooden towers, so that they might collect the soldiers into close bands, and they had other machines which are not now in use. For fire-arms took away that ancient art of warfare. But God here Simply wishes the picture of a city to be besieged by Ezekiel. Then he orders him to set up a pan or iron plate, like a wall of iron This had been a childish spectacle, unless God had commanded the Prophet to act so. And hence we infer, that sacraments cannot be distinguished from empty shows, unless by the word of God. The authority of God therefore is the mark of distinction, by which sacraments excel, and have their weight and dignity, and whatever men mingle with them is frivolous. For this reason we say that all the pomps of which the Papal religion is full are mere trifles. Why so? because men have thought out whatever dazzles the eyes of the simple, without any command of God.
But if any one now objects, that the water in baptism cannot penetrate as far as the soul, so as to purge it of inward and hidden filth, we have this ready answer: baptism ought not to be considered in its external aspect only, but its author must be considered. Thus the whole worship under the law had nothing very different from the ceremonies of the Gentiles. Thus the profane Gentiles also slew their victims, and had whatever outward splendor could be desired: but that was entirely futile, because God had not commanded it. On the other hand, nothing was useless among the Jews. When they brought their victims, when the blood was sprinkled, when they performed ablutions, God’s command was added, and afterwards a promise: and so these ceremonies were not without their use. We must therefore hold, that sacraments at first sight appear trifling and of no moment, but their efficacy consists in the command and promise of God. For if any one reads what Ezekiel here relates, he would say that it, was child’s play. He took a brick, he painted a city on it: it was only a figment: then he had imaginary machines by which he besieged the city: why boys do better than this: next he set up a plate of iron like a wall: this action is not a whit more serious than the former. Thus profane men would not only despise, but even carp at this symbol. But when God sends his Prophet, his authority should be sufficient for us, which is a certain test for our decision, and cannot fail, as I have said. First, he says, paint a city, namely Jerusalem: then lay siege to it, and move towards it all warlike instruments: place even כרים, kerim, which some interpret “leaders,” but they are “lambs,” or “rams,” for the Hebrews metaphorically name those iron machines by which walls are thrown down “rams,” as the Latins do. Some indeed prefer the rendering “ leaders,” but I do not approve of their opinion. At length he says, this shall be a sign and on this clause we must dwell: for, as I already said, the whole description may be thought useless, unless this testimony be added: indeed the whole vision would be insipid by itself, unless the savor arose from this seasoning, since God says, this should be a sign to the Israelites.
When God pronounces that the Prophet should do nothing in vain, this ought to be sufficient to lead us to acquiesce in his word. If we then dispute according to our sense, he will show that what seems foolish overcomes all the wisdom of the world, as Paul says. (1Co 1:25.) For God sometimes works as if by means of folly: that is, he has methods of action which are extraordinary, and by no means in accordance with human judgment. But that this folly of God may excel all the wisdom of the world, let this sentence occur to our minds, when it is here said, Let this be for a sign to the house of Israel. For although the Israelites could shake their heads, and put out their tongues, and treat the Prophet with unbridled insolence, yet this alone prevailed sufficiently for confounding them, that God said, this shall be for a sign And we know of what event it was a sign, because the Israelites who had been drawn into captivity thought they had been too easy, and grieved at their obedience: then also envy crept in when they saw the rest of the people remaining in the city. Therefore God meets them and shows them that exile is more tolerable than to endure a siege in the city if they were enclosed in it. Besides, there is little doubt that this prophecy was directed against the Jews who pleased themselves, because they were yet at ease in their rest. For this reason, therefore, God orders the Prophet to erect towers, then to pitch a camp, and to prepare whatever belongs to the siege of a city, because very soon afterwards the Chaldeans would arrive, who had not yet oppressed the city, but are just about to besiege it, as we shall afterwards see at length.
3. FIRST INSTRUCTIONS BY SIGNS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION
(Chaps. Eze. 4:1 to Eze. 5:17).
EXEGETICAL NOTES.Ezekiel is ordered to carry out certain specified processes. Their purport is expressed by the words (Eze. 4:3), This shall be a sign to the house of Israel. The use of such signs is partly to be accounted for by the circumstances of a prophet whose dwelling was in a country in which symbolical figures were striking and not unusual; partly by the psychological fact that his actings were to educate the people while as yet his tongue cleaved to the roof of his mouth. It is a mootpoint with students of prophecy whether to regard all actings of this sort as internal sensations vividly realised, or as taking form externally. No general principle can be laid down by which to determine how far such actions pertain to the province of the external or internal.Oehler. To say, that all that was commanded to Ezekiel is to be accounted for by the vividness of his mental view, seems to contravene such statements as that he sat astonied seven days; that he removed his goods from one place to another in sight of his people; that he made no mourning for his deceased wife. To say, on the other hand, that all are to be taken literally seems to land us amid insurmountable difficulties, such as that he lay three hundred and ninety days without turning, while he is during that period to make and bake cakes of unprecedented ingredients; and also that he was to burn a third portion of his shaved hair in the midst of Jerusalem, though he was in Tel-abib. We need not be troubled at failing to find a satisfactory decision on this matter. What is of paramount interest is to find the meaning involved in each symbolical act. That that meaning will not be agreed in by every one cannot surprise us. A large element of indefiniteness exists in all symbolism, and men of different dispositions will create images of unlike contour through the haze of the indefiniteness. Nevertheless, thoughts may be expanded, and desires for light and guidance excited and heightened, as well as deadened, by the very uncertainty. Act-symbolism exists under similar conditions as word-symbolism. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to others in parables. By hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand, and seeing ye shall see and shall not perceive. With inwrought modesty, and prayers for the opening of our understanding by the Holy Spirit, should all Scripture-symbols be considered.
The four symbolical processes, which Ezekiel is here required to employ, form parts of one whole presented in varying phases. That whole is, Israel given up to punishment for sins. The coincidence of this section with Leviticus 26. is noteworthy. The most probable explanation thereof is that Ezekiel had thoroughly studied the picture drawn in the law and reproduced its salient features freely.
The siege of Jerusalem symbolised (Eze. 4:1-3).
Eze. 4:1. Take thee a tile, or a brick, shaped in clay and afterwards dried by the sun or burnt in a fire. Multitudinous specimens, of the kind which Ezekiel was to use, may be seen, in the British Museum, with letters and also warlike scenes depicted on them. And pourtray upon it the city, or rather a city, which is immediately specified as the one least likely, Jerusalem.
Eze. 4:2. Build a fort against it. An instrument of ancient warfare, so constructed as to overtop the walls of the besieged place, and so to give opportunity for the besiegers to reach the defenders with their weapons. And cast a mount against it. Raise an embankment from which to attack advantageously. And set battering-rams against it round about. Beams suspended so as to be readily driven against the walls. At Kouynijik there is the monument of the siege of an important city in which no less than seven battering-rams are employed.Layard. The prophet is to regard himself as doing that which he pourtrays on the tile. He acts under commission from God, and so it is the Lord Himself who is to be viewed as operating against Jerusalem by means of the Chaldean army.
Eze. 4:3. Take unto thee an iron pan. A common utensil for cooking in the East. It was to be fixed perpendicularly, as a wall of iron between thee and the city. A separation was thus made between the prophet and the city, and the iron pan symbolised the barrier which had been produced between the Lord and His unfaithful people. The decree and the sentence of God against them would be rigidly carried out, and God would not hear their prayers and complaints and bend to them in mercy. How far they must have degenerated for Him to deal thus! And thou shalt lay siege against it. The siege would be in Ezekiels lifetime, and by him as acting for the Lord. So it is declared that this shall be a sign to the house of Israel, i.e., to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, both those in captivity and the remnant still in their native land. In the time of Ezekiel the distinction between the ten tribes and the two tribes was fast disappearing. A trace of its existence is still seen in Eze. 4:5-6, but rather as a relic from the past than a reality of the present. When the ten tribes were led into captivity Judah represented all Israel, and in the course of time the remainders of the several tribes were amalgamated with Judah. This event is not dimly predicted in Jeremiahs words, The house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers (Eze. 3:18). All attempts to show that the lost ten tribes have been found, or hopes that they may be, must be dismissed as based on untenable surmises.
The period of punishment symbolised (Eze. 4:4-8).
Eze. 4:4. Lie thou also upon thy left side. The posture which Ezekiel has to assume of lying continuously for a lengthened time on the same side is a picture of the low condition of the people, not only throughout the siege of Jerusalem, but in the whole period of chastisement. The prophet becomes their representative here, not, as in Eze. 4:1-3, that of the Lord. In taking that unshifting posture, he must be open to no slight suffering, and, so it is added, lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it. He is one of them, and shares the punishment of their guilty conduct for the allotted timea symbol of penalty, not of expiation. Thus, too, thou shalt bear their iniquity, is not to be explained as meaning that his action was to signify the forbearance of God while the people were sinning, but the infliction of chastisement because of sins they had committed.
Eze. 4:5. For I have laid upon, or I have given, thee the years of their iniquity according to the number of the days. The Lord had defined the limit of time beyond which the punishment of Israel would not go, and He required the prophet to be subject to the constraint of lying on his left side for the number of days corresponding to the years during which Israel would bear their iniquity. A similar posture was to be taken for Judah.
Eze. 4:6. Lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days. Any explanations, referring the three hundred and ninety and the forty days to events which took place before the degradation of the Israelitish people from their national position, are forbidden by the fact that Ezekiel is to exhibit what is to happen. The children are to bear stripes for the unfaithfulness of their fathers. The duration of the punishment threatenedfour hundred and thirty yearsis obviously related to the bondage of the chosen people in Egypt and their wanderings in the wilderness. The condition into which they would fall would involve a suffering for their sins comparable to that hardship and discipline which had of old been laid upon their fathers, and illustrative of the Deuteronomic prediction, The Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again, &c. (Deu. 28:68). Moreover, as the ten tribes had forsaken the worship appointed by their God, in a way that Judah had not, the period of suffering to the former is prolonged far beyond that designated to the latter. But no satisfactory elucidation of the two dates, as exact points of chronology, is forthcoming. It is best, perhaps, to regard both as symbolical of a lengthened time of punishment such as might be paralleled by the servitude in Egypt, and also of a brief term of punishment such as might be compared with the trials of the sojourn in the desert. And while the sojourn in the desert was the passage from slavishness to freedom, from ignorance to knowledge of Gods laws, so the privations and calamities befalling Judah for forty years would be an education out of which hope and peace would come. The captive Israelites would thus be taught that only in association with the captive Jews could they look for shortened suffering and following blessing. I have appointed thee each day for a year. A reference to the judgment passed upon the tribes of Israel for their murmurings on account of the report of the spies. After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years (Num. 14:34). Thus past history is used to represent the futurewhat God has done in respect to sins God will do.
Eze. 4:7. Thine arm shall be uncovered. The meaning of this figure, drawn from ancient habits in war, may be taken to be that action was to be proceeded withthat the allotted penalties were to be now begun. By this gesture and the preceding actions thou shalt prophesy against it, i.e., Jerusalem, as representative of the whole house of Israel.
Eze. 4:8. Behold I will lay bands upon thee (cf. Eze. 3:25). It was the Lord who put Ezekiel under constraint, and he could not act as a reprover till his mouth was opened by divine sanction. Was his constraint embodied in some form of disease, first in his left side and then in his right? Was it, like Pauls thorn in the flesh, an infirmity which the Lord would not cause to depart? And, so it is said, thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another. There will be no averting of the punishment and no relaxation of it, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege, accomplished the full time of being a sign to Israel.
This paragraph exhibits one of the characteristics of Ezekiel as a prophet, viz., his tendency to describe surrounding and future circumstances by terms and events found in the byegone course of the Lords people. The fact of his exile, and apparently cast out of the covenant which carried the destinies of Israel, moved him to dwell upon the past dealings of God to such a degree that he thought and felt about all the matters which came before him in the light and forms of preceding times. But this tendency does not warrant us to believe that the present and future should go on in the very grooves in which the past had left its traces: rather it helps us to see that He who had begun His wise and good work for Israel would carry it on without change of direction. Ezekiel is to show that the austere and stern aspects of God had not been obliterated by the years in which He had borne the sins of His people patiently, and that the light of His countenance had not been forever withdrawn because of their failures in obedience to His will. The commentator who would treat Ezekiels prophecies as if they must be expounded literally and not with great freedom, is least of all likely to unfold their true interpretation. The eye that can look through the shell into the kernel may see the future things of Gods administration mirrored in the pastnot, indeed, the exact copy and image of what is to be, yet its essential character and necessary result.Fairbairn.
HOMILETICS.
GODS ACTION AGAINST INIQUITIES IN A PEOPLE
I. It is carried on by various agencies. The cloud, the fire, the implements, the composite beings of Ezekiels inaugurating vision, are all ruled from the sapphire throne, and Ezekiel is made as a central figure round which their operations proceed. By him and in him the Lord shows that pains and disabilities, soldiers and military materials, carry out His will and visit for iniquities. People professing His name must know that there is no such thing as chance, accident, human ambition, or forces apart from His directing word. The operator at the telegraph clock transmits the message which another person hands to him; so Ezekiel or the army of Nebuchadnezzar carries out what the righteous God has decided on. Whether the earth rejoices or trembles, everything that produces the one state or the other is created by the Lord who reigneth. For every sin there is not only an adapted penalty but a suitable agency for inflicting the penalty. How many a trouble, in State or Church or individuals, would lose its aspect of incomprehensibleness, if faith would but say, The Lord is there and He is too wise to mistake.
II. It is resolute. No secondary agent which He employs will fail in executing that whereto He has sent it. Ezekiel is laid under unrelaxing bands till he has fulfilled the time appointed, and the Chaldean forces will be kept persistently besieging Jerusalem till the sacred city is subjugated. The Lord will not be turned aside. He will not stop halfway to what He has purposed to effect. Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, mens hearts are fully set in them to do evil; and should God refrain to strike when His righteousness and mercy have been set at nought, what would happen but that His people would become incredulous as to His sincerity in denouncing sin, and be uninstructed as to its real heinousness in His view? He does not spare the rod because of the mere crying of His children, since His hatred to sin and regard to holiness never changechange what else may. Whatsoever His hand and His counsel determined before to be done against His holy child, Jesus, He will accomplish, even though it be by wicked hands. God is faithful.
III. It is impartial. All who are involved in the common sin are the objects of sufferingrich and poor, free and bond, priest and prophet. Israel was His chosen people, Jerusalem the place where His honour dwelt; but great religious privileges did not shelter them from Gods vengeance when they neglected and rejected His ways. From the Churches of Christ, from the families of the godly, from private rooms and bended knees men have gone into paths of sin, and shall they escape? No; they shall be overtaken by suffering and woe in some form or other, as certainly, if not more so, than men who never heard of the Christ of God. Boast of being perfect in love, of divine right on your side, if you will; but be sure that no persuasion of sanctity or superiority will avert from you the messengers appointed by God to chastise you for evil yielded to.
IV. It is according to established order. Every generation of His children must learn that the evil He has hated He will always hate. What God has done God will do again when the same moral procedure is maintained by men. Our days of levity and hardness of heart and backslidings take us on to days of deadness and dishonour as indubitably as days of heat lead on to days of cold. We may see the consequences which shall follow our pride, our wrong companionships, our neglect of the ways of Christ, in the bitter griefs and pangs which befell Israel; the scenery in which we suffer, and the agencies which act there may be utterly unlike those of ancient Judea or Chaldea, but the Holy One of Israel is our Holy One. In the old centuries the judgment of God was according to truth: it is so in modern centuries. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.
V. It is proportionate. It is the action of the Just One, and takes steps in proportion to the nature and persistence of the offences against Him. Light neglected or misused prepares for the greater condemnation. Sodom is under an easier punishment than Chorazin, Judah than Israel. Ezekiel could not apportion the just time of tribulationthat is ever the prerogative of the Almighty Kingbut Ezekiel could be made to state and display His holy sentences. No doubt He allows excuses where they can be legitimately made; but that is only another form of saying that He weighs the doings of His people in scales in which no undue element is present. Then He gives forth His decision for hundreds of years or for tensfor half a lifetime or for a few weeks. Not a day beyond what is right and fair will any transgressor be afflicted. What trust and submission should not be given to the God of all spirits!
Chapter Four
DRAMATIC PARABLES The use of symbolic actions by Old Testament prophets was a tried and true way of gaining an audience and underscoring a point.[138] The great prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah found the symbolic act a useful tool when they could no longer obtain a hearing for the unspoken word.[139] Ezekiel performs four dramatic parables in this section: (1) the parable of the siege of Jerusalem (Eze. 4:1-3); (2) the parable of national sin (Eze. 4:4-6); (3) the parable of the siege famine (Eze. 4:9-17); and (4) the parable of the nations fate (Eze. 5:1-4).
[138] Early examples of the use of symbolic prophecy are 1Sa. 15:27 f, 1Ki. 11:29 ff; 1Ki. 22:14; 2Ki. 13:14-19.
[139] E. g., Isa. 20:2; Jer. 13:1-7; Jer. 19:1-2; Jer. 27:2-3.
These dramatic parables were performed in the fifth year of Jehoiachins captivity. At that time any thought of Jerusalems overthrow would, according to any human prognostication, be highly improbable. Zedekiah ruled in Jerusalem as Nebuchadnezzars vassal. With his lands diminished and his military strength exhausted it would scarcely be imagined that he would be so stupid and careless as to provoke his overlord. Yet Ezekiel joined Jeremiah in affirming that destruction was the ultimate fate of Jerusalem and dispersion the fate of her inhabitants.
I. THE PARABLE OF JERUSALEMS SIEGE 4:13
TRANSLATION
(1) But as for you, son of man, take to yourself a tile and place it before you and inscribe upon it a city, Jerusalem. (2) And lay siege against it, and construct a mound about it, and set against it encampments, and place battering rams round about. (3) And as for you, take to yourself an iron pan and place it as a wall of iron between you and the city; and set your face against it and it shall enter a state of siege, and you shall besiege it. It is a sign to the house of Israel.
COMMENTS
In this first symbolic action Ezekiel was to sketch a diagram of Jerusalem on a tile or brick (RSV). In Mesopotamia the clay tablet was the common writing material. While the clay was moist and soft the inscription was engraved upon it with a stylus; then the tablet was exposed to the sun for hardening. Large numbers of such tablets have been recovered, some of which have diagrams of buildings upon them similar to what an architect might devise. It would be natural under the circumstances for a Hebrew exile to make use of the Babylonian writing material. Four common siege techniques are named: [140] Currey, BC, p. 32.
2. Mounds (solela). Banks of soil heaped up to the level of the walls of the besieged city. Such mounds could serve as observation posts, and, if close enough to the walls, ramps for the battering rams.
3. Camps (machanot). Military detachments which surrounded the city.
4. Battering rams (karim). Iron-shod beams transported by a wheeled tower.[141] Often the battering ram was found in the lower part of the siege towers mentioned above.
[141] Blackwood, EPH, p. 58.
The prophet was to place an iron pan between himself and the inscribed tile. This would be a kind of flat plan virtually no more than a sheet of metal such as was used for baking a thin cake of bread (cf. Lev. 2:5). This pan represented a wall of iron. Some see here a symbol of Jerusalems wall in which the Jews put so much trust. Others take the pan to symbolize the iron-like severity of the siege against the city. There would be no escaping from that doomed place. Still others see the pan as depicting the impenetrable barrier, which had arisen between God (as represented by Ezekiel) and Jerusalem. Still others see in the pan another siege implement the shield which attackers would erect as protection for archers.
With his symbolic objects in place, Ezekiel was to perform a symbolic action. He was (1) to set his face against the city; and (2) lay siege to it. The prophet was to assume the part of the attacking army. Since Ezekiel was Gods representative, his actions would underscore the point that God was fighting against Jerusalem. Perhaps the laying siege (RSV, press the siege) indicates the gradual movement of the clay models of siege instruments nearer and nearer the doomed city.[142]
[142] Ellison, E,W,W, p. 33.
The tile diagram and the objects pertaining to it were designed to be a sign to the house of Israel (Eze. 4:3). Ellison pictures Ezekiel silently acting out these parables much to the chagrin of the growing numbers who assembled each day to watch these antics, When the crowd was ready to listen, Ezekiel gave the verbal explanation of his actions (Eze. 5:5 to Eze. 7:27).[143] The term house of Israel here embraces both those Jews who were in exile and those who remained in Judah.
[143] Ibid. Others think that Ezekiel never actually performed these parables, but only described to the captives vividly what he had seen in vision.
IV.
(1) Take thee a tile.The use of tiles for such purposes as that here indicated was common both in Babylonia and in Nineveh. When intended for preservation the writing or drawing was made upon the soft and plastic clay, which was afterwards baked. It is from the remains of great libraries prepared in this way that most of our modern knowledge of Nineveh and Babylon has been derived. It is, of course, quite possible that Ezekiel may have drawn in this way upon a soft clay tile; but from the whole account in this and the following chapters it is more likely that he simply described, rather than actually performed, these symbolical acts.
1. A tile portray upon it the city It is a suggestive fact that on many of the bricks taken from Assyrian palaces are yet to be seen pictures of animals, forts, soldiers, royal offerings, etc.; while Gadea, one of the earliest kings, is seen seated with a tile or tablet in front of him on which is drawn a picture of the city of Babylon. Ezekiel need not have been much of an artist, but on the soft clay he could easily have drawn the walls and towers and temples of the city and an outline of the surrounding mountains so that every Israelite would recognize the place instantly. (Compare Psa 48:12-13.)
Jerusalem It is not impossible, at least after the capture of Jerusalem, that such tiles might have been for sale in the Babylonian bazaars. It was not unusual for representations of captured forts or cities to be brought home by the victorious army. The cuneiform texts have considerable to say of Jerusalem Assyrian, Urusalem; Tel Amarna, Ursalimmu, “Possessor of Peace,” or “Salim’s Possessions” (Brown’s Hebrew and English Lexicon).
“You also, son of man, you take a tile, and lay it before you, and portray on it a city, even Jerusalem, and lay siege against it, and build forts against it. Set camps also against it, and plant battering rams against it round about. And you take to yourself an iron pan, and set it as a wall between you and the city. And set your face towards it and it shall be besieged, and you shall lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel.’
The attention of the people having been drawn to Ezekiel by his previous strange behaviour, he would no doubt by this time have become a talking point. This strange activity continued. Word would soon get around of the next strange thing that he was doing, and it would arouse curiosity and perhaps a kind of fear. For, at Gods’ command, he was to depict a siege of Jerusalem in miniature as a sign to the house of Israel of what was to be. We must assume either that he did this outside the door of his house, or that the house was now left open for people to enter and see it.
‘Take — a tile.’ This would probably be a rectangular sun-baked brick. On this he was to depict a picture of Jerusalem which he would depict in recognisable outline. It would be placed where all could come and see it. He would then depict the details of a siege as outlined, how we are not told. Possibly they were depicted in the sand, or, if inside the house, with clay models or depicted on small clay tablets. Ezekiel and the people would be familiar with such siege activities. They had themselves seen them in action when they themselves had been made captive.
Depictions of such war machines, manned by archers and often moveable, are known from bas-reliefs in Assyria, while mounds would be built bringing the assailants more on a level with the enemy in the city. The depiction of such activities on clay tablets is also witnessed archaeologically.
Then he was to take a large iron pot or cooking plate, possibly as used for baking bread, and set it between himself and the scene he had depicted, illustrating that he himself as God’s representative, was also laying siege against it. This would leave them in no doubt that the siege was, in the last analysis, due to the activity of God. The iron plate, in contrast with the clay, would illustrate the solidity and permanence of what it represented. It represented the certainty of God in action with the result that the consequences were also certain.
Others have seen the iron plate as signifying that there was a great barrier between God and His people in Jerusalem so that He would not intervene. He would act through Ezekiel on behalf of His people in exile, but not on behalf of Jerusalem. We can compare Isa 59:2, ‘your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear’. Compare also Lam 3:44.
It was an acted out prophecy, of a kind with which their past was familiar (Exo 9:8-12; Jos 8:18; 1Ki 11:30-32; 1Ki 22:11; 2Ki 13:15-19; Isa 8:1-4; Isa 20:2-4; Jer 13:1-11; Jer 16:1-9; Jer 19:1-11; Jer 27:1-12). The physical reproduction would be looked on as making more certain its fulfilment. It would be seen as having already taken place in miniature. And as the people flocked to see this latest sensation they would be aware of the silent, brooding figure, sitting there without saying a word, and they would draw their own conclusions, fearful and awestricken.
The Long Periods of Iniquity That Have Brought Inevitable Judgment on Jerusalem and the Temple.
Eze 4:4 Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity.
Eze 4:4
The Symbol of the Siege
v. 1. Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, v. 2. and lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, v. 3. Moreover, take thou unto thee an iron pan, v. 4. Lie thou also upon thy left side, v. 5. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, that Ezekiel was, v. 6. And when thou hast accomplished them, v. 7. Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, v. 8. And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, EXPOSITION
Prior to any detailed examination of the strange series of acts recorded in this and the following chapter, we are met with the question whether they were indeed visible and outward acts, or only imagined by the prophet in a state of ecstasy and afterwards reported by him to the people. Each view has been maintained by commentators of repute. I adopt, with scarcely any hesitation, the former, and for the following reasons.
(1) On the other interpretation the acts recorded were not signs to the people (Eze 4:3) till the prophet reported them; but the whole context shows that they were to be substitutes for spoken teaching. They belong to the period of the prophet’s silence.
(2) This mode of teaching, though not carried to the same extent, was part of the normal method of a prophet’s work. Zedekiah’s horns of iron (1Ki 22:11); Isaiah’s walking “naked and barefoot” for three years (Isa 20:2, Isa 20:3); Jeremiah’s yokes of wood (Jer 27:2), probably even the latter prophet’s journey to the Euphrates (Jer 13:4); and Hosea’s marriage with a harlot (Hosea 1-3), were all outward objective facts. We are only disposed to take a different view of Ezekiel’s acts because they are more startling and repulsive; but to adopt a non-natural interpretation on this a priori ground of feeling is not the act of an honest interpreter. We have to admit that outwardly the life of the prophets of Israel might present analogies to the phenomena of ether religions or other times. The acts of Ezekiel may find a parallel in those of Simeon Stylites or George Fox; of Jesus the son of Ananus, who for seven years and five months walked to and fro in Jerusalem, uttering his woes against the city and the holy house (Josephus, ‘Bell. Jud.,’ 6.6, 3); of Solomon Eagle, as he, in like manner, walked through the streets of London during the great Plague.
Eze 4:1
The first sign in this method of unspoken prophecy was to indicate to the exiles of Tel-Abib that which they were unwilling to believe The day of uncertain hopes and fears, of delusive dreams and promises (Jer 27:16; Jer 28:1-3; Jer 29:21), was nearly over. The siege of Jerusalem in spite of Zedekiab’s Egyptian alliance, was a thing decreed. Four years before it camewe are now between the fourth month of the fifth year (Eze 1:2) and the sixth month of the sixth year (Eze 8:1) of Zedekiah. and the siege began in the ninth year (2Ki 25:1)Ezekiel, on the segnius irritant principle, brought it, as here narrated, before the eyes of the exiles. That he did so implies a certain artistic culture, in possessing which he stands alone, so far as we know, among the prophets of Israel, and to which his residence in the land of the Chaldees may have contributed. He takes a tile, or tablet of baked clay, such as were used in Babylon and Assyria for private contracts, historical inscriptions, astronomical observations (Pliny, ‘Hist. Nat.,’ 7.57), and the like, which were, in fact, the books of that place and time, and of which whole libraries have been brought to light in recent excavations (Layard, ‘Nineveh and Babylon,’ ch. 22) and engraves upon it the outlines of “a city” (Revised Version), in which the exiles would at once recognize the city of their fathers, the towers which they had once counted (Isa 33:18; Psa 48:12), the temple which had been their glory and their joy. Bricks with such scenes on them were found among the ruins of Nimroud, now in the British Museum. It is not difficult to picture to ourselves the wondering curiosity with which Ezekiel’s neighbours would watch the strange proceeding. In this case the sign would be more impressive than any spoken utterance.
Eze 4:2
Lay siege against it, etc. The wonder would increase as the spectators looked on what followed. Either tracing the scene on the tablet, or, more probably, as Eze 4:3 seems to indicate, constructing a model of the scene, the prophet brings before their eyes all the familiar details of a siege, such as we see on numerous Assyrian bas-reliefs: such also as the narratives of the Old Testament bring before us. There are
(1) the forts (as in 2Ki 25:1; Jer 52:4; Eze 17:17; Eze 21:22; Eze 26:8), or, perhaps, the wall of circumvallation, which the besiegers erected that they might carry on their operations in safety;
(2) then the mount, or mound (the English of the Authorized Version does not distinguish between the two) of earth from which they plied the bows or catapults (Jer 6:6; Jer 32:24; Jer 33:4; Ezekiel, ut supra);
(3) the camps (plural in the Hebrew and Revised Version), or encampments, in which they were stationed in various positions found the city;
(4) the battering rams. Here the history both of the word and the thing has a special interest. The primary meaning of the Hebrew word is “lamb” (so in Deu 32:14; 1Sa 15:9, et al; Revised Version), or, better, “full grown wethers or rams” (Furst). Like the Greek (Xen; ‘Cyrop.,’ 7.4. 1; 2 Macc. 12:15), and the Latin aries (Livy, Eze 21:12; Eze 31:1-18 :32, et al.), it was transferred to the engine which was used to “butt,” like a ram, against the walls of a besieged city, and which, in Roman warfare, commonly terminated in a ram’s head in bronze or iron. Ezekiel is the only Old Testament writer who, here and in Eze 21:22, uses the word, for which the LXX. gives , and the Vulgate arietes. The margin of the Authorized Version in both places gives “chief leaders,” taking “rams” in another figurative sense; but, in the face of the LXX. and Vulgate, there is no reason for accepting this. Battering rams frequently appear in Assyrian bas-reliefs of a much earlier date than Ezekiel’s time, at Nimroud, Konyunyik
. Other interpretations, which see in it the symbol of the circumvallation of the city, or of the impenetrable barrier which the sins of the people had set up between themselves and Jehovah, or of the prophet himself as strong and unyielding (Jer 1:18), do not commend themselves. The flat plate did not go round the city, and the spiritual meaning is out of harmony with the context. This shall be a sign, etc. (comp. like forms in Eze 12:6, Eze 12:11; Eze 24:25, Eze 24:27). The exiles of Tel-Abib, who wore the only spectators of the prophet’s acts, are taken as representatives of “the house of Israel,” that phrase being commonly used by Ezekiel, unless, as in verses 5, 6, and Eze 37:16, there is a special reason for noting a distinction for Jonah as representing the whole nation.
Eze 4:4
Lie thou also upon thy left side, etc. We find the explanation of the attitude in Eze 16:46. Samaria was on the “left hand,” i.e. to the north, as a man looked to the east. So the same word yamin is both “the south” (1Sa 23:19, 1Sa 23:24; Psa 84:12) and “the right hand.” Here, accordingly, the “house of Israel” is taken in its specific sense, as the northern kingdom as distinguished from the “house of Judah” in Eze 16:6. Thou shalt bear their iniquity; ie; as in all similar passages (Exo 28:43; Le Exo 5:17; Exo 7:18; Num 18:1, et al.), the punishment of their iniquity. The words so taken will help us to understand the numerical symbolism of the words that followed. The prophet was by this act to identify himself with both divisions of the nation, by representing in this strange form at once the severity and the limits of their punishment. I adopt, without any hesitation, the view that we have here the record of a fact, and not of a vision narrated. The object of the act was to startle men and make them wonder. As week after week went on this, exceptis excipiendis, was to be Ezekiel’s permanent attitude, as of one crushed to the very ground, prostrate under the burden thus laid upon him, as impersonating his people.
Eze 4:5
Three hundred and ninety days, etc. The days, as stated in Eze 4:6, stand for years according to the symbolism (with which Ezekiel was probably acquainted) of Num 14:34. How we are to explain the precise number chosen is a problem winch has much exercised the minds of interpreters. I will begin by stating what seems to me the most tenable solution. In doing this I follow Smend and Cornill in taking the LXX. as giving the original reading, and the Hebrew as a later correction, made with a purpose.
(1) Jerome and Origen bear witness to the fact that most copies of the former gave 190 years, some 150 and others, agreeing with the Hebrew, 390. The first of these numbers fits in with the thought that Ezekiel’s act was to represent the period of the punishment of the northern kingdom. That punishment starts from the first captivity under Pekah about B.C. 734. Reckoning from that date, the 190 years bring us to about B.C. 544. The punishment of Judah, in like manner, dates from the destruction of Jerusalem in B.C. 586, and the forty years bring us to B.C. 546, a date so near the other, that, in the round numbers which Ezekiel uses, they may be taken as practically coinciding. It was to that date that the prophet, perhaps, unacquainted with Jeremiah’s seventy years (Jer 25:12), with a different starting point and terminus, looked forward as the starting point of the restoration of Israel. It is obvious that Ezekiel contemplated the contemporaneous restoration of Israel and Judah (Eze 16:53-55; Eze 37:19-22; Eze 47:13), as indeed Isaiah also seems to do (Isa 11:13, Isa 11:14), and Jeremiah (Jer 31:6, Jer 31:12, Jer 31:27). The teaching of Ezekiel’s acts, then, had two distinct purposes.
(a) It taught the certainty of the punishment. No plots, or rebellions, or alliances with Egypt, could avert the doom of exile from these who should survive the siege of Jerusalem.
(b) It taught the exiles to accept their punishment with patience, but with hope. There was a limit, and that not very far off, which some of them might live to see, and beyond which there lay the hope of a restoration for both Israel and Judah. If that hope was not realized to the extent which Ezekiel’s language impiles, the same may be, said of the language of Isaiah 40-66; whether we refer those chapters to Isaiah himself or to the “great unknown” who followed Ezekiel, and may have listened to his teaching.
(2) Still keeping to the idea of the years of punishment, but taking the Hebrew text, the combination of 390 and 40 gives 430, and this, it is urged, was the number assigned in Exo 12:40 for the years of the sojourning in Egypt. Then the nation had been one, now it is divided. And the punishment of its two divisions is apportioned according to their respective guilt. For Israel, whose sins had been of a deeper dye, there was to be, as it were, another Egyptian bondage (Hos 8:13 and Hos 9:3 seem to predict a literal return to Egypt, but Hos 11:5 shows it to have been figurative only). For Judah there was to be another quasi-wandering in the wilderness for forty years a period of punishment, but also of preparation lot a re-entry into the land of promise (Currey, Gardiner).
(3) A somewhat fanciful variation on the preceding view connects the 390 days with the forty stripes of Deu 25:3, reduced by Jewish preachers to “forty stripes save one” (2Co 11:24). Thus thirty-nine were assigned to each of the ten tribes, leaving forty for Judah standing by itself. With this addition (3) merges into (2).
(4) The traditional Jewish interpretation, on the other hand (Kimchi), sees in the number of the years the measure, not of the punishment, but of the guilt of Israel and Judah respectively. That of the former is measured from the revolt of the ten tribes to the time at which Ezekiel received the commands with which we are now dealing. This computation gives, it is true, only 380 years; but the prophet may be thought of as dealing with round numbers, the 390 being, perhaps, chosen for the reason indicated in (3), or as reckoning with a different chronology. The forty years of the guilt of Judah are, on this view, reckoned from Josiah’s reformation, which would bring us to B.C. 585-4. And the sin of Judah is thought of as consisting specially in its resistance to that reformation and its rapid relapse into an apostasy like that of Ahaz or Manasseh. It can hardly be said that this is a satisfactory explanation.
(5) Yet another view has been suggested, sc. that the siege of Jerusalem lasted, in round numbers, for 430 daysa day for each year of the national guilt as measured in the last hypothesis. Against this there is the fact that, according to the statements in 2Ki 25:1-3, the siege lasted for much more than the 430 days, sc. for nearly a year and a half. The conclusion to which I am led, after examining the several hypotheses, is, as I have sail, in favour of (1). The text of the Hebrew, as we find it, may have risen out of the tinct that the ten tribes had not returned as a body, and that there was no sign of their return, when Judah returned in B.C. 536, and therefore a larger number was inserted to allow time for a more adequate interval.
Eze 4:6
Each day for a year. The Hebrew formula is that of iteration”a day for a year, a day for a year.” It originates, as has been said, in Num 14:34. What has been known as the year-day theory of prophetic interpretation flows naturally from it, and has been applied
(1) to the “seventy weeks” of Dan 9:24-27, and
(2) the twelve hundred and sixty and the three days and a half of Rev 11:3, Rev 11:9.
Eze 4:7
Thine arm shall be uncovered. This, as in Isa 52:10, was the symbol of energetic action. The prophet was to be, as it were, no apathetic spectator of the siege which he was thus dramatizing, but is as the representative of the Divine commission to control and guide it. The picture of the prophet’s attitude, not merely resting on his side and folding his hands, as a man at ease might do, but looking intently, with bare outstretched arm, at the scene portrayed by him, must, we may well imagine, have added to the startling effect of the whole procedure. We note the phrase, “set thy face,” as specially characteristic of Ezekiel (here, and, though the Hebrew verb is not the same, Eze 14:8; Eze 15:7). The words “prophesy against it” may imply some spoken utterance of the nature of a “woe,” like that of the son of Ananus (see above), but hardly, I think, a prolonged address.
Eze 4:8
I will lay bands upon thee, etc. The words point to the supernatural constraint which would support the prophet in a position as trying as that of an Indian yogi or a Stylite monk. He would himself be powerless to move (exceptis excipiendis, as before) from the prescribed position. There is, perhaps, a reference to Eze 3:25. The people would have “put bands” upon the prophet to hinder his work; Jehovah will “put bands” upon him to help, nay, to constrain, him to finish it.
Eze 4:9
Take thou also unto thee, etc. The act implies, as I have said, that there were exceptions to the generally immovable attitude. The symbolism seems to have a twofold meaning. We can scarcely exclude a reference to the famine which accompanied the siege. On the other hand, one special feature of it is distinctly referred, not to the siege, but to the exile (Eze 4:13). Starting with the former, the prophet is told to make bread, not of wheat, the common food of the wealthier class (Deu 32:14; Psa 81:16; Psa 147:14; Jer 12:13; Jer 41:8), nor of barley, the chief food of the poor (Eze 13:19; Hos 3:2; Joh 6:9), but of these mixed with beans (2Sa 17:28), lentils (2Sa 17:28; Gen 25:34)then, as now, largely used in Egypt and other Eastern countriesmillet (the Hebrew word is not found elsewhere), and fitches, i.e. vetches (here also the Hebrew word is found only in this passage, that so translated in Isa 28:25-27 standing, it is said, for the seed of the black cummin). The outcome of this mixture would be a coarse, unpalatable bread, not unlike that to which the population of Paris was reduced in the siege of 1870-71. This was to be the prophet’s food, as it was to be that of the people of Jerusalem during the 390 days by which that siege was symbolically, though not numerically, represented. It is not improbable, looking to the prohibition against mixtures of any kind in Deu 22:9, that it would be regarded as in itself unclean.
Eze 4:10
Thy meat, etc.; better, food, here and elsewhere. Coarse as the food was, the people would have but scanty rations of it. Men were not, as usual, to measure the corn, but to weigh the bread (Le 26:26). Taking the shekel at about 220 grains, the twenty shekels would be about 10 or 12 ounces. The common allowance in England for prison or pauper dietaries gives, I believe from 24 to 32 ounces, Besides other food. And this was to be taken, not as hunger prompted, but at the appointed hour. once a day. The whole scene of the people of the besieged city coming for their daily rations is brought vividly before us.
Eze 4:11
The sixth, part of an hin, etc. According to the varying accounts of the “hin” given by Jewish writers, this would give from 6 to 9 of a pint. And this was, like the food, to be doled out once a day. Possibly “the bread of affliction and the water of affliction,” in 1Ki 22:27 and Isa 30:20, contains a reference to the quantity as well as the quality of a prison dietary as thus described. Isaiah’s words may refer to the siege of Sennacherib, as Ezekiel’s do to the siege of Nebuchadnezzar.
Eze 4:12
Thou shall bake it with dung, etc. The process of baking in ashes was as old as the time of Abraham (Gen 18:6), and continues in Arabia and Syria to the present day. The kneaded dough was rolled into thin flat cakes, and they were placed upon, or hung over, the hot wood embers of the hearth or oven. But in a besieged city the supply of wood for fuel soon fails. The first resource is found, as still often happens in the East, in using the dried dung of camels or of cattle. Before Ezekiel’s mind there came the vision of a yet more terrible necessity. That supply also might tail, and then men would be forced to use the dried contents of the “draught houses” or cesspools of Jerusalem. They would be compelled almost literally to fulfil the taunt of Rabshakeh (Isa 36:12). That thought, as bringing with it the ceremonial pollution of Le Eze 5:3 : Eze 7:21, was as revolting to Ezekiel as it is to us; but like Dante, in a like revolting symbolism (‘Inf.,’ 18.114), he does not shrink from naming it. It came to him, as with the authority of a Divine command, that he was even to do this, to represent the extreme horrors of the siege. And all this was to be done visibly, before the eyes of his neighbours at Tel-Abib.
Eze 4:13
Even thus shall the children of Israel, etc. The strange command takes a wider range. It symbolizes, not the literal horrors of the siege, but the “defiled bread” which even the exiles would be reduced to eat. So taken, the words remind us of the risk of eating unclean, food, which almost inevitably attended the position of the exiles (Hos 9:3; Dan 1:8), and which, it may be, Ezekiel had already tell keenly. There is obviously something more than can be explained by a reference to “the bitter bread of banishment,” or to Dante’s “Come sa di sale ” (‘Par.,’ 17.58).
Eze 4:14
Then said I, Ah, Lord God! etc. The formula is, curiously enough, equally characteristic of Ezekiel (Eze 9:8; Eze 11:13; Eze 20:49) and of his teacher and contemporary (Jer 1:6; Jer 4:10; Jer 14:13; Jer 32:17). The Vulgate represents it by A, a, a. His plea, which reminds us at once of Dan 1:8 and Act 10:14, is that he has kept himself free from all ceremonial pollution connected with food. And is he, a priest too, to do this? That be far from him! Anything but that! The kinds of defilement of which he speaks are noted in Exo 22:31; Le Exo 7:24; Exo 11:1-10 :39, 40; Exo 17:15. The “abominable things” may refer either to the unclean meats catalogued in Deu 14:3-21 (as e.g. in Isa 65:4), or as in the controversy of the apostolic age (Act 15:1-41.; 1Co 8:1; Rev 2:20), to eating any flesh that had been offered in sacrifice to idols. The prophet’s passionate appeal is characteristic of the extent to which his character had been influenced by the newly discovered Law of the Lord (2Ki 22:1-20.; 2Ch 34:1-33.), i.e. probably by the Book of Deuteronomy.
Eze 4:15
Lo, I have given thee, etc. The concession mitigates the horror of the first command, though even this was probably regarded as involving some ceremonial uncleanness. It served, at any rate, to represent, in some measure, the pressure of the siege.
Eze 4:16
The staff of bread. The phrase occurs again in Eze 5:16; Eze 14:13, and also in Le 26:26; Psa 105:16. In Isa 3:1 the thought is the same, but the Hebrew word is different. They shall eat bread by weight, etc. The phrase occurs, it may be noted, in Le 26:26, one of the verses above referred to. The care and astonishment, implying that the wonted cheerfulness of meals would have departed, meet us again in Eze 12:19.
Eze 4:17
Consume away for their iniquity, etc. Another echo from the book which had entered so largely into the prophet’s education (see Le 26:39, where the Hebrew for “pine” is the same as that here rendered “consume”). To the wretchedness of physical privation there was to be added the consciousness of the sufferers that it was caused by their own evil deeds.
HOMILETICS.
Eze 4:1, Eze 4:2
A pictorial sermon.
The method of this prophecy is as instructive as the substance of it. Let us, therefore, consider this by itself.
I. IT WAS NOVEL. Hitherto prophets had usually preached by word of mouth, though indeed occasionally they had given visible illustrations of their sermons. Thus Jeremiah had worn a symbolical yoke of iron (Jer 28:10). But to draw a picture on a tile was a new method of prophecy. The pulpit is generally too conservative of old methods, too timid of innovation. The preacher should not be a slave of fashion. But, then, he should be careful not to be in bondage to an old fashion any more than to a new fashion. He ought to be ready to embrace any novel method that promises to make his work more effective.
II. IT WAS ACCORDING TO THE MANNER OF THE TIMES. The great brick libraries which have been discovered in the very region where Ezekiel was living, and which include works of the very date of his ministry, contain similar pictorial representationsinscribed representations of sieges. Therefore Ezekiel was adapting his teaching to the manners of his contemporaries. It is as though a modern preacher, unable to reach all the persons he desired to address from the pulpit, should write in the newspapers. Therefore the most effective weapon of the day should be secured by the preacher. The enemy have breech-loading rifles: why should the friends of the truth be content with old flint muskets?
III. IT WAS EFFECTIVE. Mere novelty for its own sake is childish. Eccentricity may win notoriety, but it will not honour truth. Erratic methods lower the dignity of truth. The preacher has to remember the solemn, the awful character of his message. But, then, a novel and almost alarming method may be most suitable for conveying the message. In this matter the means must be subservient to the end. Now, Ezekiel’s method was remarkably suitable for his purpose.
1. It made his message intelligible to all. People who cannot read may understand a picture, and the same picture may speak to men of different languages. Raphael’s ‘Transfiguration’ is intelligible to Englishmen who do not know a word of Italian. Pictorial preaching is easily understood.
2. It made the message vivid and impressive. We feel most strongly what we see in picture before our eyes. The failure of preaching is often owing to the fact that the truth proclaimed is accepted only in words which do not suggest clear, strong ideas. It may be admitted by the reason, but it is not embraced by the imagination. The truth which has power over us is not that which we consent to in cold, intellectual agreement, but that which stands to the eyes of the soul as a present reality. Therefore, after we have made our meaning clear and proved our preposition to demonstration, a large part of our work remains, viz. to impress the truth on the imagination and the heart of our hearers; and to be impressive, the truth must be vivid. There is always scope for pictorial preaching. All preachers who are effective with the multitudes resort to this method.
3. It made the message enduring. The brick libraries of Babylon which have been deposited in the British Museum are almost as fresh and sound today as when they were first produced three thousand years ago. It is just possible that some day Ezekiel’s tile may be dug up uninjured! Sermons may be forgotten, but truth endures; and it is the mission of the preacher so to bum the truth into the hearts of his hearers that it shall even outlast Babylonian libraries and be seen through all eternity.
Eze 4:4-6
Sin bearing.
Ezekiel is to bear the sin of his people, doing it indeed symbolically every night, by lying first on one side, with the idea that the sin of Israel is upon him so that he cannot move; and then for a shorter period on the other side, with the idea of the sin of Judah resting on him and holding him down. This shows that a prophet is more than a messenger from God to men. He is one of the people, and his function involves his bearing somewhat of their sin. This must be the case with all servants of God who would be helpful to their brethren. Thus Christ’s sin bearing, while it stands alone in its tremendous endurance and its glorious efficacy, is anticipated and followed in a minor degree.
I. SIN BEARING IS VICARIOUS.
1. It is bearing sin for others. Ezekiel took on him the burden of the sin of the guilty nation. Vicarious endurance of sin runs through all life. No man keeps his sin to himself. All who love the sinner bear some of the weight of his sin. Christ the Sinless hears our sin.
2. It is bearing sin for brethren. The prophet was to identify himself with his people, and thus to come to bear their sin. Christ became one of us that he might bear our sin for us. Pharisaical scorn for the sin of others betrays the spirit of Cain.
3. It is bearing sin in true proportion. The guilt of Israel is greater than that of Judah, and its punishment is accordingly of longer duration. These facts are recognized in Ezekiel’s symbolical periods of endurance. As all sin is not equal, all sin does not produce the same distress on the sin bearer. The aggravation of the world’s sin leads to the aggravation of Christ’s sufferings. How much has each added to that awful load?
II. SIN BEARING IS A REAL ENDURANCE. Ezekiel’s action was symbolical, but it suggested a true spiritual experience.
1. Sin is borne vicariously in the thought of it. We may refuse to note our brother’s ill conduct, and if so we may pass it by with indifference. But the prophet must study the signs of the times; the Christ must take The real state of the world into his thought and heart; the man of Christian sympathy must consider deeply and sadly the great sin of mankind.
2. This is borne in the shame of it. Each man is only guilty of his own misconduct. Yet we are all conscious of the shame of the sin of those who are closely related to us. A child’s sin is his father’s shame. The Christian spirit makes the shame of the sin of others felt by those who have escaped it.
3. This is borne in the suffering of it. We cannot but suffer for the wickedness of those who are near to us. One who would help and save his brethren must bear the suffering of their sins. Ezekiel in a lower degree anticipated that type of vicarious suffering set forth in Isa 53:1-12; which Christ alone fully realized. The Saviour of men must ever be one who sacrifices himself for met, by suffering the hurt of the sin of men.
III. SIN BEARING IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELIVERANCE FROM SIN. We cannot see all the deep mystery of this; but we can discern its glorious issue.
1. The sin bearer is a propitiation to God. The Lamb of God who bears away the sin of the world is God’s beloved ,Son, in whom he is well pleased. God cannot be pleased with mere suffering; but he may well be delighted with the spirit of obedience, holiness, and love that is manifested in vicarious suffering, and may take this as an ample compensation and a glorious intercession.
2. The sin bearing should move the guilty to repentance. The Jews were to learn a lesson from Ezekiel. Christ’s cross preaches repentance.
Eze 4:13
Defiled bread.
Among the many inconveniences of the exile this was to be included, that the Jews would not be able to secure that their food should be cooked in their own manner, and so kept free from ceremonial defilement. But is there not a latent irony in the suggestion of such a thing as a serious calamity? Does it not show that the spirit of the Pharisees, who would strain out a gnat and swallow a camel, had already appeared? These Jews, who would be so alarmed at the prospect of external defilement, had already corrupted and befound their souls with the vilest sin. Nevertheless, if they did feel the shame of the external defilement, it would come to them as a fitting retribution. Outward shame is the just penalty of inward sin.
I. BREAD IS DEFILED WHEN IT IS TAKEN BY A SINNER. All that a bad man touches turns to corruption. The sweetest food becomes foul in the mouth of the wicked. A morally bad musician desecrates the good music which he tries to interpret by breathing into it a corrupt feeling. The best book will be degraded by an evil minded reader. Such a person will contrive to extract sinful suggestions from the Bible; and then perhaps he will even denounce the sacred volume as immoral in its tendency.
II. BREAD IS DEFILED WHEN IT IS GOT BY EVIL MEANS. The finest wheaten loaf is a corrupt thing when it has been stolen. A dishonest style of business degrades all its proceeds. When a man grows fat on the gains which he has extorted from the helpless by cunning or force, he has brought moral degradation into his home and corruption to his table. The very bread with which he feeds his innocent children is a vile thing, and the hungry poor whom his wicked practices are starving may have the consolation of knowing that the crusts they gnaw in reeking cellars are cleaner in the sight of God than the dainties of his sumptuous banquets.
III. BREAD IS DEFILED WHEN IT IS EATEN IN AN UNWORTHY SPIRIT. If the hand of the Giver is ignored, the bread is at once degraded. It becomes but a dead mass of earth. The heavenly hand that gave it makes its highest value. Taken in faith and gratitude, the common bread of a daily meal has something of a sacramental nature in it. But ingratitude spoils all. The Israelites, loathing the manna in the wilderness and murmuring against their God, did their worst to corrupt the heavenly gift.
IV. BREAD IS DEFILED WHEN IT IS EATEN FOR AN UNWORTHY PURPOSE.
1. It may be devoured in low animal greed and lust of food. Then the Divine sanctity of it vanishes, and it becomes a degraded thing. The glutton who lives to eat defiles the best bread. So, too, the man who accepts the other gifts of Providence which are bestowed upon him, solely for self indulgence, lowers and vitiates all he consumes.
2. It may be converted into energy for sin. The bad man goes forth and does wickedly in the strength of the bread which the holy God has given to fit him for the service of goodness. Can any act of defilement be worse than that? To preserve our bread from corruption let us recollect the apostolic direction, “Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.”
HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON
Eze 4:2
Siege.
By the remarkable symbolism described in this chapter, Ezekiel was himself assured that the metropolis of his country was about to endure the horrors of a siege, and his action was intended for a sign to the house of Israel. Jerusalem, like many of the ruinous cities of antiquity, and indeed of modern times, underwent the calamity again and again. It was probably the siege by Nebuchadnezzar which was foretold by the symbol of the tile and the iron pan. To be besieged was a not uncommon incident of warfare. But the prophet of God treated this approaching catastrophe, not merely as a fact of history, but as a moral and Divine lesson.
I. THE GENERAL LESSONS VIVIDLY PRESENTED BY A CITY ENDURING A STATE OF SIEGE.
1. Community in civic life. Every city always has its own social characteristics. Citizens take a pride in the prosperity and glory of their city, especially if it be the metropolis of the nation. In our own time Paris was besieged by the German army, and its unity was never so realized as when thus encompassed by the enemy.
2. Community in resistance and hostility. Distinctions of rank and of social position almost vanish when a common danger threatens every class alike. Each man takes his share in the defence of the city, in bearing the common burden. All are drawn together by their community in dread or in defiance of the foe.
3. Community in the experience of suffering. Hunger and thirst, privation and want of rest, are shared by all the citizens of a beleaguered city. Men who partake the same calamity are drawn together by their common experience. The annals of a siege will usually be found to contain the record of remarkable cases of heroic unselfishness and public devotion.
II. THE SPECIAL LESSONS PRESENTED BY THE SIEGE OF JERUSALEM. There may well have been manifested a community in spiritual discipline and profit.
1. The vanity of human pride and ambition was strikingly exhibited. The Jews were a vain glorious people; they possessed many distinctive marks of superiority raising them above the heathen, and their knew and boasted that it was so. They took credit to themselves for much for which they ought to have offered thanks to God. Their self-confidence and glorying were rebuked in the most emphatic manner when their fair and famed metropolis was besieged and threatened with destruction. This lesson is impressed upon their countrymen with unsparing faithfulness by the ancient Hebrew prophets.
2. Equally pointed was the lesson conveyed as to the utter vanity of merely human help. The Jews did indeed sometimes seek alliances which might befriend and assist them in their distress; but against such alliances they were repeatedly warned by the prophets, whose duty it was to assure their countrymen of the vanity of the help of man. Especially were they rebuked for seeking friendship and aid from Egypt against, the forces of the Eastern foe; and they found such friendship hollow, and such aid ineffectual.
3. The inhabitants of Jerusalem and the people of Judah generally were, by the siege of the city, directed to seek Divine deliverance. The city might fall; its walls might be levelled with the dust; its defenders might be slain; its inhabitants decimated. But all this might be overruled for the nation’s real and lasting good, should calamity and humiliation lead to repentance, should Divine favour be entreated, and a way of salvation be opened up to the remnant of the people.T.
Eze 4:4
Substitution.
In order to his being a religious teacher and guardian of his nation, it was necessary that Ezekiel should enter into the state of his fellowcountrymen, and even share the sufferings due to their unbelief and rebellion. The Christian reader cannot fail to discern in the prophet of the Captivity a figure by anticipation of the Lord Jesus, who himself “bare our sins and carried our sorrows.” Doubtless Christ bore the iniquity of men in a sense in which no other can do so. Yet there is no possibility of benefiting those who are in a state of sin and degradation, except by stooping to their low estate, participating in their lot, enduring somewhat of their sorrow, and thus bearing their iniquity.
I. WHETHER WILLINGLY OR UNWILLINGLY, IN EVERY NATIONAL CALAMITY THE INNOCENT SUFFER WITH THE GUILTY. The guilt is the nation’s, the suffering is the individual’s. The righteous may witness against the city’s sin and rebellion, but they are overtaken by the city’s catastrophe. It is not always that the city is spared for the sake of the ten righteous who are found therein. One common ruin may, as in the case of Jerusalem, overwhelm the inhabitants, alike those who have erred and offended, and those who have raised their voice in protest and in censure.
II. THE RIGHTEOUS BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS BY SENSITIVENESS TO THEIR SINS. As Lot was vexed with the filthy conversation of the dwellers in Sodom, as there were those in Jerusalem who sighed and cried for all the abominations done in the city, so in the midst of a corrupt and ungodly community there may be those who lay to heart their neighbours’ iniquity, and who feel bitter distress because of conduct which to callous sinners brings no sorrow. It may be granted that this is to some extent a matter of temperament; that a sensitive character will be afflicted by what a calmer, colder disposition bears with impunity. Yet every good man should watch himself, lest familiarity with abounding sin should dull the edge of his spiritual perceptions, lest he should cease to be distressed because of the prevalence of iniquity.
III. THE RIGHTEOUS BEAR BY SYMPATHY THE SUFFERINGS WHICH SIN ENTAILS UPON THEIR NEIGHBOURS. A siege is usually accompanied by most painful and heartrending incidents; wounds and privations, pestilence and violent death, are all but inseparable from so frightful an aspect of human warfare. The prophet was not a man to think of such incidents, to realize them by vivid imagination and confident anticipation, without being grievously affected. Who is there, with a heart to feel, who can picture to himself the miseries, the disease, the want, the bereavements, which sin daily brings upon every populous city, without taking upon himself something of the burden? We are commanded to “weep with those that weep.” And when the calamities which befall our neighbours are the unmistakable results of transgression of Divine commands, we do in a sense bear their iniquities, when we feel for them, and are distressed because of the errors and follies which are the occasion of afflictions and disasters.
IV. THE RIGHTEOUS MAY SOMETIMES, BY THUS PARTICIPATING IN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS‘ INIQUITY, BE THE AGENTS IN BRINGING ABOUT REPENTANCE AND DELIVERANCE. Our Lord Jesus Christ so identified himself with the sinful race whose nature he assumed, that he is said to have been “made sin” for us; he “bore our sins in his body on the tree.” This was seen, by the infinite wisdom of our Father in heaven, to have been the one way by which salvation could be brought to this sinful humanity. Now we are reminded that, in his endurance of the results of men’s sins, Jesus left us an example that we should follow in his steps. He is, indeed, the only Propitiation from sin, the only Ransom for sinners. But the principle underlying redemption is a principle which has an application to the spirit and to the moral life of all the followers of Christ. They are in this world, not simply to keep themselves pure from its evil, but to help to purify others from that evil. And this they can only do by bearing the iniquity of their fellow men; not by keeping themselves aloof froth sinners, not by merely censuring and condemning sinners, but by taking the burden of their sins upon their own renewed and compassionate hearts, by entering into their temptations, and helping to rescue them from such snares; and, above all, by bringing them, in compassion and sympathizing love, into the fellowship of that Divine Saviour who gave himself for us, and who bears and takes away the sin of the world. It is by him only that the world’s iniquity is to be pardoned and to be abolished, and to be replaced by the love of and by obedience to a righteous and holy God.T.
Eze 4:16, Eze 4:17
The chastisement of famine.
The striking and distressing symbolism described in this chapter must have brought with great vividness before the mind of the prophet, and before the minds of his companions in exile, the sufferings that were about to befall the metropolis which was the pride of their hearts. In the siege which was to come upon Jerusalem, the citizens should endure the horrors of privation, of hunger, and of thirst. It was foretold that in a sense this should be God’s appointment, the effect of that retributive Providence which devout minds cannot fail to recognize in the government of the world. If such events took place in accordance with what are called general laws, since those laws are the consequence and expression of the very constitution of society, none the less must the Divine hand be recognized, none the less must it be understood that Divine lessons are to be learned with reverent submission.
I. A LESSON OF CORPORATE UNITY. As a city, Jerusalem had sinned by rejecting Jehovah’s worship, and by honouring the gods of the nations; by disobeying Jehovah’s laws, and following sinful impulses and indulging in sinful practices. As a city, Jerusalem sinned; as a city, Jerusalem suffered and fell. The innocent, no doubt, suffered with the guilty; those who mourned over the defection of Judah with those who were prominent agents in that defection. No man can live apart from his neighbours; least of all is this possible in the life of the city, which is characterized by a unity that may be designated corporate.
II. A LESSON OF PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE. Bread, water, and fuel are mentioned in this chapter as necessaries of life; without them men are condemned to famine and to death. The body is in correlation to natureto the provision made for its sustenance and strength. If the supply be cut off, the body perishes. Familiar and commonplace as this truth is, men need, in their pride and self-confidence, to be reminded of it. The haughty Jews stood in need of the lesson. Let an army invest the city, and it is only a question of time; for the besieged, if unable to beat back the besiegers, must sooner or later surrender to the force of hunger, if not of arms.
III. A LESSON OF DIVINE RETRIBUTION. It is in this light that the calamities attending a siege are presented by the prophet. Men may see in a beleaguered city only a political fact, a military incident, the consequence of well known causes, the cause of well understood effects. To see all this is justifiable; to see nothing but this is blindness. A thoughtful and pious mind will look through, will look above, all that is phenomenal. There is purpose in human affairs, there is Divine meaning, there is revelation. When men, oppressed by adversity and threatened with ruin, are “astonied one with another, and pine away in their iniquity,” it is possible that they may be so stupefied as to recognize no moral law in their experience, their fate. but the enlightened discern in such events indication of the Divine displeasure and indignation with sin. Chastisement, punishment, is no chimera invented by a heated imagination; it is a sober, albeit a painful fact, from which there is no escape and no appeal. The judgments of God are abroad in the earth; and this is that the inhabitants thereof may learn righteousness.
IV. A LESSON OF REPENTANCE AND OF MERCY. This lesson is not, indeed, explicitly presented in this passage; yet the whole prophetic symbolism leads up to it. Why are men hungry but that they may call for the bread of life? and upon whom shall they call but upon God? Whither shall the parched and thirsting turn but to him who has the water of life, for the quenching of their thirst and the satisfaction of their souls? To whom shall the afflicted address themselves but to him who can turn the outward curse into a spiritual blessing, who can make the scourge the means of healing, and the sword the means of life? In the midst of wrath God remembers mercy; and it is ever true that they who call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved.T.
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES
Eze 4:1-8
Vicarious suffering.
Every true prophet is a forerunner of Jesus Christ. We do not detract from the work of the Saviourwe magnify itwhen we discern that the same kind of work (though not equal in measure or effectiveness) had been done by the prophets. Ezekiel was called of God, not only to teach heavenly doctrine, but also to suffer for the people. “Thou shalt bear their iniquities.” No one can be a faithful servant of God who does not suffer for the cause he serves. Suffering is the badge of a Divine commission.
I. EVERY PROPHET IS A VICAR. He represents God before the people; he represents the people before God. In his whole person, action, suffering, mission, he is a type of Jesus Christ. When men will not listen to his words, he is commanded to speak to them by deeds. The life of the prophet is a prophecy. Ezekiel deals with these captives as with sullen children. To the ignorant he became as ignorant. He condescended to their low estate. Being made dumb by reason of their perversity, he pursues his heavenly task in another wayhe teaches them by pictures, object lesson and deed symbol. It is “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.” So long as there remains an avenue to the heart, God will not abandon men.
II. HIS SUFFERING IS VICARIOUS. This prophet was not himself free from sin, and suffering was its effect. Yet the suffering described in this chapter is wholly vicarious. What was justly due to others was laid upon him by God. “I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity.” Yet this was impossible without the prophet’s willing consent. In proportion as the prophet’s mind had expanded under the Divine afflatus, be had considered and comprehended the magnitude of Israel’s sin. Their past and their present iniquity was clear and vivid to his mind. He saw its extent and aggravation. He perceived the moral turpitude. He felt its baseness and criminality. He foresaw its bitter fruits. The burden of a nation’s sift pressed upon his conscience. He drew it in upon himself and confessed it before God. But, further, Ezekiel represented in himself the severity of Divine judgmentGod’s sense of sin. Hence he was required to lie upon one side for the space of three hundred and ninety daysa pain to himself, a passive rebuke to the people, in order to represent in visible form God’s indignation. Yet there was pictured forth also Divine compassion. Just severity was alleviated; there was but a day for a year. Jerusalem was sacrificed, but it was in order that the people might be saved. Not an item was overlooked by God. The proportionate guilt of Israel and Judah was vividly symbolized in the several acts of the prophet. The one end sought wasrepentance.
III. HIS ACTION IS VICARIOUS. The prophet was a Hebrew, a priest; he loved Jerusalem. Possibly affection was bestowed on the city, which belonged alone to God. For Ezekiel to represent the Babylonian invaders, for him to invest the city with fire and sword, this must have been gall and wormwood. Yet, in vision, he had eaten the roll of God’s behests, had digested and assimilated the knowledge of his will. Therefore, in his vicarious character, he has to set his face against the city as the impersonation of the foe; he has to “make bare his arm” to typify the resolute energy of the spoiler. Be the effect upon the Jewish chiefs, already in captivity, what it may; be the effect to exasperate feeling against the prophet or to produce repentance; the prophet is constrained to fulfil his task by a Divine necessity. “Bands are upon him.”
IV. HIS ENDURANCE OF RIDICULE IS VICARIOUS. We can well suppose that many who visited Ezekiel in his dwelling would fail to perceive the propriety or utility of this long and irksome penance. They would sneer and laugh at this toy siege, at this childish exposure of an outstretched arm, at this constant recumbence on one side. Be it so; the prophet continues his task unmoved. “The foolishness of God is wiser than men.” Littleness and greatness are matters about which men egregiously err. Ezekiel, in his humiliation, was as magnanimous and noble an actor in life’s drama as Elijah on Carmel vindicating in solitary sublimity Jehovah’s power. What could be baser to the vulgar eye of the world than to bear a felon’s cross through the streets, and then to hang in nakedness and pain thereon? “But God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the mighty and things which are not, to bring to nought things which are.” Like his Divine Master, Ezekiel “despised the shame.”D.
Eze 4:9-17
A symbolic famine.
The moral intention for which God imposed this series of painful privations on his prophet was this, viz. to convince the people that their expectation of a speedy return to Jerusalem was vain and futile. Their honoured city, around which God had so long thrown the shield of his protection, could not (so they thought) long remain in the power of the heathen. To explode this bubble delusion, God represented before their eyes the rigours of a military siege, the privations and hardships of the beleaguered inhabitants, along with the final discomfiture of the city’s guilty defenders. The prophet in Babylon is still a scapegoat for the people. On him the weight of the stroke at present rests. The bends of sympathy with the people’s best interests constrained the prophet to suffer with them and for them. Hence, during three hundred and ninety days he ate no pleasant bread; he lived on the narrowest rations. In the midst of surrounding plenty, he fared (for sublime moral reasons) with the hard pressed and beleaguered Jews. Now, famine has its moral uses.
I. IT BRINGS TO MEMORY THE FORMER AFFLUENCE OF GOD‘S PROVISION. If it is possible to sustain our life with ten ounces of bread per diem, and this bread of the coarsest description, then all that we obtain beyond this is proof of the exuberant kindness of our God. As transgressors against God’s Law, we should not expect more than bare subsistencemere prison fare; we have no right to claim even that. Taking this scale with which to measure our former possessions and comforts, we may gain some conception of the amazing love of God. Would that, side by side with a clear idea of his goodness, there was also adequate impression! Every gift of Providence, in excess of bare sustenance, is a token of God’s tender affection; brings a message of kindnessis a gospel.
II. FAMINE MAY WELL CONVINCE US OF OUR SINS. We may safely conclude that it is not for small reason that God deprives men of nature’s kindly gifts. The internal monitor, as well as the external prophet, teaches us that this interruption of providential supplies is God’s act. Many and strange factors may intervene, but a clear eye looks through and beyond all inferior causes, until it discovers the rule of the great First Cause. The pride of earthly kings, the march of armies, the scrutiny of martial sentinels, biting frosts, blustering winds, inroads of insectsa thousand things may serve as the nearest visible cause of famine; but a devout mind will regard all these as the agents and administrators of the most high God. For no other reason would he manifest his anger, save for moral transgression, wilful disloyalty! He would have us to see and to feel how great an evil is sin, by the serious mischief it worksyea, by the severity of his own displeasure. Even famine serves as the Master’s ferule, if it brings us back to childlike obedience.
III. FAMINE PROVES TO US HOW EASY IT IS FOR GOD TO AFFLICT. Very obvious is it that frail man hangs on God by a thousand delicate threads. Ten thousand minute avenues are open by which an enemy can approach, chastisement come near. We almost shudder as we think of the manifold forms, and of the majestic ease, with which the avenging God could scourge his rebellious creatures. Let him but change one ingredient in the all-nurturing air, and instead of inhaling health, we should, with every breath, inhale fiery poison. If but the appetite fail, if the digestive organs become weak, if secretions stay their process, lassitude and decay speedily follow. It is enough that God should speak a word, and life for us would be stripped of charm. We should crave to die.
IV. THIS SCARCITY PROVES THAT PRESENT CHASTISEMENT IS DISCIPLINARY. It is not sudden and irremediable death. If God intended that, he would have chosen some other punitive weapon. But this reduction of food to a minimum, this suspension of enjoyment, these obnoxious necessities in preparing a meat, all indicate correction with a view to repentance. If only the sighs of true penitence arise, then quicker than flashing light does God run to remove the burden from our shoulders. To punish men is a grief to God; to pardon is his delight. Yet if present corrections avail nothing to produce righteous obedience, the final infliction will be irrevocable and overwhelming.
V. PRAYER MODIFIES, IF IT DOES NOT REMOVE, THE SEVERITY OF THE STROKE. The windows of heaven were shut and opened again at the breath of Elijah’s prayer. Ezekiel humbly remonstrates with God that he may not be required to violate ceremonial purity. At once the command of God is modified. The tenderness of the prophet’s conscience is to be respected. God alters not his plans without sufficient cause; this is sufficient cause. This particular step in his procedure was clearly foreseen; and it was to bring out this request from Ezekiel that the first demand was made. Prayer not only expresses mental desire; it strengthens it also. It does us good every way. It fits us to enjoy, and to improve, the blessing. It softens chastisement.D.
HOMILIES BY W. JONES
Eze 4:1-17
The siege of Jerusalem and the sufferings of the people symbolized.
“Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it the city, even Jerusalem,” etc. This chapter presents difficulties to the student. There is the question whether it is to be understood literally or metaphorically; or, more correctly, whether the things here set forth were really done or were only visional. The commands given in Eze 4:1-3 might have been literally executed; but the directions of Eze 4:4-8 could not have been literally carried out. Hence Fairbairn and others conclude that the actions must have taken place in vision. “It is enough to suppose,” says Dr. Currey, “that when the prophet was bidden to do such acts, they were impressed upon his mind with all the vividness of actual performance. In spirit, he grasped the sword and scattered the hair (Eze 5:1-4), and saw herein the coming events thus symbolized. They would only have lost force by substituting bodily for mental action. The command of God gave to the sign the vividness of a real transaction, and the prophet communicated it to the people, just as it had been stamped on his own mind, with more impressiveness than could have been conveyed by the language of ordinary metaphor.” Again, it is by no means easy to decide what is the precise reference of the three hundred and ninety days, and the forty days, each day in a year. The different interpretations have been so ably sustained by their respective advocates, that it seems to us that it would be presumptuous dogmatically to assert that it must mean either one or another. But let us endeavour to discover the homiletic aspects of this chapter.
I. INQUIRE THE REASON WHY, IN THIS CHAPTER AND ELSEWHERE, GOD HAS MADE KNOWN HIS WILL BY REMARKABLE SYMBOLS. There are many such symbols in the prophecies by Ezekiel. And in those by Jeremiah we have the rod of an almond tree, and the seething pot (Jer 1:11-16), the linen girdle, and the bottles of wine (13), the potter’s earthen vessel (19), the two baskets of figs (24), and the yoke of iron (Jer 28:1-17). Many other examples might be cited item other portions of the sacred Scriptures. We cannot think that these striking symbols were employed to conceal truth, or to make the apprehension of the truth more difficult. That would have been inconsistent with revelationthe contradiction of revelation. And it seems to us that it would have been out of harmony with the character of God to have used remarkable symbols to obscure his Word. They were intended rather, we conceive, to arouse attention, to stimulate inquiry, and impress upon the mind the truths shadowed forth by them. Fairbairn has well said, “As the meaning obviously did not lie upon the surface, it called for serious thought and inquiry regarding the purposes of God. A time of general backsliding and corruption is always a time of superficial thinking on spiritual things. And just as our Lord, by his parables, that partly veiled while they disclosed the truth of God, so the prophets, by their more profound and enigmatical discourses, sought to arouse the careless from their security, to awaken inquiry, and stir the depths of thought and feeling in the soul. It virtually said to them, “You are in imminent peril; direct ordinary discourse no longer suits your case; bestir yourselves to look into the depths of things, otherwise the sleep of death shall overtake you.”
II. ENDEAVOUR TO SET FORTH THE MEANING OF THESE REMARKABLE SYMBOLS.
1. Here is a representation of the siege of Jerusalem. (Verses 1-3.) Directions are given to Ezekiel to portray a siege of the holy city; and to prepare the fort or siege tower, and the mound, and the encampments, and battering rams, and lay siege to it. Notice:
(1) The great Agent in this siege. The prophet was to besiege it, acting as the representative of Jehovah. “If the prophet, as commissioned by God, enters on such a siege, the real besieger of Jerusalem is the Lord God; and the Chaldeans appear as mere instruments in the Divine hand” (Schroder). Nebuchadnezzar and his army unconsciously did the work of God. And the prophet was to do his work with resolution and might (verse 7). The uucoveted arm indicates one about to engage in vigorous exertion (cf. Isa 52:10). So the siege here foreshadowed would be prosecuted with determination and power.
(2) The cause of this siege, The sin of the people has brought it upon them. This is indicated by the iron pan or plate which Ezekiel was to set up between himself and the city (verse 3). “It is clear from the expression, between thee and the city, that a relation of separation, of division, between Jerusalem as portrayed upon the brick and the representative of God is m, ant to be expressed. Only on the ground of such a relation between God and Jerusalem can we explain alike the hostile attitude of the prophet’s race, and especially the clause, and it is in siege, and along with that, verses 1 and 2″ (Schroder). “Their iniquities had separated between them and their God” (Isa 59:2). That their calamities were caused by their sins appears also from the prophet being called to bear the iniquity of the house of Israel and the house of Judah (verses 5, 6). And in the last verse it is expressly stated that they should “consume away for their iniquity.” Sin is the one great cause of suffering and sorrow, of calamity and loss.
2. Here is a representation of the sufferings of the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
(1) These are symbolized by the prostrate attitude of the prophet bearing the sins of the people (verses 4-6). In the former portion of the chapter Ezekiel represents the Lord; but here and in subsequent verses he represents the besieged and suffering people. His lying down, and inability to turn from one side to another, “is a figure of the wretched condition of the people during the time of the siege” (cf. Psa 20:8; Isa 50:11; Amo 5:2).
(2) The miseries of the people are also represented by the scarcity of food and its loathsome associations. The prophet is directed to “take wheat, and barley, and beans,” etc. (verse 9). “It is suggested in this way that the besieged will in their distress be compelled to gather together everything that can possibly be turned into bread. This state of matters is represented yet more strongly by means of the one vessel, which shows that of each separate sort not much more is to be had” (Schroder). Ezekiel, moreover, has to take his food by weight and measure, and only at long intervals (verses 10, 11). And although in that country less is needed to sustain life than in our colder climate, yet the quantity allowed the prophet is not more than half what is usually regarded as necessary. The quantity, as some one observes, was too much for dying, too little for living. So would the people suffer want and hunger during the long siege. From the scarcity of food we proceed to its impurity. It is represented as having been baked with fuel of the most offensive kindwith human ordure (verse 12). But in answer to a pathetic appeal of the prophet, he is allowed to use the dried ordure of cattle instead thereof. To this he made no objection. “He was, in fact, used to it; for the dried dung of beasts is used for fuel throughout the East wherever wood is scarce, from Mongolia to Palestine. Its use, indeed, extends into Europe, and subsists even in England.” eze-2 The significance of this symbol is stated: “Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.” The reference is to the impurities of heathenism. Those who in their own land had disregarded the commands of God would in their exile find the corruptions of heathenism a grievous offence unto them. And then in its close (verses 16, 17) the chapter recurs to the sufferings during the siege. The misery was to grow and to become so great as to cause amazement and dismay. The people would take their scanty portion in deep sorrow; and so great would be the scarcity of the prime necessaries of life as to strike them dumb with anguish. Such were the miseries which they had brought upon themselves by their long course of sin.
III. APPLY THE INSTRUCTIONS WHICH THIS SUBJECT HAS FOR US.
1. An impressive illustration of the omniscience of God. Nothing less than infinite knowledge could have foretold to Ezekiel the things symbolized in this chapter. They did not seem in the least degree probable when he published them. “If we accept,” says Dr. Currey, “the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s captivity (as is most probable) for the year in which Ezekiel received this communication, it was a time at which such an event would, according to human calculation, have appeared improbable. Zedekiah was the creature of the King of Babylon, ruling by his authority in the place of Jehoiachin, who was still alive; and it could scarcely have been expected that Zedekiah would have been so infatuated as to provoke the anger of the powerful Nebuchadnezzar.” Yet he did so; and this prophecy was fulfilled. Nothing can be hidden from God (Psa 139:1-24.). To him the future is visible as the present. This is exhibited by Isaiah as an evidence that the Lord is the true God (Isa 41:21-29; Isa 44:6-8; Isa 46:9-11).
2. Sin transforms persons and places in the sight of God. Think of what Jerusalem had been before him: “the city of God;” “the faithful city;” “the holy city;” “the perfection of beauty, the joy of the whole earth.” But now, alas, how changed it is! Formerly he had been its Defender; now he has become its Besieger. Sin darkens and deforms human character; it takes away the glory of cities and covers them with shame.
3. The certainty of the punishment of sin. The chosen people shall not escape punishment if they persist in sin. The sacred city, with the temple which God had chosen as his dwelling place (Psa 132:13, Psa 132:14), will afford no protection to a people who have obstinately rebelled against him. “Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not go unpunished;” “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap,” etc. Sin carries within itself the germ of its own punishment.
4. The power of God to inflict punishment upon the obstinately rebellious. He can use the heathen as his instruments for this purpose. He can break the staff of bread, and dry up the springs of water, etc.
5. The heinousness and perilousness of sin. (Cf. Jer 2:19; Jer 44:4.) Let us cultivate hearty obedience to the Lord God.W.J.
Eze 4:1. Take thee a tile A slate. See Jer 1:11; Jer 13:4. Maimonides, not attending to the primitive mode of information made use of by Ezekiel here, by Jeremiah in the passages referred to, and by several other of the prophets, is much scandalised at several of these actions, unbecoming, as he supposed, the dignity of the prophetical office: and is therefore for resolving them in general into supernatural visions, impressed on the imagination of the prophet; and this because some few of them, perhaps, may admit of such an interpretation. His reasoning on this head is to the following effect: As the prophet thought that in a vision, ch. Eze 8:8-9 he was commanded to dig in the wall, that he might enter and see what was doing within; and that he did dig, and entered through a hole, and saw what was to be seen; so likewise when he was commanded in the present passage to take a tile, and in ch. 5 to take him a sharp razor, we should conclude that both these actions were merely supernatural visions; it arguing an impeachment of the divine wisdom to employ his ministers in actions of so low a kind. But here, says Bishop Warburton, the author’s reasoning is defective, because what Ezekiel saw, in the chambers of imagery, ch. 8 was in a vision; therefore, says Maimonides, his delineation of the plan of the siege, and his shaving his beard, chap. 4 and 5 were likewise in vision. But to make this inference logical, it is necessary that the circumstances in the viiith, and those in the ivth and vth chapters, be shewn to be specifically the same. Examine them, and they are found to be very different. That in the viiith was to shew the prophet the excessive idolatry of Jerusalem, by a sight of the very idolatry itself. Those in the ivth and vth were to convey the will of God by the prophet to the people in a symbolic action. Now in the first place the information was properly in vision, and fully answered the purpose, namely, the prophet’s information; but in the latter a vision had been improper, for a vision to the prophet was of itself no information to the people. See the Divine Legation, vol. 3: and, for more on the subject of these prophetic actions, the note on chap. Eze 12:3.
2. The Four Signs, and their Interpretation (Eze 4:1 to Eze 5:17)
1And thou, son of man, take thee a brick, and give [lay] it before thee, and 2portray upon it the city, [viz.] Jerusalem. And give [lay] siege against it, and build a siege-tower against it, and cast a mound against it, and make a camp 3against it, and set battering-rams against it round about. And do thou take thee a pan in [of] iron, and give [set] it as a wall in [of] iron between thee and the city; and direct thy face against it, and it is in siege, and thou layest siege against it: 4this is a sign to the house of Israel. And lie thou on thy side, the left one, and lay the guilt of the house of Israel upon it; according to the number of the days 5that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their guilt. And I have given thee the years of their guilt, according to the number of the days, three hundred and 6ninety days; and thou bearest the guilt of the house of Israel. And thou accomplishest these, and liest upon thy side, the right one, a second time, and bearest the guilt of the house of Judah forty days; a day for a year, a day 7for a year, have I given it to thee. And toward the siege of Jerusalem thou shalt set thy face, and thine uncovered arm, and thou prophesiest against it. 8And, behold, I have laid bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn from one side 9to another, till thou endest the days of thy siege. And do thou take unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and spelt, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof; according to the number of the days that thou art lying upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat 10it. And thy food which thou shalt eat is by weight, twenty shekels a day; from 11time to time thou shalt eat it. And water shalt thou drink by measure, the sixth 12part of an hin; from time to time shalt thou drink it. And barley cake, that shalt thou eat, and in [with] dung that cometh out of man shalt thou bake it 13before their eyes. And Jehovah said, So shall the children of Israel eat their 14bread defiled among the heathen, whither I will drive them. And I said, Ah, Lord Jehovah! behold, my soul hath not been polluted, and neither carcase nor what is torn in pieces have I eaten from my youth up till now; neither hath 15abominable flesh come into my mouth. And He said unto me: Behold, I give thee dung of cattle for dung of man, and thou makest [preparest] thy bread thereon. 16And He said unto me, Son of man, behold, I break the staff of bread in Jerusalem, and they eat bread by weight, and in anxiety; and water by measure, and in 17anguish shall they drink; Because bread and water shall be wanting, and man and his brother are struck dumb [from anguish], and pine away in their guilt.
Eze 4:4. Sept.: … . . . .
Eze 4:5. … . .
Eze 4:8. Anoth. read.: plur.
Eze 4:9. … . (Some mss. .)
Eze 4:16. …
Eze 4:17. (Anoth. read.: ). Vulg.: ad fratrem
EXEGETICAL
What the silence of the prophet is intended to signify, in case their own bad conscience should not set it before them vividly, is now represented in emblem to their curiosity by four symbolical actions, of which three are contained in our chapter; the explanatory inscription at the end is always given in shorter or longer terms, according to the expressiveness and completeness of each separate picture. According to Eze 3:24 sq., and as is clear from themselves, the carrying out of these symbolical actions takes place in the house of Ezekiel. Next to his family, and perhaps called in by them, we have to think of his countrymen as spectators. The sections Eze 4:1-3, Eze 4:4-8, Eze 4:9-17, have a connection with one another (Eze 4:7-9 sqq.), and supplement one another. While the siege of Jerusalem, as the theme in the first section, is at the same time carried into further detail, and made more graphic in the second and third, after the inward, the outward condition of the parties concerned is indicated to us. Hengstenberg again transfers everything to the sphere of the subjective (similarly Hitzig: allegory), on which account also (according to him) the carrying out of the prophets instructions is not mentioned, and agrees with Ewald, with whom likewise the literary activity of Ezekiel is the principal thing, for which the objectivity (or not) of the symbolical action is a matter of pure indifference. Calvin, likewise, makes Eze 4:4 sqq. take place in vision. As regards the almost childish impression of the action in question as an objective reality, this has to be attributed to Hengstenbergs exposition itself; but that a publication of what takes place in the house of Ezekiel is not to be a matter of anxiety, follows from the well-known lively intercourse between those in exile and the great mass in the fatherland. (Meanwhile, as the man of God, though full, is not permitted to speak, he is to employ the silent language of writing. But his writing is in symbol. His heart is with Jerusalem; there he portrays upon a brick the picture of the beloved city.Umbreit. The heavy judgment which is to burst upon Jerusalem is announced, in harmony with the vision of Ezekiel 1, which already held out in prospect the approach of God to judgment.Hengst.)
Eze 4:1-3.The First Sign
Eze 4:1. applies the foregoing special instruction to the prophet; and, at the same time, the imperative passes over into the description of what Ezekiel is to do, hence the perfects with consec. Just the year before Zedekiah had journeyed to Babylon, for the purpose of testifying his submission to Nebuchadnezzar (J. D. Mich.).As to , comp. Winer, Realw. 2 p. 731 sqq. We are not to think of real stone, but of something baked from clay (white? chalky?), dried in the sun, or burnt white in the furnace. The walls of ancient Babylon were of bricks, and these Babylonian bricks are one foot long and broad, five inches thick and square. Such bricks as the Assyrians and Babylonians, just in those districts where Ezekiel lived, filled so often with inscriptions (Ewald). Besides, there is the significant allusion to Egypt and the bondage of Israel there, Exo 1:14; Exo 5:7 sqq. In order to be able to engrave a delineation that will last, Hitzig requires the clay-brick, which is likewise common in Canaan (Isa 9:10). Just so Keil: white clayey substance. Others: a brick-shaped slate.As is usual with those who are thinking about anything, he is to lay the brick before him. is neither more nor less than: to fix, which may be done just as well by drawing as by engraving. First of all only a city; Jerusalem would be the last of all the cities of the earth to be thought of, when the subject in hand is a city to be besieged by the Lord. After Jerusalem we are to suppose, as it were, a mark of exclamation (Hengst.).But to the brick there belongs not merely, as Hengstenberg maintains, the picture of the city, but also (in accordance with Ewalds view) what follows, describing how in all regular order, through all the steps from the beginning onwards to the end, one would open a siege against it. It would be to press the letter, to make the execution of it from the outset impossible or childish, if one were to imagine the contents of Eze 4:2 to be outside the brick; and how does Eze 4:3 (comp. Eze 4:7) suit such a view? The stone itself is not Jerusalem! (Hitzig.)
Eze 4:2. from , to press, to straiten. Hitzig: siege-work in general. is Aramaic (Hitzig: it thus belongs to a land whose masters were thoroughly acquainted with fortress warfare, Hab 1:10; Isa 23:13) and modern Hebrew: to look out, to fix the eyes upon; whence the noun, probably a Chaldee technical term, , watch-tower (except in Ezekiel, elsewhere only in 2Ki 25:1 and Jer 52:4), for the most part collectively, and so also here for the (wooden) towers of observation equal or superior in height to the walls round about the city to be besieged, from which weapons were thrown and shot by means of the ballist, as well as in other ways. [J. D. Mich.: two lines of circumvallation, a mound and rampart furnished with palisades. W. Neumann: the all prostrating storming-machine.] The plural , because several separate camps. , from the iron rams head in front of beams, which, hanging in ropes or chains inside a scaffolding to be moved upon wheels, were directed against the walls and gates in order to push them in. Hvernick traces back the word to , ,, to bore through. Comp. besides, Josephus, De Bello Jdg 3:7, 19. (Others have understood by the expression, the he-goats, i.e. the leaders of the army divisions in the different camps.)If, then, the prophet, as commissioned by God, enters on such a siege, the real besieger of Jerusalem is the Lord God; and while the Chaldeans appear as mere instruments in the divine hand, Eze 4:3which brings to a close the first symbolical actionintimates what state of mind, on the part of the Lord, Ezekiel has to represent. (just as elsewhere also) introduces a new element, put on a parallel with Eze 4:1 by means of . signifies something bent together, which may be flat for frying or roasting; in such saucepans the flat cakes were fried, Lev 2:5. As he is to set the iron pan as an iron wall, it is clear that he has to set it up perpendicularly; it is likewise clear, from the expression between thee and the city, that a relation of separation, of division, between Jerusalem as portrayed upon the brick and the representative of God is meant to be expressed. Only on the ground of such a relation between God and Jerusalem can we explain alike the hostile attitude of the prophets face, and specially the clause, and it is in siege, and along with that Eze 4:1-2. But as the wall is to be after the manner of iron (), the iron pan cannot be taken as a fascine protecting the besieger, because such a thing, as a rule, was not of iron, and because certainly there could be no need of a protection for God the Besieger, but rather of a protection from Him; nor are we to think with Ewald (1st edit.) of the very strong iron-like wall of Jerusalem (Raschi), since the suffix also in does not refer to the pan, but to the city, and the strength of the city wall is not certainly to be made prominent. Ewald also in his very recent 2d edition approaches the view of Hvernick (who with Ephraem understands the mass of misfortune which is coming upon Jerusalem), inasmuch as he makes the prophet put the merely painted siege more strongly and palpably by means of the picture of a wall, as it were, of iron. But in this way also the so express attitude of separation, which Hitzig recognises, is lost. The allusion to Jer 1:13 for the horrors of the siege (Hv.) is too far-fetched [a Lapide: the burning of the city; Origen: the horrible tortures of the inhabitants, Jer 29:22; 2Ma 7:5; others: the army-fire of the Chaldeans]. Jerome (that the wrath of God is represented) nearly approaches the correct view, to which Kimchi points by referring to Isa 59:2. The pan, therefore, as a wall, symbolizes the strong (Jer 1:18, alike in accordance with Gods decree, and in consequence of the corruption of Israel) wall of separation, which finally explains everything, what precedes and also what follows. Vatablus and Grotius bring in, besides, their hardness of heart and the blackness of their sins, just as Hitzig also, the base metal and (in accordance with Eze 24:6) the rust as a picture of defilement through sin. (Hengst.: first the refusal of divine help, then God Himself even the assailant.) Not so much the preparation of food which follows (Klief.), as the circumstance that such a pan (according to Ewald: the nearest iron plate) was at hand in every household (Keil), suggested the choice of the same. As the siege is described with the prophet as besieger, so certainly it will be carried out, not hundreds of years afterwards, but in the lifetime of Ezekiel, during his labours (Klief.). The significance of the iron pan would certainly disappear if we imagined that the prophet had grouped the siege in little figures round about the brick. Moreover, what is portrayed upon the stone, and is here spoken of as the city, is called in Eze 4:7 the siege of Jerusalem.The house of Israel is here the same as in Ezekiel 3 Comp. on the other hand, Eze 4:5.If the symbolical action is to be a sign (in the sense of foreshadowing), then the view, that it was also shown them, that, as it was for them, so it made its appearance objectively before them, is certainly more probable than Hengstenbergs subjective view, more probable than with Studlein, Hvern., Hitzig, to make the action one that was not really performed, but only discoursed about (Isa 20:3). Klief.: an important action, even when besides it is a silent one, must be performed; although the text does not mention it expressly, a thing that quite explains itself in the case of one who has received a command from God.
Additional Note on Eze 4:1-3
[In regard to the part required to be played by the prophet himself, however it may have been understood in former times, we should suppose few now will be disposed to doubt that the successive actions spoken of took place only in vision, and are no more to be ranked among the occurrences of actual life than the eating of the prophetic roll mentioned in the preceding chapter. Indeed, such actions as are described here, though well fitted, when rehearsed as past, and read as narratives of things ideally done, to make a strong and vivid impression upon the mind, would probably have had an opposite effect if transacted in real life. It would have been impossible for ordinary spectators to see Ezekiel conducting a miniature siege with a tile and a saucepan, and such like implements of war, without a feeling of the puerile and ludicrous being awakened; and the other symbolical actions mentioned, especially his lying for 390 days motionless on one side, if literally understood, can scarcely be regarded as coming within the limits of the possible. And along with the physical impossibility of one part of the requirement there was the moral impossibility of another, since to eat bread composed of such abominable materials would have been, (if performed in real life) a direct contravention of the law of Moses,that law, respectful submission to which was ever held to be the first and most essential characteristic of a true prophet (compare Deu 14:3; Deu 23:12-14, with Eze 13:1-5). Besides, we find the prophet (Eze 8:1) represented as sitting in his house before the number of the days to be spent in a lying posture could have been completed. So that, on every account, it is necessary to consider the actions to have taken place in vision, as, indeed, was usually the case in prophetical actions, and uniformly so, as we shall find in Ezekiel.Fairbairns Ezekiel.W. F.]
Eze 4:4-8.The Second Sign
Once more a new appointment, which onwards to Eze 4:8, carrying into further detail the above indicated destiny of Jerusalem, gives us a more vivid picture of it as respects the inner condition of the parties concerned, after the manner of a second symbolic action on the part of Ezekiel. In the position of a prophet, it is implied that such an one may be the representative alike of God and of the people; and as, therefore, Ezekiel represents Jehovah in Eze 4:1-3, so now, and in Eze 4:9 sqq., he represents Israel. Where in this way Jehovah Himself fights against His people, their downfall is certain; the prophet immediately assumes this position (Hv.). The mere circumstance, that he is to lie on the one side and the other (to sleep, as the Sept. and Vulg. make it, plainly contradicts the context), is symbolical as regards those whom he represents, a picture of the political situation (Isa 28:20; Isa 50:11; Amo 5:2; Psa 20:8; Psa 44:25); not as a sick person who can lie only on one side, and must always without shifting lie upon it (Ewald), not as a figure for a state of political languishing, but in contrast with standing upright, a lying down in consequence of a fall (Hitz.).As the period fixed is days (which, however, mean years), the reference generally to the besieged (the frightful constraint from without, during which one cannot move or stir, Ewald) is to be held fast in the first place; but then, farther, the carrying captive which follows, and the sojourn in exile, is at the same time to be kept in view. First the left side is made prominent when the reference is to the severed house of Israel,according to Ewald, Hitzig, because of the geographical situation to the north of Judah (Eze 16:46), while the latter lay in the south,according to Grot., Hvernick, Keil, because of the superiority of the latter over the former (comp. Ezekiel 23.), Ecc 10:2. Maldon.: it had the priesthood and the kingdom. is the guilt, thus the sin in its consciousness of punishment; neither the former alone nor the latter alone, but the transition from the one to the other in process of being effected for the subjective consciousness. The consciousness of guilt on the part of the people is to be awakened.Inasmuch as Ezekiel is to lay the guilt upon it, i. e. his left side, the side upon which he himself has to lie, the problem can only be solved when we regard Ezekiel himself, in virtue of his lying upon his left side, as the bearer of the guilt, which is also immediately said. According to Keil, he would come to lie upon the guilt, and not the guilt upon him! That cannot here mean to bear, as Hengstenberg asserts, one cannot see, because, if he is to lay the guilt upon himself, he will have to bear it also, and the matter in hand is not at all an official and mediatorial or atoning substitution, but only a symbolical bearing of a burden which has to lie heavily upon the people, whom he only represents. As many days as he shall lie upon his left side, so long will he represent the burden of guilt of the ten tribes. This is not certainly meant to signify the number of the years which they have sinned (Rosenm.). Is this, then, asserted by Eze 4:5? The number of the days of his lying means, of course, the years of their guilt; but what is carefully to be noticed, as a period given him by God ( ), yet not surely as a period selected by God from their course of sinning for the purpose of being represented by him? is such a divine formulating of the period of their sinning well conceivable? but as the guilt measured by God, to be represented by Ezekiel, and thus to be announced in actual fact, which they have brought upon themselves, and have to bear in years. What comes upon them in years, Ezekiel is to represent to them in days, thus bearing the guilt of the house of Israel. This explanation, simply arrived at from the text, will have to be tested by the interpretation of the periods given. For Israel there are appointed 390 days, and the prophet has accomplished these.
Eze 4:6. For his lying on his right side, a second time. to bear the guilt of the house of Judah, 40 days are appointed. The question, whether the 40 days are to be supposed as included in the 390 (with Cocc. and others), is expressly answered in the negative by the (for the second time); there are 390 and 40, in all 430 days, which sum the text certainly does not add together. For the special reason, that the season of punishment has begun long ago in the case of the ten tribes, just as it is already touching Judah also, a division of time readily suggested itself, while the division of collective Israel into Israel and Judah presented itself historically. In getting the 390 years to correspond in respect of sinning, and especially the 40, if they are to be reckoned as actual years, and therefore exactly, even the most diverse modes of explanation have found themselves helpless. The whole kingdom of Israel did not last for 390 years; and we must therefore go back beyond the ten tribes, into the period of the judges, pot to mention other modes of reckoning by means of omissions. Rosenm., therefore, made the distinction between Israel and Judah step into the background as regards the 390 years; and inasmuch as he gets at 386 years from the division of the kingdom down to the eleventh year of Zedekiah (the conquest of Jerusalem), he consoles himself for what is wanting with the poetic rounding off of prophetic language; but Judahs 40 years of sin are reckoned from the twelfth year of the reign of the pious king Josiah! Hengstenberg understands Israel as collective Israel, begins with 2Ch 12:1 (comp. 2Ch 11:17), i.e. from the fourth year of Rehoboam, the year of the falling into sin of the whole nation, and supports himself in this view by Vitringas reckoning of 430 years 6 months from the founding of the temple to the destruction of the state; and deducting 37 years of Solomons and 3 of Rehoboams, there remain 390 years; and Judah, according to him, is contrasted with the whole people, the 40 years being 40 from the collective Eze 390: the despising of the grace of God in the raising up of king Josiah (2Ki 23:25), and the frustration of the last attempt made by Jeremiah, beginning with the thirteenth year of Josiah, the first appearance of Jeremiah on the stage, whose labours down till the destruction of Jerusalem lasted 40 years. The connection with Eze 4:1-3 manifestly makes the time of punishment more probable than a time of sin; and the computation of the number 390 for the days which the siege of the city lasted, from the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year of Zedekiah down to the 9th day of the 4th month of the 11th year, can very simply be made to correspond by making a deduction for the temporary raising of the siege on account of the Egyptians (Jer 37:5). On the other hand, every calculation of 390 and of 40 yearswhich is certainly involvedfails as a time of exile for Israel and Judah. In this state of matters, if one reckons by literal days and years, but still more considering the all-pervading symbolical character of the whole and of the details, the acceptance of symbolical formulas of time for the divinely-awarded punishment of the guilt alike of Israel and of Judah commends itself. For the number 390 in reference to Israel, Kliefoth, by comparing Deu 25:3 with 2Co 11:24, in accordance with the number of the ten tribes, arrives at 10 39 years of punishment as just so many strokes of divine chastisement; and for Judah, on the other hand, as he does not treat it as two tribes, by a fair adjustment he arrives at the highest legal number of just 40 strokes, i.e. years. What Keil remarks in opposition to this view may be said, but is less decisive than the certainly surprising character of such a mode of reckoning for the prophetic symbolism of an Ezekiel. Klief. has been driven to his ingenious attempt at interpretation, because the number 390 baffled every other interpretation. But this number also, which stands for Israel, can claim no peculiar symbolism for itself. The ten tribes, as Klief. himself calls them torn off branches, atoms of a nation, have, in view of the longer historical duration of their exile, as well as by reason of their greater liability to punishment, only in general a claim to be more heavily punished. In particular, they do not come into consideration as regards the siege in our verses which applies to Jerusalem, nor in any other way, save that the national prophetic spirit must include them in its conception of collective Israel, for which Judah with Jerusalem is the title. With such a historical meaning also for Judah, with which also the right side of the prophet standing for it corresponds, one need not be stumbled with Kliefoth, although the number 390 should be in itself quite meaningless. It is the same as with the left side of Ezekiel, so quite peculiarly taking the lead in Eze 4:4-5, for this reason only, because his misery as an exile, long ago begun, and already entered upon in part by Judah likewise, is fitted to exhibit before the eyes of the remnant of Judah what will not be wanting to them just as visibly. For the symbolism the number 40, which is applied to Judah, is the determining element. The relation of the 40 to 390 may be similar to the case in which Bhr (2. p. 491) does not allow the numbers 33 and 66 as such to come into consideration, but only in their connection with 7 and 14, bringing them up to 40 and 80. As respects the number 40 itself, Bhr says convincingly, according to it, almost universally, such periods are fixed as bring with them a state of more or less constraint and oppression, and yet somehow at the same time a state having a bearing on religious affairs. Keil is right in basing the symbolical meaning of a definite term of divine visitation not simply on the 40 years leading of the people through the wilderness (Numbers 14), which properly amounted to 38 years only, but on the earlier passage Gen 7:12; Gen 7:17 Comp., in order to determine the meaning of the number 40, Exo 34:28 (Deuteronomy 9); 1Ki 19:8; Jon 3:4; Matthew 4. As in this way the 40 for Judah, which alone properly came under consideration, threw light on the 390, the summing up might be let alone; with some reflection it was done, as a matter of course, and this all the more that the number 390 in itself must of necessity appear meaningless. The possible connection with the actual period of the siege of Jerusalem, or a portion of it (comp. on Eze 4:9), may be regarded as a subordinate reference. The sufferings of the siege will, in the general sense of severe constraint, certainly continue during the whole exile also, etc. (Ew.) The addition of 390 and 40 gives (according to Exo 12:40) the period of sojourn of the children of Israel in Egypt, 430 years, significant for all after periods of the nation, on account of the parallel of this period with the exile (Introd. p. 19), and in the law even (Deu 28:68), as well as in Eze 9:3; Eze 9:6; Eze 8:13, brought into significant prominence. That the sojourn in Egypt, which sprang from quite a different cause, suits badly as a type for a period of punishment (Klief.), cannot accordingly be maintained. Comp. besides, Gen 15:13 (Act 7:6), where we have it in round numbers! The period of the first heathen tyranny over the people of Jehovah repeats itself in the history of the nation: the old, everlastingly memorable time becomes to the seerhimself already living amid heathen surroundingsa type of the oppressions rushing in anew upon them with irresistible violence; hence the punishment of the exile is intensified by the circumstance that it appears as the antitype of the ancient 430 years Egyptian bondage (Hv.). But here Klief. is right, when, against a special reference of the 40 years for Judah to the 40 years leading of the people collectively through the wilderness (for which Hv. points to Eze 20:13 sqq., 23 sqq., 35, 36), he raises the objection, that in this way another occurrence lying outside the 430 years is drawn in, while the 40 years must certainly lie within the 430. We must therefore either abide by the general symbolical character of the number 40, or like Keil, who very ingeniously draws attention to the circumstance, that the last 40 years of the Egyptian bondage furnished a reason for a division of the 430 into 390 and 40, find again in the 40 the 40 years of his exile which Moses spent in Midian. Comp. Exo 7:7 with Act 7:23; Act 7:30not as Keil, Exo 2:113. 10; Act 7:23-30. These 40 years, remarks Keil, were not only for Moses a season of testing and purification for his future calling, but doubtless for the Israelites also the period of their severest oppression by the Egyptians, and in this respect quite appropriate as a type for the future period of Judahs punishment; so that as Israel in Egypt lost in Moses her helper and protector, so now Judah was to lose her king, and to be given up to the tyranny of the heathen world-power. [See Additional Note at the close of the Exegetical Remarks.W. F.] Instead of the Kethib (elsewhere only in 2Ch 3:17) we must read, with the Qeri, .Comp. on Eze 4:5.The suffix in refers to . Hengst., who takes as=for just as many days (Klief., Keil: for the number of, for a number of), translates: so that for every day there comes a year, I give it thee. [The 190 of the Sept. for the whole, and 40 for Judah, Hvernick explains to himself by the bringing in of another type, viz. the deluge, Gen 7:24; Gen 7:12. They read Exo 12:40 differently from the Hebrew text. Hitzig makes them reckon their 150 from the year 738 to 588.]
By means of Eze 4:7 our section goes back upon the first (Eze 4:3), and harmonizes the two symbolical actions. Inasmuch as the prophet represented the people before, and not so much Jerusalem, he can in representing Jehovah set his face toward the siege of Jerusalem (viz. as that was to be represented in Eze 4:1-3), fixedly, sharply, as an enemy. The bared arm,(Isa 52:10) as of a warrior, for the purpose of fighting, stripping it of the garment up to the shoulder,according to Raschi, prefiguring Nebuchadnezzar, is at the same time the free arm of the prophet, who is lying upon the other. As it must be the right arm for the warlike object in view, we shall have (as against Hitz.) to think of the 390 days in Eze 4:4-5, during which Ezekiel lies upon the left side, with which Eze 4:8 also agrees. The arm outstretched in the same direction strengthens as well as gives effect to the permanence of the look; if it were to be understood as occasionally lifted up, then the , which is certainly usual elsewhere also in the case of threatening announcements, would be explained still more definitely.In accordance with Eze 3:25, the expositors understand the prophesying as not so much orally in words, but virtually by means of this very symbolical acting. Comp. however, on Eze 5:5 sqq.
Eze 4:8. in contrast with , Eze 3:25; there in order to move him along, here in order to make him fast. The bands are not the same as there; but whereas those bands of men do not make the prophet obedient to them, a slave to their will, the bands here, on the other hand, which God throws over him, answer their purpose of fixing him according to Gods will. The outward literal bands become in the divine speech a figurative expression for the divine power which will hold him down, and at the same time (Klief.) make him bear it with patience. [According to Hv., a new element is introduced by ; the prophet, in a vivid manner, is placed in the condition of the besieged. According to Calv.: indicating the stability and firmness of the divine decree.]The turning which is hindered in such wise is that from the left to the right side, onwards till the accomplishment of the days of his besieging; so that he has to represent the siege of the city, which may in this way be specified as lasting 390 days (comp. on Eze 4:6-7), unless what follows was intended to suggest a still more special reference. [Klief. refers Eze 4:7-8 to the whole period of 430 days; Hitz. refers the prophesying to the 40 days merely.]
Eze 4:9-17.The Third Sign.
Eze 4:9. A new charge, as in Eze 4:4; a still more detailed amplification, now especially of the outward condition; a third symbolic action, by which also provision is made for the sustenance of Ezekiel while the above described state of affairs lasts; and thus in connection with it. A representation of the people. If already in Eze 4:8 the state of restraint of the besieged (Hengst.) were thought of, then an immediate transition would be made from this more general calamity to the more special want of sustenance., a Chaldaic plural; instead of , wheat in grains (in the sing especially wheat on the stalk, in the field). Hengst.: as wheat is the usual means of sustenance among the exiles, the Chaldaic form pushes itself forward. Manifestly from a better time (Hv.: descending from what is better to what is worse and worse); for now there follows what,however good and in part delicious the ingredients in themselves are,when baked into bread, as is the case here, is prison-bread,barley in grains, 1Ki 4:28 (Jdg 7:13; 2Ki 4:42; Joh 6:9), beans as well as lentils, a favourite dish (Gen 25:34), of the latter of which down to the present day the poor in Egypt, in time of dearth, make use as food; millet (from , to swell in water, or from the dark colour, allied with , grain), yielding a bad kind of bread; and fitches, spelt (Exo 9:32), as being one of the poorest sorts of grain, which produces a dry and not very nourishing kind of bread.The circumstance that Ezekiel is to take of all together does not indeed run counter to the law (Lev 19:19; Deu 22:9), but comes very near the prohibition, possibly indicating circumstances of a lawless character, where one is not so rigid. More expressly it is suggested in this way, that the besieged will in their distress be compelled to gather together everything that can possibly be turned into bread. ( .) This state of matters is represented yet more strongly by means of the one vessel, which shows that of each separate sort not much more is to be had (Eze 4:10).The length of time (= as many days as there are) is given definitely as 390 days. It is therefore inadmissible, with Keil, to get rid of this clear and definite statement by the supposition that the greater number merely is given (Prado), and that the 40 days are to be understood with the rest, but (Ewald) are omitted for brevitys sake (in the case of Ezekiel!!). It is conceivable that for 390 days exactly the famine would make itself specially felt. (2Ki 25:3; Lam 2:20; Lam 4:9-10.) At all events, the prophet has to calculate his prison-fare for 390 days, for so many days is he to eat it. (390 loaves, Jer.) is accordingly his left side (Eze 4:5), before he turned to the right one. Comp. on Eze 4:7-8. Klief. is right as against the including of the 40 days in the 390, not, however, in the extended application which he asserts for these 390 days, viz. on to Eze 4:17, as will soon appear. It is a very good remark of Klief., that the prophet was not altogether prohibited from letting service be rendered to him.
Additional Note on Eze 4:9
[At Eze 4:9, he is ordered to make bread according to the number of the days that he should lie upon his side; three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof. Here the 40 days are left out, although during them also he was to lie upon his sidenot, as commentators generally, and still also Hvernick, suppose, from the first period being by much the larger of the two, and as such standing for the whole; but to keep the reference clear to the distinctive character of the wilderness-period, which was the point chiefly to be had in view by the Jewish exiles. The eating of polluted bread as a symbol, properly implied a constrained residence in a Gentile countryan unclean region; hence, in the explanation given of the symbol at Eze 4:13, it is declared of the house of Israel, that they shall eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles. But in the wilderness Israel stood quite separate from the Gentiles, though still under penal treatment, and in a sense still connected with Egypt (hence the wilderness of Egypt, Eze 20:36); and so they who were in a manner to return to that state again were merely to eat bread by weight, and with care, and drink water by measure, and in desolateness: a state of chastisement and trouble, but not by any means so heathen-like, so depressed and helpless, as the other.Fairbairns Ezekiel.W. F.]
Eze 4:10. His food is this bad mixed food (Ewald), not the definite portion which he will have to eat (Keil), for it is defined as portions only by what follows. Ezekiel is to have to eat, not as much as he likes, but, as usually happens in a time of scarcity during sieges, by weight (Eze 4:16). 20 shekels (shekel, what is weighed, hence a definite weight, just as mishkol is weight in general)according to Ewald, about 20 ounces; according to Keil, 2223 ounces of bread; according to Philippson, equivalent to 400 beans in weight (Lev 26:26). Although in those warmer countries a man needs less than in our climate, yet here it is at most the half of what is usually necessary that is specified for each day. The definition from time to time strengthens the daily element, as distinguished from the hunger which is continually making itself known, never satisfied; he will not be at liberty to give heed to this latter, but will have to consider the time, that he has only 20 shekels for each day, henceseldom, at long intervals, sparingly! [Keil supposes: at the different hours of the daily meal time. He makes Ezekiel provide himself with a store of grain and legumes, and prepare his bread daily therefrom. Precisely so Klief., who brings in, besides, the pan from Eze 4:3 for the purpose.] And as the food is by weight, so the drinkthe water is by measure.
Eze 4:11 (Eze 4:16). A whole hin is reckoned by the Rabbins at 72 egg-shellfuls; hence one-sixth the same as two logs 12 egg-shells. Too much for dying, too little for living. As in this way food and drink are specified for the 390 days, the idea readily suggests itself, with Grotius and others, of referring Eze 4:12 to the 40 days that still remain. The express mention of the number was not necessary here, because its symbolism (comp. on Eze 4:5-6) in general sways the whole, and because in particular it is, of course, understood as the residue after the 390 had been so expressly made prominent (Eze 4:9). The description may the more readily dispense with the number, as from the facts of the ease it becomes sufficiently clear, on the one hand, by means of the new element of uncleanness, especially after the divine explanation which immediately follows in Eze 4:13, and, on the other hand, by means of that freer movement on the part of the prophet which is demanded by Eze 4:12. The 40 certainly symbolizes (comp. on Eze 4:4-6) chiefly the exile among the heathen, as it was to begin for Judah after the taking of besieged Jerusalem. Hengst. excellently remarks: the barley cake here has nothing at all to do with the pot in Eze 4:9; that is gone. Ewald finds in it an exceptional sort of thing, as if for a feast; certainly too much, and not in accordance with the character of the period of exile. , the warm cake of bread baked in the hot ashes, just as is usual down even to the present day in eastern lands, especially on journeys, is distinguished as something more common, what is more in order, from the preceding unusual and extraordinary mixed food. The poor standing of exiles causes it to be of barley (comp. Eze 4:9), unless such cakes baked in ashes were as a rule of barley, of which Keil has by no means proved the contrary, as against Hitzig. [Keil, Hitzig, and others translate predicatively: as a barley cake, prepared in that manner, shalt thou eat it. (Is the suffix neuter? is it to be referred to in Eze 4:10?)] Since the important thing here, as regards the sense, is merely the emphasizing of the uncleanness of the food, and since the use of dry animal dung as fuel (Eze 4:15) is at least nothing unusual in the East, was the strong term for it. As fuel (comp. for , ver Ezekiel 15 : ), unlike Isa 36:12, it has nothing to do with the siege, beyond which, as regards the symbol, we have now come, as if i were pointing to a scarcity of wood; but at most, it refers to the harassing, immured condition of Ezekiel in his own house. Filth and misery round about on every side: what an overwhelmingly vivid sermon for his countrymen this situation before their eyes! Comp. besides, Deu 23:12-14. from , a technical word for , either: to make round, to curve, to bend, in reference to the form of these cakes, or: because they were surrounded with hot ashes. (Sept.: .)
Eze 4:13. The divine interpretation, which is immediately annexed to this quite extraordinary demand, and just because it is so, lays stress (for the reference is not to the siege, but it is already the exile that is spoken of), not on the difficulty as to fuel, but on its uncleanness, and that not so much in a Levitical as in a moral point of view, as judged by the universal human instinct of decency. Mans dung signifies the profane sojourn in the heathen world in general with its idols (!). Comp. Eze 9:3. The prophet raises his objectionin Eze 4:14in the sense: if I have never eaten that which is unclean according to the law of Israel, how should I have anything to do with a thing unclean generally! (Grot.), an exclamation of astonishment, fear, horror. My soulnot so much as: I myself; it expresses rather the living consciousness of the prophet in his feelings, alike as to his antipathies and sympathies (Mat 26:38). A lively expression of feeling, especially characteristic of a priest! Comp. as to the subject-matter, Deu 14:21; Exo 22:31; Act 10:14; Act 11:8; Dan 1:8., according to Ges.: something made fetid, stinking; hence, on the one hand: unpalatable, on the other: forbidden to be used by the laws of food, something abominable, disgusting, or: something rejected, worthy of rejection (Lev 7:18); also without , Isa 65:4. According to Hv.: especially characterizing the priest, inasmuch as in the case of the sacrificial meals flesh left over till the third day was reckoned , Lev 19:7. God makes the concession to him
Eze 4:15with , corresponding to his , of cows dung (Kethib: , Qeri: ), like camels dunga very common, odourless fuel. The objection and concession (Hav.: an impressive episode) give a distinctness of their own to the matter in hand; and thereafter Eze 4:16 returns to the beginning, not merely of this third symbolical action (Eze 4:9 sqq.), but, in winding up, of the whole chapter (Eze 4:1 sqq.), and in this way to what is most closely impending, viz. to the siege of Jerusalem. And to this corresponds in point of form the , and, as regards the subject-matter, the participial construction , of what is as it were shown in the act of being broken in pieces.As in Isa 3:1 bread and also water are named as that which supports (Delitzsch), or more exactly, that on which one supports himself, so here the staff of bread, since bread supports, i.e. nourishes, strengthens, refreshes the heart of man, Psa 104:15; Gen 18:5; Jdg 19:5; Lev 26:26. This staff being broken on which the earthly man leans, he falls into the dust of death. Defined more exactly, and, at the same time, set forth vividly by means of . Comp. Eze 4:10-11. strengthens , the anxiety about the means of subsistence (Mat 6:31-32) rising up into silent, speechless pain, caused by the impending starvation.
Eze 4:17. Either dependent on the principal thought in Eze 4:16 : in order that (Ewald), or, as this is limited to bread, dependent on the amplification of the same there: because.The brother also in Psa 49:7.In other respects, a quotation from Lev 26:39; Lam 2:12; Lam 2:19 (Luk 21:26).
Additional Note on Ch. 4.
[Jerusalem in a state of siege represents the covenant-people, as a whole, straitened and oppressed by the powers of this world, as the instruments of Gods just displeasure. And the prophet being appointed to bear, during its continuance, the iniquity of the people, with stinted and foul provisions, points in another form to the same visitation of evilonly with a more particular respect to the cause from which it was to spring, and the penal character it should wear. That the time specified should have been in all 430 years, denoted that the dealing was to form a kind of fresh Egyptian exile and bondage to the elements of the world; but much more so in the case of the one house than in that of the other. The house of Israel having cast off nearly all that was distinctive in the position and privileges of the covenant-people, they had consequently sunk into a condition of greatest danger, one bordering on heathen darkness and perditionnigh unto cursing. What they might expect was to be bruised and crushed to the dust, as if under the rod of Egypt. But Judah was not so far gone; she had the true priesthood to minister at her altars, and the house of David to rule by divine right over the heritage of God; so that her subjection to the powers of evil was only to be like the time of chastisement and trial in the wilderness, out of which she might again emerge into a state of peace and blessing. As the prophet also again declared, in a later prophecy, And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples (not the wilderness merely, but the wilderness of the peoples, to show that it was to be the same only in character as of old, but not in geographical position), and there will I plead with you face to face; like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord God (Eze 20:35-38). A new time of chastisement, but mingled, as of old, with mercy; severe and earnest dealing, but for a gracious resultthat they might be refined and purified, so as to become fit for enjoying the good which, as a redeemed people, was secured to them for a heritage of blessing. And if any hope remained for the other branch, the house of Israelif they were ever to escape from their state of Egyptian darkness and bondage, it must be by their going to join their brethren of Judah in the wilderness, and sharing in their peculiar treatment and prospects. On which account, it is not the whole of the 430 years of the Egypt-state that is appointed toward the house of Israel in the vision, but this shortened by the 40 years of the wilderness sojourn, to teach them that a way still lay open for their return to life, but only by their having the Egypt-state merged into that of the wilderness; in other words, by ceasing from their rank idolatries and open apostasy from the way of God, and coming to seek, along with Judah, through Gods covenant and ordinances, a restoration to righteousness and peace and blessing.
But why should the prophet, in thus announcing the future dealings of God, have thrown the delineation into so peculiar, so enigmatical a form? Why should he have presented it to the view as a returning again of the years of former generations? Not, certainly, on the principle of a bald and meagre literalism, as if he meant us to understand that the clock of Providence was actually to be turned back, and the identical ground trodden over again, the precise measures of time filled up anew, of which we read in the earlier history of the chosen race. He who would interpret in such a style the symbolical visions of an Ezekiel is incapable of entering into the rapt emotions of such a mind, and must necessarily flounder at every step. For here we have to do, not only with a lively and fervid spirit, which is ever breathing life, as it were, into the dead, but that spirit in a state of ecstatic elevation, in which the mind naturally served itself of the more remarkable facts and providences in the past; yet only as aids to the utterance of prophetic thoughtappropriate forms wherein to clothe the new things concerning Gods kingdom, that were through the Spirit imaging themselves to the prophets vision. And, indeed, the very imperfection that usually appears in the frame of such historical visions, as compared with the past realities,the partial mingling together here, for example, of the two great consecutive periods of past judgment and trial in the history of the covenant-people, so as to make the second begin before the first had ended,this very imperfection shows, as it was doubtless intended to do, that an exact reproduction of the past was not in the eye of the prophet, and that the nature of Gods contemplated designs, rather than any definite bounds and limits respecting them, were imaged under those ancient periods of tribulation in Egypt and the wilderness.
There were three reasons chiefly why the prophets in general, and this prophet in particular, might be often led to speak of the future under the form and image of the past. In the first place, as the meaning obviously did not lie upon the surface, it called for serious thought and inquiry regarding the purposes of God. A time of general backsliding and corruption is always a time of superficial thinking on spiritual things. And just as our Lord, by His parables, that partly veiled while they disclosed the truth of God, so the prophets, by their more profound and enigmatical discourses, sought to arouse the careless from their security, to awaken inquiry, and stir the depths of thought and feeling in the soul. It virtually said to them, You are in imminent peril; direct ordinary discourse no longer suits your case; bestir yourselves to look into the depths of things, otherwise the sleep of death shall overtake you. But this suggests another and, indeed, still deeper reason for such a mode of representation having been adopted; for such renewed exhibitions of the past were among the means specially chosen by God for the purpose of enforcing on mens notice the uniformity of His dealings, and teaching them to regard the providential facts of one age as substantial predictions of what are to be expected in another. It told men then, and it tells us now (only it was more peculiarly adapted to those who lived in ancient times, as the revelations they possessed consisted, much more than now, in the records of historyyet it tells all alike), that the forms alone are transitory in which divine truth and righteousness manifest themselves, while the principles embodied in these forms are eternal, and can never cease, amid all outward varieties, to be giving forth similar exhibitions of their life and power to those which have already appeared. The eye that can thus look through the shell into the kernel, may see the future things of Gods administration mirrored in the pastnot, indeed, the exact copy and image of what is to be, yet its essential character and necessary result. Even those very periods of bygone tribulation and chastisement, which the prophet here represents as coming to life again in his dayhave they not also a voice for other times? Are they not still reiterating their lessons, and perpetually renewing their existences, in the case of impenitent transgressors now, as well as formerly, in that of drooping exiles in the cities of the Medes, or on the banks of Chebar? One of these periodsthe sojourn in the wildernessthe Baptist still finds prolonging itself to the era of his own ministry. His word of stern expostulation and solemn warning makes itself heard as the voice of one crying in the wilderness; for he sees everywhere around him trackless deserts where ways of God need to be opened upelements of corruption working which require to be purged away by the searching application of divine righteousness, before the Canaan of Gods inheritance can be properly entered and enjoyed. And the lukewarm and fruitless professor stillso long as he cleaves to the ways of iniquity, and refuses to yield a hearty surrender to the will of Godwhat else is his condition? He is in bondage to the elements of the world, and therefore can have no part in that good inheritance which floweth with milk and honey. The doom of Heavens condemnation hangs suspended over his head; and if not averted by a timely submission to the righteousness of God, and a cordial entrance into the bond of the covenant, he shall infallibly perish in the wilderness of sin and death.Fairbairns Ezekiel, pp. 5761.W. F.]
DOCTRINAL REFLECTIONS
1. In the case of a prophet of Ezekiels peculiarity, it must be granted that the boundary between symbolic representation in mere forms of speech, and by means of action in real life, may be a movable one. Where, however, the prophet, just as in the case before us, is not to speak, but to be silent, what he relates as a series of facts can hardly be otherwise understood than as actually so. Preaching by means of things done as a mere form of speech is a contradiction in itself. He is to act as He who has sent him will also act. There is, in the first place, enough of words. And then it would perhaps be difficult to reconcile with the honesty and uprightness of the prophet, which, however, Hengst. maintains, what he asserts of his symbolical actions, that they are only pictures executed in a lively manner, calculated to make an indelible impression on the imagination. For example, Eze 4:14-15. [But see Note on Eze 4:1-3.W. F.]
2. If any one reads what Ezekiel reports here, it will perhaps appear to him like a childish play, which it would also be, if God had not commanded the prophet to make it so. From this we may learn that the sacraments also are distinguished from empty illusions by means of the word of God alone. The authority of God for them is the mark of distinction, by which the sacraments are singled out, and have their meaning. It is not the outward appearance, but the Author that is to be looked at. So also the whole system of divine worship under the law differed almost in no respect from the ceremonies of the heathen; yea, these latter brought their sacrifices, and that even with the greatest possible pomp; but Israel had Gods command and promise on their side (Calv.).
3. The sinner will not get off so easily before God, however lightly he may appear to deal with his sin before men, and before the tribunal of his own conscience. Sin lies as guilt upon mans conscience, as a burdensome consciousness that one deserves punishment, has to expect punishment. Between the past, when the sin was committed, and the future, when punishment is deservedly to be expected, guilt is the painful, burdensome present of the sinner. Guilt is an abiding thing, even if punishment is a past thing. 5. As Ewald already points out, the 40 years for Judah are parallel with the 70 years of the Babylonian exile in Jeremiah. What the latter are in a predominantly numerical point of view, the 40 of Ezekiel are in a purely symbolical.
6. Hvernick, in connection with the episode of Eze 4:14-15, mentions the case of Daniel, who in deepest sorrow must eat the bread of affliction, and pine away in grief over the sins of his people, but an angel of God comes also, and comforts and strengthens him. So likewise here, as he says, Jehovah alleviates the punishment. The protest of Ezekiel not less closely resembles the of the Son of man in Gethsemane, and the strengthening by an angel from heaven.
7. The circumstance that they were to eat their bread polluted among the heathen, pointed at the same time, according to Cocc., to the entire want of the means of cleansing through sacrifice Hos 9:4). The land of the heathen far from the temple was an unclean land, because there was no possibility of cleansing according to the law of the Sanctifier of Israel.
HOMILETIC HINTS
Eze 4:1. Similar symbolic actions we find performed by Christ also, who places a child in the midst of His disciples, washes their feet, etc. And so God wishes here also to say to Israel: Thou wilt not hear; open thine eyes at least! (H. H.)God sometimes demands things which appear to men foolish, nay, silly. But in Gods foolishness there is wisdom, while in all the wisdom of men there is mere foolishness in the end, 1Co 1:25.Elisha in 2 Kings 13 causes bow and arrows to be brought; Isaiah in Ezekiel 20 walks barefoot; Jeremiah in Ezekiel 27 wears a yoke, bonds, etc. The apostles shake the dust off their feet (Matthew 10), shake their clothes (Act 18:6); Agabus binds Paul with his girdle (Acts 21). Let us recal to mind the bundle of arrows wherewith that heathen preached concord to his sons (L. L.).Most of all art thou besieged, when thou supposest that thou art not at all besieged. There is a security of the Christian which is storm; for, according to Job, mans life upon earth is a warfare (Jer.).Besieged Jerusalem is the soul in its sins, against which all the works of the divine righteousness are directed; but as the unburnt brick is easily dissolved in pieces by water, so also the soul in its sins by the tears of repentance (a L.).
Eze 4:2. Titus confessed of the second destruction of Jerusalem, that the city was conquered more by the angry Deity than by means of the Roman weapons.Temptation may be called a spiritual siege (Stck.).The whole world round about us is, in the main, a siege of the soul; in the world we have tribulation. If only the iron pan does not stand between us and God! For if God be for us, who can be against us? But, on the other hand, if God must be against us, according to the testimony of our own conscience, what could peace even with all men help us!
Eze 4:3. Preachers frequently appear to their hearers as their enemies, because they proclaim to them their ruin, and depict the punishment of their sin vividly before their eyes; and yet they do not wish their ruin, but the salvation of their souls (Stck.).The Jews might shake their heads and thrust out their tongues, but this fact they could not alter, that it was a sign for Israel (Calv.).To him who has his soul before his eyes, everything, even if it is not said so expressly as here, may be a sign.All things must, and in fact do, work for good to those who love God.
Eze 4:4 sqq. Preachers are to grudge no trouble and inconvenience for the best interests of their hearers, 1Th 2:8-9 (St.).God does not always punish on the spot, when men deserve it with their sins (O.).Preachers are to preach not merely with the word, but by their example, in doing as well as in leaving undone, and also in suffering.Gods patience and His servants patience is a fine sermon.We, for the most part, reckon up only our days of sorrow, but for our days of joy, and especially for our days of sin, we have neither reckoning nor remembrance (Stck.).
Eze 4:7. How much longing, how much pain, but what righteousness also, lay in this look toward Jerusalem!A prelude on Ezekiels part to Luk 19:41 sqq., but also a contrasthere the uncovered arm, there the weeping eyes of Jesus.Ah! if now Jerusalem and we who are in it were to judge ourselves, and were to look upon our sins and vices as our worst enemies, and to attack them; then it would not be necessary for God with those who are His to take up a position against us as enemies (B. B.).
Eze 4:8. Diseases and afflictions of every kind are such bands, wherewith God binds His own, and not merely the ungodly (Stck.).And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit, says Paul in Acts 20.Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us, is a well known watchword of those who are mighty according to the flesh in this world.We bind ourselves with our sins, and Satan knows how to hold us fast in these bands of our own (Stck.).
Eze 4:9 sqq. So the bread of misery is ever still of many sorts, and yet not much for each day.But our days also for the bread of misery are measured and numbered, and beyond them it is not to last (B. B.).Want of bread is to be endured, for man lives not by bread alone; but the want of God no man ought to be able to endure, not even for a single instant; and yet how many become old and grey without hunger on this account!
Eze 4:10-11. The high importance of bread and water in a bodily and spiritual point of view; and yet, for the most part, we are able to think only of prisoners in connection with bread and water.
Eze 4:12. Nothing can be so loathsome to men as sin is to God (Stck.).But what else, pray, are those doing but eating dirt, who delight themselves in earthly things, and do everything for the sake of the belly or the flesh? (B. B.)And in what is the daily intellectual food of so very many men, consisting as it does of newspapers and pamphlets, of social intercourse and conversationin what is it baked? Paul reckoned everything but dung for Christ, Philippians 3.
Eze 4:13. Along with the Jews, all those, even at the present day, are eating defiled bread, who, like them, are despising the bread of life which came down from heaven.
Eze 4:14. He who must be silent to men, may yet open heart and mouth to his God.There is full permission to ask God for the alleviation of the cross (O.).
Eze 4:15. God is and remains gracious even in the midst of wrath; if He does not take the cross of His children entirely away, yet He alleviates it (Cr.).
Eze 4:16 sq. No one has less thought of it than the rich, that there was to be a possibility of the want becoming so great in their case, that bread and water were so easily to fail them, even although a famine should happen. But the rich man experienced it even in hell, and could not get a drop of water, however much he wished to have it (B. B.).
CONTENTS
In this Chapter the Prophet is engaged to instruct the people; and which he doth under the similitude of a siege, to show the state of their captivity.
There is somewhat very striking in the ministry of Ezekiel, different from that of other Prophets for the most part. He was not only to deliver God’s truths by word of mouth: but also to represent by lively images the signification. Jeremiah wore a yoke of wood, constantly about him, in order to be a living testimony of the people’s bondage; but Ezekiel constantly preached by type, in a great variety of ways.
The Ministry of Symbolism
Eze 4 In the fourth chapter there begins a series of symbols utterly impossible of modern interpretation. The prophet is commanded to take a tile, and portray upon it the city of Jerusalem, and to conduct certain military operations against that city; then he is commanded to take an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between himself and the city; having done so he is to lay siege against Jerusalem. Afterwards he is commanded to lie upon his left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: this symbolic act is to be followed by lying upon his right side, in signification of burning the iniquity of the house of Judah forty years. He is afterwards commanded to take wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and fitches, and put them into one vessel, and to make bread thereof, according to the number of days he was to lie upon his side; certain instructions are then given regarding the wheat, and the way in which he is to eat it; and water, and the way in which he is to drink it: and so the instruction proceeds from stage to stage, full of what to us, and probably was to Ezekiel himself, dark image and troubled symbol. This ministry of symbolism has still a place in all progressive civilisation. Every age, of course, necessitates its own emblems and types, its own apocalypse of wonders and signs, but the meaning of the whole is that God has yet something to be revealed which cannot at the moment be expressed in plain language. If we could see into the inner meaning of many of the controversies in which we are engaged, we should see there many a divinely drawn symbol, curious outlines of thought, parables not yet ripe enough for words. The whole year, from spring to winter, is a long parable, a curious symbol, a marvellous revelation of divine purpose: he that hath eyes to see, let him see; he that hath ears to hear, let him hear. The difficulty of the prophet begins precisely at this point, forasmuch as he has the genius that can read interior thought, and can forecast purpose before it has taken the shape of words: hence he is a madman, a fanatic, a loose-minded person, or at best he is credited with being an eccentric genius, who is always seeing something that nobody else can see, and always talking in a style which to commonplace observers is inflated, bombastic, or intensely conceited and affected. Prophets always go up and down the ages as madmen. It must have been an awful thing to have been a prophet of the Lord, to have secrets entrusted to the heart which were to be put into human language, to have symbolism set before the eye which was to be translated into the common language of the day.
How manifold is human life! How innumerable are the workers who are toiling at the evolution of the divine purpose in things! One man can understand nothing but what he calls bare facts and hard realities; he has only a hand to handle, he has not the interior touch that can feel things ere yet they have taken shape. Another is always on the outlook for what pleases the eye; he delights in form and colour and symmetry, and glows almost with thankfulness as he beholds the shapeliness of things, and traces in them a subtle geometry. Another man gets behind all this, and hears voices, and sees sights excluded from the natural senses; he looks upon symbolism, upon the ministry of suggestion and dream and vision; he sees best in the darkness; the night is his day; in the great cloud he sees the ever-working God, and in the infinite stillness of religions solitude he hears, rather in echoes than in words, what he is called upon to tell the age in which he lives. Here again his difficulty increases, for although he can see with perfect plainness men, and can understand quite intelligibly all the mysteries which pass before his imagination and before his spiritual eyes, yet he has to find words that will fit the new and exciting occasion; and there are no fit words, so sometimes he is driven to make a language of his own, and hence we come upon strangeness of expression, eccentricity of thought, weirdness in quest and sympathy, a most marvellous and tumultuous life; a great struggle after rhythm and rest and fullest disclosure of inner realities, often ending in bitter disappointment, so that the prophet’s eloquence dissolves in tears, and the man who thought he had a glorious message to deliver is broken down in humiliation when he hears the poor thunder of his own inadequate articulation. He has his “tile” and his iron pan; he lays upon his left side, and upon his right side; he takes unto him wheat and barley, beans and lentils; he weighs out his bread, and measures out his water, and bakes “barley cakes” by a curious manufacture; and yet when it is all over he cannot tell to others in delicate enough language, or with sufficiency of illustration, what he knows to be a divine and eternal word.
In the fifth chapter Ezekiel is commanded to take a sharp knife, a barber’s razor, and to cause it to pass upon his head and upon his beard; then he is to take balances to weigh and divide the hair; he has to burn with fire a third part in the midst of the city, when the days of the siege are fulfilled; then he is to take another third part, and smite it about with a knife, and the final third part he is to scatter in the wind; and so the new commission rolls on like a series of wind-driven clouds, now full of terror, now lighted up with beauty, now significant of great change and judgment and progress. The Lord is determined that the small remnant of his people left after the great Captivity should be regarded with favour, yet even some of these were to perish to be cast into the midst of the fire. The result of the whole was the utter cleansing of Judaea, the utter banishment of the chosen people. Here the prophet is allowed to rest awhile. He has seen strange things, and heard strange voices, and now for a little time he is permitted to descend to commonplace thought and utterance. He will hardly know himself, coming out of this wonder and perilous excitement. This is the action of God in training his ministers and prophets. He takes them to great heights, shows them scenes of transfiguration, delights their vision, excites their wonder to the point of rapture, thrills them with a consciousness of the larger possibilities of life, and then almost suddenly he brings them down the hill to talk their mother tongue, and do the ordinary business of men.
How much our prophets endure on our account! There is a sense in which the prophet is the priest of his age, for on account of that age he suffers much: he is the instrument chosen of God through whom to express divine thoughts and commands; he is both the divinely chosen instrument and the servant who is to carry out his own messages in practical life. Who can tell all he knows? Who has language that will go with him through all the winding mazes of his highest thought? This is true of our common intellectual life, apart from special excitements and inspirations. We suppose ourselves to be writing our whole mind, yet, as we have often said, the only thing that is most certain is, that we have not yet begun to express our deepest thoughts. When the spirit of the Lord seizes us, and causes cur whole nature to enter into a state enthusiastic, rapturous, and almost bodiless, we cannot come back and tell the experience through which we have passed. We blunder, we hesitate, we correct ourselves, we go in quest of larger and truer words, and cannot find them, and then we seek to eke out our meaning by invented phrases, and sometimes by perverted and tortured language. There is no room on the earth for the stars. The poor little earth is only large enough to hold a few flowers, and even these flowers overflow with poetic meaning, and prophetic symbol, and instructive suggestion. The stars we must keep high up in heaven, and can only see a little twinkling and gleaming of them now and then. They are so distant we cannot measure their fulness, and yet we are assured of their majesty and splendour. So it is with our thinking: we have a few flower-words that we can make use of, a few things that we can say in tolerably plain language; yet how few they are! On the other hand, we have star-thoughts, great planetary contemplations, marvellous impressions regarding the vastness of things, and the immanence of God in his universe: here our eloquence breaks down, and we betake ourselves to the higher eloquence of hesitation, self-correction, and agony of endeavour, not always ending fruitlessly, but often the more fruitful in that it apparently fails in its great purpose. There are failures that are grand. Some defeats are assurances of future victories.
At the fifth verse of the fifth chapter there is quite a change of communication. Instead of high prophetic language we have comparative simplicity and directness, until another vision begins with the eighth chapter. The Lord brings a great moral charge against Jerusalem; he says:
“I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her. And she hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that are round about her: for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them” ( Eze 5:5-6 ).
“Set in the midst of the nations”: Egypt and Ethiopia on the south; the Hittites, the Syrians, and Assyrians, from time to time, on the north; on the coast, southern and northern, were the Philistines and the Phoenicians; whilst on the deserts of the east, and in the near south, were the Ishmaelites going to and fro, and keeping up intercourse with all the nations. It is thought that Solomon himself established commercial relations with the nations of India. So situated, what opportunities Israel had of presenting the aspect of a people well instructed in the divine law, and sweetly obedient to the divine will and purpose; how without so much as uttering one word of mere exhortation she might have preached with the eloquence of unimpeachable consistency and generous beneficence: Jerusalem was called upon to be the great expositor of monotheism in the ancient world. Yet how wondrously was Jerusalem separated by natural barriers from all other lands or nations by deserts, by the sea on the west, by the northern mountains; how in this geographical solitude Israel might have cultivated to perfection the worship of the one true God! When the Israelites failed in this high purpose they seemed to dry up the sea, and create a high-road through the desert, and break down the mountains, that they might not only allow, but almost invite, the surrounding nations to come in and reduce them to subjection, making a prey of the very treasure of God’s heart. While the judges judged Israel, Israel was continually falling under the power of some of the petty tribes on the confines of the Holy Land, When the empire of Solomon was broken up, in consequence of the sins of the people, the Israelites had no defence against the powerful nations that assailed them: Judaea and Chaldaea made sport of the Israelites. How is the fine gold become dim! how is the giant of God reduced to the feebleness of childhood! how are the mighty fallen! All this apostasy was moral; not because the surrounding nations had better arms, or better military training, did Israel fail in the war, but because Israel had wickedly resisted divine judgment. Immortality is always weakness. When conscience ceases to take part in the battle of life, the battle has already ended in ruin.
What is true of the Israelites is true of all other peoples; and what is true of peoples in their collective capacity is true of the individual man: he goes up or down according to his moral temperament, his moral discipline, his moral purpose in life. How tremendous is the judgment of God as revealed in such words as these:
“Wherefore, as I live, saith the Lord God; Surely, because thou hast defiled my sanctuary with all thy detestable things, and with all thine abominations, therefore will I also diminish thee; neither shall mine eye spare, neither will I have any pity. A third part of thee shall die with the pestilence, and with famine shall they be consumed in the midst of thee: and a third part shall fall by the sword round about thee; and I will scatter a third part into all the winds, and I will draw out a sword after them” ( Eze 5:11-12 ).
And so the judgment passes on from thunder to thunder, and the last grand note of that judgment-thunder is, “I the Lord have spoken it.” It was impossible for Ezekiel to invent all these moral judgments. We feel that they must have come up from eternity, because they express what never entered into the heart of man to conceive concerning the proper desert and issue of sin. Hell itself is a revelation. Make of that part of the invisible state what we may, it surely never entered into the heart of man to invent it. We may have perverted the idea; by our foolish exaggerations we may have distorted the divine revelation; but the great central fact of judgment, of burning indignation, of unquenchable anger against sin, we must always recognise as one of the unchangeable realities of true religion. It is clear that all judgment was not future in the Old Testament. There was an immediate degradation, and an immediate infliction of tremendous penalty. “I will make thee waste, and a reproach among the nations that are round about thee, in the sight of all that pass by”; “I shall send upon them the evil arrows of famine”; “I will increase the famine upon you, and will break your staff of bread”; “So will I send upon you famine and evil beasts, and they shall bereave thee; and pestilence and blood shall pass through thee; and I will bring the sword upon thee.” These were immediate visitations. In the New Testament we are supposed to come upon a prediction rather than a realised judgment. What we have to suffer for our sins is supposed to be in the future, whilst here we may enjoy ourselves in the very act of drinking goblets of iniquity, and sitting down to partake of the festivities of darkness. All this is an error on our part. Under the New Testament dispensation, as under the Old, judgment is immediate, penalty is now impending, our very next step may be into a burning pit They allegorise who postpone judgment, not they who immediately feel it and respond to it penitentially. Every serpent that bites the hedge-breaker is but a hint of the still greater punishment that awaits us when all life is looked at by a judicial eye and pronounced upon by a judicial voice. Blessed are they who take counsel of immediate dispensations and providences, and who have the spiritual eye that in all these can see symbols of something infinitely more appalling. The Lord does not fail to set forth the great truth that the bread and the water are his, and that in his hands are all the issues of the immediate time. It is not man that makes the sword; it is the Lord that fashions it: it is not a mere failure in the arrangement of accidents that ends in physical disaster; it is a plan of the Most High by which he brings us to religious considerateness, to penitence, to self-renunciation, and to that high state of being which is best expressed by the word Faith.
Prayer
Almighty God, we bless thee for thy house. The tabernacle of God is with men upon the earth. Where there is no tabernacle thou art thyself the more accessible; thou art as a sanctuary in the wilderness, thou art a pavilion from the heat and from the storm. We thank thee that neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem alone shall men worship the Father; thou thyself art everywhere present to be adored and spoken to, and to receive our thanksgivings because of the multitudinousness of the blessings of thy right hand. May we find thee in the wilderness, and find thee in the city; at midnight do thou speak unto us in whispers, at midday do thou come to us with all the glory of light: wherever we are, whatever our estate or condition, let it please thy condescending love to visit us, and minister unto us, and comfort us with exceeding succour. Thou hast been with us all our lifetime; thou hast left no empty day upon all the record; specially hast thou been with us in the day of trouble; thou didst ask us; to come to thee on that dark day and tell thee all about the calamity and the sorrow of our life. Thou didst heal us and comfort us, and in renewed strength thou didst send us back to the vineyard and to the battlefield. We bless thee for thy Son Jesus, who told us all about thee and taught us to call thee Father. From the cradle to the Cross he was always the Christ, the Anointed One, the Bright One, the Centre of Light, the Fountain of Blessing, the Alpha and Omega, beyond whom there is no space, beyond whose duration there is no time. We thank thee for the cradle, for the Cross, for the crown of Christ. In Christ our souls begin their everlasting heaven. The Lord hear us when we cry for pardon, listen to us when we sue for help and added joy, and multiply his blessing upon us in the time of broken-heartedness. Amen.
XV
PROPHECIES ON THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM
Ezekiel 4-14
Jeremiah was preaching in Jerusalem while Ezekiel was preaching in a similar strain to the exiles in Babylon. Jeremiah found that the people thought that Jerusalem, the center of Jehovah worship, could not and would not be destroyed. Ezekiel found the same conditions in Babylon. In the time of Isaiah, when the Assyrians were close at hand, God protected them and swept away 185,000 of their army and saved Jerusalem with the Temple. Their confidence in the perpetuity of their city seemed to be fixed. So they did not believe their city, their Temple, and their country would be destroyed. “It is God’s nation, God’s people, and God’s Temple,” they said. Moreover, they had false prophets in Jerusalem, prophets who were preaching the safety of the city, also false prophets in Babylon among the exiles, preaching the same thing. They preached that the exiles should speedily return; that the power of Babylon would be destroyed. There was one lone man in Judah, and one lone man in Babylon, preaching the destruction of the nation. This gives us some idea of Ezekiel’s task, the tremendous task that he had, to make those people believe that their nation, their city and their Temple were going to be destroyed. In order to get them to believe that, he made use of all these symbols, metaphors, and other figures which we have in this great section. He made use of these symbols, or symbolic actions, to make his preaching more vivid and more impressive, and he began this series of symbolic actions about four and a half years before the city was surrounded by Nebuchadnezzar, about six years before it fell, for the siege lasted one and a half years.
The symbol of the siege of Jerusalem and its interpretation are found in Eze 4:1-3 . The great truth he wanted to impress upon them was that Jerusalem would be besieged and would be taken and destroyed; so he was commanded by Jehovah to take a tile, or a brick, a tablet in a plastic condition, and to draw thereon a picture of a city, representing mounds cast up against the city on every side, from which the enemy could shoot their arrows down into the city and at the defenders on the walls. He was also told to set a camp round about it representing the soldiers encamped; he was to place battering rams there. These were huge beams of wood with iron heads which were pushed with great force by a large number of men, and thus driven against the walls and would soon make great holes in them. Then he was told to take an iron pan and put that between himself and this miniature city to represent the force that was surrounding it, and as that iron pan was impenetrable, so this besieging force was impenetrable, hard, and relentless, and would inevitably take and destroy the city without mercy.
Then he was told to lie upon his left side as if a burden was upon him. He was to do this according to the number of the years of the iniquity of Israel. He was to be bound while lying thus on his left side and he was to remain in that position 390 days. Then he was to lie upon his right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days, representing the forty years of their iniquity; these, of course, are symbolic numbers in both cases. The commentators have been greatly baffled to figure out these periods which apply to Israel and Judah. The best explanation seems to be that of Hengstenberg who makes the 390 years refer to Israel’s sin of idolatry beginning with Jeroboam and going down to the final captivity; likewise, the forty years, to Judah’s iniquity beginning forty years prior to the same captivity. According to this reckoning Israel’s period of iniquity was much longer than that of Judah and this accords with the facts of their history.
The scarcity and pollution of their food during the siege and after is symbolized in Eze 4:9-17 . Ezekiel was to take wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, and spelt, various kinds of cheap grains that the very poorest of the people ate, mix them together and cook them on a fire made with the most disgusting and loathsome kind of fuel possible, and eat about twenty shekels per day and drink a little more than a pint of water. Twenty shekels would be probably about a pound of our bread, one pound of this cheap, coarse bread, and a little over a pint of water a day. His soul revolted at such loathsome fuel and he was promised a better kind of fuel used by very poor people at that time. This again is a literary symbolism, the idea being to bring before those people the fact that terrible scarcity was before them, great depredation, and almost starvation, and when they were carried into the various nations their food would be unclean and polluted and they would be compelled to eat this unclean food.
The fate of the population by the siege and their dispersion is symbolized in Eze 5:1-4 . Ezekiel was told to take a sword, make it as sharp as a barber’s razor, cut off the hair upon his head, take balances and divide it into three equal portions. Evidently Ezekiel must have resembled Elijah more than he did Elisha. A third part of it was to be put in the fire in the midst of the city; a third part, to be smitten with the sword round about, evidently hacking it to pieces; and a third part, to be scattered to the winds, and the sword was to go after it and hack it to pieces.
What is the meaning? One-third of the inhabitants of their beloved city should perish with famine and pestilence; one-third should be slain in the siege; the other third should be scattered among all the nations of the earth, and even this third the sword should pursue and nearly all of them should be cut off. These arc striking symbols, full of meaning. They must have had some effect upon the hearers.
The interpretation of the foregoing symbols, as given by the prophet in Eze 5:5-17 , is that this is Jerusalem. Eze 5:5 says: “I have set her in the midst of the nations, and countries are round about her.” The remainder of this section goes on to show how Judah had sinned, how she had revolted, how she had forsaken God, and Eze 5:8 says, “Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I, even I, am against thee; and I will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.” Verse Eze 5:10 : “Therefore the father shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments on thee; and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter unto all the winds . . . and will draw out a sword after them.” Verse Eze 5:13 : “Thus shall mine anger be accomplished . . . and I shall satisfy my fury upon them.”
The prophecies of Eze 6:1-7 ; Eze 6:11-14 are prophecies against the mountains of Israel, that is, the seats of idolatry. All the kings that sought to create a reformation among the people had to deal with the high places. Hezekiah removed many of them, and at last Josiah removed all of them. They were renewed in the reign of Jehoiachim and doubtless in the reign of Zedekiah. It was against these high places that the prophets had been uttering their denunciations for centuries. Ezekiel, from the plains of Babylon, looks across the vast distance and sees the mountaintops and the hills with their shrines and altars and idols and he utters his prophecies against them. In the latter part of Eze 6:3 he says, “I will destroy her high places,” and in Eze 6:5 he gives a terrible picture: “I will lay the dead bodies of the children of Israel before their idols; and I will scatter your bones around about your altars,” and then he pictures the destruction of the idolatrous symbols of worship.
But hope is held out to Israel. In Eze 6:8 is the gleam of hope through this awful picture of destruction: “Yet will I leave a remnant, in that ye shall have some that escape the sword among the nations, when ye shall be scattered through the countries.” And then he says that many of those scattered through the countries shall remember God and regent, verse Eze 6:9 : “And those of you that escape shall remember me among the nations whither they shall be carried captive,” and the last part of Eze 6:9 says, “And they shall loathe themselves in their own sight for the evils which they have committed in all their abominations.” There was hope for the people throughout the countries that some of them would survive. There was scarcely a ray of hope for the city that any should escape. So Ezekiel preaches the doctrine of the remnant as does Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, Jeremiah, and all the other prophets of this period.
Eze 7 is a lament, or dirge, over the downfall of the kingdom of Judah, and it is divided into four parts, thus:
1. The end is come upon the four corners of the land (Eze 7:1-4 )
2. The end is come upon the inhabitants of the land (Eze 7:5-9 )
3. The ruin is come unto all classes and is universal (Eze 7:10-13 )
4. The picture of the dissolution of the state (Eze 7:14-27 ) The theme of Eze 8 is, Israel’s many idolatries, which have profaned the Lord’s house and have caused him to withdraw from it. The date of this prophecy is fourteen months after the previous sections we have studied, in the sixth month, 591 B.C., which corresponds to our October.
Then the prophet sees what he calls the image of jealousy in the Temple (Eze 8:1-6 ). He sees a new vision of the Lord, and the one who sat above that firmament whose appearance was like unto fire, appears to Ezekiel again and, strange to say (we have to interpret this as a vision in symbol), took him by a lock of the hair of his head and carried him all the way from Babylon to Jerusalem. The Spirit took him thus and set him down at the door of the gate of the inner court and there he saw what he calls an “image of jealousy.” It was not jealousy pictured, but an image of some of their deities, some form of Baal set up in the very Temple of Jehovah, which provoked him to jealousy. Thus, he pictures the idolatry of the people as existing in the very Temple and its sacred precincts made place for their idols.
The prophet now sees another vision, the secret idolatry of the elders in the chambers of the gateway (Eze 8:7-13 ). The images there were worshiped by the people at large. Now the elders, the leaders, are engaged in it, and he says in Eze 8:10 , “So I went in and saw; and behold, every form of creeping things, and abominable beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel, portrayed upon the wall round about.” Eze 8:11 : “And there stood before them seventy men of the elders of the house of Israel; and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, every man with his censor in his hand; and the odor of the cloud of incense went up.” All this is used to represent the elders, the leaders of the people of Jerusalem, who were idolaters in secret, if not openly.
The women were lamenting and weeping for Tammuz, or Adonis, a heathen solar mythical being, nature personified and represented in winter as perishing or languishing, and in spring, reviving. Some writers think it represents the hot season of the year, as nature is all dead and withered, and is revived later on. Here the women are described, the ladies, the society ladies of Jerusalem, weeping as the heathen women did, because the force of nature, represented in this physical being, was apparently dead. It was a strange sort of worship indeed. It is not known as to just what the nature of this worship was, but it was something like that.
Then Ezekiel was shown the sun worship (Eze 8:10-18 ). The latter part of Eze 8:16 says: “about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of Jehovah, and their faces toward the east; and they were worshiping the sun toward the east.” This gives us some idea as to the depths to which the people had gone in their idolatrous worship, even in Jerusalem and the Temple.
The first act of divine judgment, the slaughter of the inhabitants, is presented in Eze 9 . Jehovah is represented as crying out and calling seven men, supernatural beings, six of them armed with a sword, and the seventh one armed with an inkhorn. These come forth into the Temple area and from there into the streets of the city. The man with the inkhorn set his mark upon all that should not be slain. Thus they entered the Temple; Ezekiel sat still in the vision and in a short while six supernatural men cut down a vast number. When they cut down all the Temple force they went out into the city and the slaughter went on. Eze 9:8 says, “And it came to pass, while they were smiting, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord Jehovah! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy wrath upon Jerusalem?” Ezekiel saw that if these six angelic beings went through the city, not many would be left. He cried out but it was of no avail. The second act of divine judgment is symbolized in Eze 10 . Here Ezekiel sees the same glorious vision of God that he saw at first, and the voice came from him above the firmament saying to a man clothed in linen, “Take some fire” from that central place among the cherubim “take some of that divine fire and scatter it over the city.” Then we have the description of how one of the cherubim, with one of those arms, took some of the fire and handed it out to this other being and he went abroad and scattered that fire over the inhabitants of the city. That is a symbol also. The latter part of Eze 10 is simply an extended description of the same vision recorded in Eze 1 . We have a threat of destruction and a promise of restoration in Eze 2 . The occasion of the destruction of Jerusalem was virtually the revolt on the part of the princes against Nebuchadnezzar. It was the princes of Judah that led Zedekiah into revolt, the princes that were so obnoxious to Jeremiah, the princes of Judah that caused the downfall of the city and tried to put Jeremiah out of the way. Ezekiel, in vision, sees those princes and he sees them counseling and planning to make a league with Egypt and revolt against Nebuchadnezzar. He denounced them. Eze 10:2 says, “And he said unto me, Son of man, these are the men that devise iniquity and that give wicked counsel in this city; that say, The time is not near to build houses.” If we are going to fight, this city will be a caldron and we will be the flesh, and it is better to be in the frying pan than in the fire. This city, the capital, may be destroyed; the time of war has come; let us fight and stay inside.” They did so, and in the remainder of the chapter we have the denunciation of Ezekiel. He says, “I will bring you forth out of the midst thereof, and deliver you into the hands of strangers.” And that actually happened, for Nebuchadnezzar captured all these princes with Zedekiah; they were brought before him at Riblah and every one slain with the sword.
The latter part of the chapter states that there will be some left; a remnant will be saved among the exiles. There shall be a few found faithful, and in Eze 10:17-19 is a marvelous promise: “I will gather you out of all the countries where you have been scattered,” and in Eze 10:19 , he anticipates Christianity, saying, “I will give them a new heart, and put a new spirit within them, and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep mine ordinances, and do them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.” The hope of the nation was in the exiles, not in the people that were left in Jerusalem. Immediately following that, the cherubim that had appeared near the house of Jehovah, were removed east on the Mount of Olives and departed thus from the city, signifying that Jehovah had abandoned Jerusalem.
There are two symbolic actions described in Eze 12 . Ezekiel is told to gather up such things as be would require to take with him if he were going into exile, just as one would pack his trunk or grip to go to another place. So Ezekiel packs up his goods in the sight of the people in the daytime, and has them all ready. That night he goes to the wall of the city and digs a hole through, and with his goods upon his shoulder makes his way through that hole of the wall to go out. It was a symbolic action, performed to impress the people. He interprets his action thus: The people of Jerusalem shall take their belongings and go into exile, and Zedekiah, the prince of Jerusalem, will dig a hole through the wall of the city and with his goods upon his shoulders will try to escape. He actually tried to do that, but was taken. Eze 12:11 says, “Say, I am your sign: like as I have done, so shall it be done unto them; they shall go into captivity.” Verse Eze 12:12 : “And the prince that is among them shall bear upon his shoulder in the dark and shall go forth: they shall dig through the wall to carry out thereby: he shall cover his face, because he shall not see the land with his eyes.” This is a mild way of expressing the truth that Zedekiah tramped all the way to Babylon with his eyes having been bored out by Chaldean spears.
Another symbolic action is recorded in Eze 12:18-19 , as to the eating of bread and drinking of water, and then Ezekiel quotes a proverb, “The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth.” They were saying that the visions and prophecies did not come true. He answers, “Thus saith the Lord God: I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel; but say unto them, The days are at hand, and the fulfilment of every vision.”
The false prophets and prophetesses are characterized in Eze 13 . Jeremiah had to contend with the false prophets, but Ezekiel had to contend with the false prophets and prophetesses. They are described thus:
1. The false prophets are described as jackals burrowing in the ground, and making things worse instead of better (Eze 13:1-7 ).
2. They whitewash the tottering walls that the people built and they daub them with untempered mortar (Eze 13:8-16 ). The people built up walls of defense by their foolish plans and the false prophets agreed with them. They tried to smooth the danger over, saying, “Peace for her.”
3. The denunciation of the false prophetesses (Eze 13:17-23 ). These women deceived the people. Verse Eze 13:18 : “Thus saith the Lord God: Woe to the women that sew pillows upon all elbows, and make kerchiefs for the head of persons of every stature to hunt souls!” These pillows were little cushions fastened on the joints of their hands and arms to act as charms. The custom exists today in the East. Ezekiel denounces them in verse Eze 13:20 : “Wherefore, thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms; and I will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.” These were the spiritualists of that day. They are with us yet, only their methods are different.
The answer of Jehovah to idolaters who inquire of him is found in Eze 14 :
1. The answer is this, Put away your idols or look out for the judgment of God. There is no use in coming to inquire of Jehovah through me if you are idolaters in heart (Eze 14:1-11 ).
2. The principle of divine judgment is found in Eze 14:12-23 . It is this: Righteous men shall not save sinners, only their own souls. Notice verse Eze 14:14 : “Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness.” Verse Eze 14:16 : “Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord God, they should deliver neither sons nor daughters; they only should be delivered, but the land should be desolate.” So no matter how many righteous men there may be, and how righteous they may be, only they themselves shall be saved in the terrible sack of the city. Thus, the righteous could not save Jerusalem, any more than Lot could save Sodom.
QUESTIONS
1. What the problem of Ezekiel in Babylon and what prophet with
2. What encouragement did the people have both in Jerusalem and in Babylon to believe in the safety of their holy city and nation, and what Ezekiel’s method of impressing upon the exiles the fallacy of such an argument?
3. What the symbol of the siege of Jerusalem and what its interpretation? (Eze 4:1-3 .)
4. How are the people bearing their sins here symbolized and what the interpretation? (Eze 4:4-8 .)
5. How is the scarcity and pollution of their food, during the siege and after, symbolized in Eze 4:9-17 ?
6. How is the fate of the population by the siege and their dispersion symbolized? (Eze 5:1-4 .)
7. What is the interpretation of the foregoing symbols, as given by the prophet in Eze 5:5-17 ?
8. What are the prophecies of Eze 6:1-7 ; Eze 6:11-14 and what is the history of these high places?
9. What hope is held out to Israel amid this awful picture?
10. What the theme of Eze 7 and what its parts?
11. What was the theme and date of Eze 8 ?
12. What was the “Image of Jealousy” seen by Ezekiel (Eze 8:1-6 ), and what the particulars of this vision?
13. What is the prophet’s vision of the elders and what its interpretation (Eze 8:7-13 )?
14. What was the abomination of Tammuz? (Eze 8:14-15 .)
15. What of the sun worship? (Eze 8:16-18 .)
16. How is the first act of divine judgment and slaughter of the inhabitants represented? (Eze 9 .)
17. How was the second act of divine judgment symbolized? (Eze 10 .)
18. Explain the threat of destruction and the promise of restoration in Eze 11 .
19. What two symbolic actions described in Eze 12 , and what their interpretation?
20. How are the false prophets and prophetesses characterized in Eze 13 ?
21. What is the answer of Jehovah to idolaters who inquire of him and what the divine principle of judgment? (Eze 14 .)
Eze 4:1 Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city, [even] Jerusalem:
Ver. 1. Thou also, son of man. ] Hitherto we have had the preface: followeth now the prophecy itself, which is both concerning the fall of earthly kingdoms, and also the setting up of Christ’s kingdom among men. The siege, famine, and downfall of Jerusalem is here set forth to the life, four years at least before it occurred, not in simple words, but in deeds and pictures, as more apt to affect men’s minds: like as he is more moved who seeth himself painted as a thief or scoundrel hanged, than he who is only called so. This way of teaching is ordinary with the prophets, and was used also by our Saviour Christ; as when he set a child in the midst, washed his disciples’ feet, instituted the sacraments, &c. a
Take thee a tile.
And portray upon it the city. a Oecolampadius.
Ezekiel Chapter 4
Following up the call in the close of the last chapter (vers. 22-27), the Lord directs the prophet to set forth the siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans: “Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it the city, even Jerusalem: and lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about. Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel. (Ver. 1-3) A still more remarkable command is next given. “Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year. Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it. And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege.” (Vers. 4-8)
It is well known that this has given rise to much debate and difference of judgment. First, the reading of most MSS. of the Septuagint misled the early fathers, who read the more common Greek version, as we see, for instance, in Theodoret; and the same error appears in the Vulgate, though Jerome well knew that there is no doubt as to the Hebrew, followed by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Next the reckoning even of Jerome is from the ruin of the revolted house of Israel in the reign of Pekah, when the king of Assyria carried off the ten tribes to the east. But I do not doubt that their view is sounder who count the three hundred and ninety years of Israel from Jeroboam, to whom Ahijah announced from Jehovah the gift of the ten tribes rent out of the hand of Solomon, and that the forty years of Judah point to the reign of Solomon himself, which really determined the ruin even of that most favoured portion of the people, little as man might see under the wealth and wisdom of the king the results of the idolatry then practised. “They have forsaken me,” was the message of the prophet in that day, “and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon; and have not walked in my ways to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.” Thus the seed of David were to be for this afflicted, as they have been, but not for ever. But if a brighter day await them, a long night of darkness first, and the coldest hour before the dawn; for they have added to their idolatry the still graver wickedness of rejecting their Messiah and of opposing the gospel that goes out to the Gentiles, so that wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. It seems no real obstacle to this that the house of Israel as a distinctive title of the ten tribes were carried off long before the termination of the period; because it is after the habitual manner of Ezekiel, however he may distinguish here as elsewhere, to embrace the whole nation under that name. Judah did not use for God’s glory the long and peaceful and prosperous reign of him who in the midst of unexampled benefits turned away his heart after other gods; and the sentence of Lo-ammi was only executed when that portion of the elect nation which crave to the house of David, and even the last king who reigned of that house, by their treachery to Jehovah justified the backsliding tribes who had long before been swept away from the land.
How solemn is the testimony God renders to man viewed in his responsibility to walk according to the light given! It is not only that he departs farther and farther from God, but that he breaks down from the first; while every fresh means of recall but serves to prove his thorough alienation in heart and will. Thus no flesh can glory in His presence. May we glory in the Lord! Not the first man, but the second has glorified God. Justly therefore has God glorified the Son of man in Himself, and this straightway after the cross.
Here it is another question. The prophet must set forth in his own person the degradation as well as the judgment impending because of the iniquity of the people. Hence another sign follows. “Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and filches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof. And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it. Thou shalt drink water also by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink. And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung which cometh out of man, in their sight. And Jehovah said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them. Then said I, Ah, Lord Jehovah! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came abominable flesh into my mouth. Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith. Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment; that they may want bread and water, and be astonied one with another, and consume away for their iniquity.” (Vers. 9-17) In his measure Ezekiel is to taste the condition of Israel under the righteous dealings of God, not because he was personally out of divine favour, but on the contrary because he was near enough to God to enter into the reality of their wretchedness, though only the Son of man could in grace go down into its depths and take it up perfectly and suffer to the full, yea, far beyond all that ever was, or can be, their portion. Jesus in His zeal for God and love for His people alone could bear the burden, whether in government or in atonement; but for both the glory of His person fitted Him without abating one jot of what was due to God, and with the deepest results of blessing, as for us now, so for the godly Jew in the latter day. Never did He shield Himself, as Ezekiel does here, from an adequate taste of the ruin-state of Israel; never did He deprecate save, if possible, that cup of unutterable woe which it was His alone to drink, but drink it He did to the dregs, that grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Eze 4:1-3
1Now you son of man, get yourself a brick, place it before you and inscribe a city on it, Jerusalem. 2Then lay siege against it, build a siege wall, raise up a ramp, pitch camps and place battering rams against it all around. 3Then get yourself an iron plate and set it up as an iron wall between you and the city, and set your face toward it so that it is under siege, and besiege it. This is a sign to the house of Israel.
Eze 4:1 son of man See note at Eze 2:1.
God commands the prophet to do several dramatic acts of judgment which depict the fall of Jerusalem. Because of Eze 3:25, these dramatic acts were probably performed in front of his house, in public view.
Get yourself a brick BDB 527 says that this refers to a tile, not a brick, but the lexicon KB 518 says it was a sun-baked brick (larger in size than modern bricks), probably of white clay. It is uncertain if it was soft clay, which was normally used for writing, or baked clay with an outline of the city scratched into it.
1. get a brick, Eze 4:1, BDB 542, KB 534, Qal IMPERATIVE
a. set it before you
b. inscribe (outline of the city of Jerusalem) on it
c. build siege wall, ramps, camps around the brick
d. place battering rams (i.e., another Qal IMPERATIVE)
2. get an iron plate, Eze 4:3, BDB 542, KB 534, Qal IMPERATIVE (used as a divider)
3. lie on your side, Eze 4:4, BDB 1011, KB 1486, Qal IMPERATIVE
4. take (food items), BDB 542, KB 534, Qal IMPERATIVE
5. take (sharp sword and cut off hair and beard), Eze 5:1, BDB 542, KB 534, Qal IMPERATIVE
The entire context (i.e., chaps. 4-5 is a literary unit) is one sustained dramatic act foreshadowing the siege of Jerusalem.
This occurred exactly four years before the siege of Jerusalem by Babylon, which resulted in the total destruction of the city (i.e., 586 B.C.). Chapters 4 and 5 contain a series of silent, dramatic acts related to God’s enforced silence of Eze 3:26.
Eze 4:2 siege-wall This (BDB 189) was a series of siege towers that were built to put the archers of the invaders on level with the ramparts of the city (cf. 2Ki 25:1; Jer 52:4; Eze 4:2; Eze 17:17; Eze 21:27; Eze 26:8).
raise up a ramp This was an earthen ramp (BDB 700, cf. 2Sa 20:15; Jer 32:24; Jer 33:4) where the ramming instruments (BDB 503, cf. Eze 4:2; Eze 21:27) could be brought against the walls of the city (e.g., the Roman ramp at Masada).
Eze 4:3 an iron plate This (BDB 290) is used in Lev 2:5; Lev 6:21 for a small, concave plate for the baking of bread. In context it seems to relate to God setting His face against His own people and not hearing their cries for help (i.e., His prophet/priest is silent, cf. Eze 3:25-27).
this is a sign to the house of Israel Signs (BDB 16) were God’s way to show His people that He was in control of history. Ezekiel uses this phrase often (cf. Eze 4:3; Eze 12:6; Eze 12:11; Eze 24:24). Ezekiel’s God-given signs were a dramatic way to communicate with the exiled community. It is uncertain if all of these signs were literally acted out or were literary in nature. The truth and trustworthiness of God’s message remains the same either way. One wonders how Eze 4:8 could be literal or related to Eze 3:25.
son of man. See note on Eze 2:1.
tile: or, brick. A Babylonian brick, as used for inscription, was about 14 inches by 12.
lay = give, or take, as in verses: Eze 4:1, Eze 4:2, Eze 4:5, Eze 4:8; not Eze 4:4. Hebrew. nathan, rendered “appointed” in Eze 4:6.
pourtray = grave.
Chapter 4
Now thou also, Son of man, take a tile ( Eze 4:1 ),
Now this is a brick, and it’s about twelve inches by fourteen inches. The archeologists have uncovered thousands of these bricks there in the area of Babylon. This is what they wrote their records on. And their libraries were full of these tiles or bricks. They were a clay brick and they would write, they would scratch in these clay bricks. And so the Lord is telling him to take one of these drawing boards, one of these drawing pads, and draw a picture of Jerusalem and then draw a siege against Jerusalem.
casting up a mount against it; and set the camp also against it, and set battering rams around it. And take unto thee an iron pan [or an iron plate], and set it for a wall of iron between you and the city: and set thy face against this iron plate, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. And this shall be a sign to the house of Israel ( Eze 4:2-3 ).
So he’s going to give them now a little illustrated sermon. He takes this clay tile, clay brick, and he draws the picture of Jerusalem. And draws these armies camped against it. And he draws these battering rams knocking down the wall. And then he takes this iron plate and he puts the plate there and pushes it against between him and the city, as the city is in siege, and of course, he is there showing how that God Himself is coming against the city. God is destined to turn it over into the hands of their enemies.
Now, the false prophets were saying to the people, “Don’t worry, Jerusalem is going to conquer the Babylonians. They’re going to destroy them and then they’re going to come and take us home.” Ezekiel’s saying, “Not so,” and he’s drawing these pictures and saying, “This is the way it’s going to happen. This is the way it’s going to be.”
Now the second illustration. And there are four ways by which he is to illustrate the truth to them. The second is a little more difficult.
Lie also upon your left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when you have accomplished them, then turn on your right side, and you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Judah for forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year ( Eze 4:4-6 ).
So the Lord says, “Lie there on your left side for three hundred and ninety days in which you bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. This is how many years they were filled with iniquity against Me.” So he had to lie there for three hundred and ninety days on his left side, bearing the iniquity of the house of Israel. A day for a year. Then after that, turned over–I bet it felt good–over on his right side. And then another forty days lying on his right side.
Now, I don’t think that he lay there the whole while. Probably each day would go down and lie out there on his side. But I do feel that he probably got up and moved around and so forth, but he was always… whenever the people would see him, he was lying there on his left side, going out every morning and assuming the position and then just saying, “I’m bearing the iniquity of the house of Israel. This is how many years.” And then forty years for the house of Judah.
Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and your arm shall be uncovered, and ye shall prophesy against it. And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till you have ended the days of the siege. Now take also ( Eze 4:7-9 )
And this is the third way by which he was going to illustrate to these people what was going to happen to Jerusalem. It wasn’t going to conquer the Babylonian army, but it was going to be defeated.
Take unto you wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, and fitches [which is a kind of a corn], and put them in one vessel, and make thee the bread [by these mixed grains] ( Eze 4:9 ),
So he had multiple grained bread.
according to the number of days that you shall lie on your side; three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof ( Eze 4:9 ).
So, for this period that he’s lying there, he’s got to be eating this bread.
And thy meat which thou shalt eat by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time you shall eat it. And thou shalt drink also thy water by measure ( Eze 4:10-11 ),
In other words, measure out the water.
a sixth part of a hin ( Eze 4:11 ):
So it’s about a quart of water a day that he’s allowed.
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with the dung that comes from man, in their sight ( Eze 4:12 ).
Now this is to show the siege that is going to happen to Jerusalem, how that the people who were in Jerusalem are going to be suffering from famine. There is going to be a water shortage. They’ll be measuring out the water. There is going to be a shortage of grains, so that they’ll be mixing their grains together for their bread, gathering whatever they can to make the bread. And there is going to be a shortage of food and the people are going to be starving to death, and this is to be a picture to these people in Babylon. “Look, Jerusalem is not going to be victorious. They’re going to be destroyed. The people are going to be starving to death there within the city.”
And the LORD said, Even thus shall their children of Israel eat the defiled bread [they will be defiled; they’ll eat defiled bread] among the Gentiles, where I’m going to drive them ( Eze 4:13 ).
I’m going to drive them out of the land and they’re going to be eating this defiled bread.
Then said I, Ah Lord, GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dies of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth ( Eze 4:14 ).
Lord, I’ve been kosher all my life, and now you’re telling me to be non-kosher. Lord, I can’t do that.
And he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for the man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread with it. Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, I am going to break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by the weight, and with carefulness; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment: That they may want bread and water, and be astonished one with another, and they will be consumed away for their iniquity ( Eze 4:15-17 ). “
Eze 4:1-3
PROPHECY OF JERUSALEM’S DESTRUCTION (Ezekiel 4-7)
VISIBLE PORTRAYAL OF FALL OF JERUSALEM
The absurd view that the events of this chapter existed only subjectively in the mind of Ezekiel, that it was all a vision of his, is here rejected. “The adoption of such an interpretation is not the act of an honest interpreter.”
What Ezekiel did here was only another example of what many of God’s prophets throughout the ages also did. Zedekiah’s “horns of iron” (1Ki 22:11); Isaiah’s walking “naked and barefoot” (Isa 22:2-3); Jeremiah’s “yokes of wood” (Jer 27:2); Hosea’s marriage to Gomer (Hos 1:1 to Hos 3:5); Zechariah’s breaking of Beauty and Bands (Zechariah 11); Agabus’ binding himself with Paul’s belt (Act 21:10),, etc. are other examples of such enacted prophecies.
This chapter portrays (1) the visible model of Jerusalem’s siege and capture (Eze 4:1-3), the certainty of punishment awaiting both the northern and southern Israels (Eze 4:4-8), the scarcity of food for the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Eze 4:9-11), and the ceremonial uncleanness that would come to the besieged and to the captives (Eze 4:12-17).
Regarding the time of the events recorded here, Canon Cook placed it in the fifth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin (592 B.C.). He also noted that the destruction of Jerusalem was contrary to all human expectations.
“It could scarcely have been expected that Zedekiah, the creature of the king of Babylon and ruling by his authority in the place of Jehoiachin would have been so infatuated as to provoke the anger of the powerful Nebuchadnezzar. It was indeed to infatuation that the historian ascribed that foolish act of Zedekiah (2Ki 24:20).
Eze 4:1-3
“Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it a city, even Jerusalem: and lay siege against it, and build forts against it, and cast up a mound against it, and plant battering rams against it round about. And take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face toward it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel.”
“Take thee a tile …” (Eze 4:1). The fact that he could draw a map on this tile identifies it as coming from Babylon, not Jerusalem, clearly indicating that Ezekiel was written from the land of Israel’s captivity, despite the concentrated focus upon Jerusalem. This special concern for Jerusalem should not surprise us. “This requires no explanation. Jerusalem was the heart and the brain of the nation, the center of its life and its religion, and in the eyes of the prophets (all of them) the fountain-head of its sin.”
The necessity of the prophetic warning to Israel regarding the ultimate fall and total destruction of Jerusalem lay in the foolish and blind optimism of the people. “Even after they were carried into captivity, numbers of them were still engaging in false optimism,” supposing that the captivity would soon end dramatically, and failing to understand that their dreadful servitude was nothing more than God’s punishment of their consummate wickedness, a punishment they richly deserved.
This unexpected, totally improbable fall of Jerusalem is throughout this section of Ezekiel the almost constant subject. “The great theme of the first part of Ezekiel is the certainty of the complete downfall of the Jewish state.”
This model of the city of Jerusalem, with the deployment of all kinds of military installations and equipment all around it, “was a proper and powerful device for capturing attention, and it amounted to a prediction of the fall of Jerusalem.”
Ezekiel probably had many examples of this type of illustration to aid him in the fulfillment of God’s command, because, “Assyrian bas-reliefs show in vigorous detail how a siege was carried out.”
In the analogy here, Ezekiel himself enacts the part of God as the true besieger of the city. It came to pass as Jeremiah prophesied, when God said, “I myself shall fight against you with outstretched hand and strong arm, in anger, and in fury, and in great wrath” (Jer 21:5).
The iron barrier (represented by the cooking utensil) stood for the wall of separation which the sins of Israel had erected between themselves and the Lord. “Your iniquities have been a barrier between you and your God,’ (Isa 59:2). “It meant the total severance of relation between Jerusalem and God, `You have screened yourself off with a cloud, that prayer may not pass through.'”
It would appear from the overwhelmingly bad news of such an illustrated prophecy that Israel should have been filled with sorrow and consternation over it, “But there seems to have been little response to it. Ezekiel was being taught in the crucible of human experience the incredible resistance of men to the Word of God.”
The second division of the Book contains the messages of the prophet concerning the reprobation of the chosen nation. These fall into three parts. In the first, by symbolism and speech he described the results of reprobation. In the second he declared its reason. In the last he proclaimed its righteousness. The results of reprobation were first symbolically set forth in four signs. These were immediately followed by general denunciations. Finally, the cause of the coming judgment and its process were dealt with at length.
In the present chapter three of the signs are described. The first was a tile on which the prophet was charged to portray a city. Around this he was to depict the process of siege. Having done this, he was to place between himself and the model a flat piece of iron. This sign was intended to foretell the taking of Jerusalem by an army, by the will, and under the direction, of Jehovah, whose representative in the sign Ezekiel was.
The second sign consisted of a posture. For 390 days he was charged to lie on his left side, and for forty days on his right, prophesying against Jerusalem during the whole period. It was a long and tedious process of bearing the iniquity of the house of Israel in the sense of confessing it, and so revealing the reason for the siege and the judgment.
The third sign was the food which he should eat during the period. It was to be of the simplest and scantiest, and cooked in such a way as to indicate uncleanness. The sign was intended to predict the famine and desolation which would accompany the judgment against Jerusalem.
Chapter Four
Teaching By Object Lessons
In this and the first part of the next chapter we find God telling the prophet to use what We might think of as the kindergarten method of compelling attention to the word he was to make known. In a series of object lessons he was to illustrate Gods dealings with the city of Jerusalem and the houses of Israel and Judah. First we have the pictured siege of Jerusalem.
Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it a city, even Jerusalem: and lay siege against it, and build forts against it, and cast up a mound against it; set camps also against it, and plant battering rams against it round about. And take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face toward it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel-vers. 1-3.
All this was in order to draw the attention of the captives and to lead them to inquire as to the meaning of the sign or symbol. At the very time that the prophet was in this way illustrating the siege of Jerusalem, the armies of the Chaldeans had thrown a cordon around the doomed city and were pressing for its complete surrender, or failing in that its exposure to all the horrors of an Oriental sack. False prophets were endeavoring to persuade those of the captivity that God would never permit His holy city and His beautiful sanctuary to be overrun and destroyed by the idolatrous armies of Nebuchadnezzar. But these optimists spoke out of their own hearts, not by divine revelation or inspiration, and the falsity of their utterances was soon to be made manifest. The solemn facts that needed to be considered were these: the city was denied already by the vicious practices of the people of Judah, and the sanctuary had been contaminated for years by the setting up of images of heathen gods and goddesses within its sacred precincts. Therefore, He who is a jealous God and will not give His glory to another, could not in righteousness defend the place where His name had been so terribly profaned. God had been very patient and had waited long upon a rebellious and gainsaying people. Now His long-suffering mercy had come to an end, and He was to be toward His people as an enemy, taking as it were the part of their cruel foes in order that Judah might be chastened for her sins and manifold transgressions. It was not that His heart was changed toward His people, but His holiness demanded that their sins be dealt with. Their wickedness had left them helpless before their foes, and there was no power to resist the oppressor.
The next sign was of a different character and yet connected intimately with that which had preceded it.
Moreover lie thou upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it; according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it, thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have appointed the years of their iniquity to be unto thee a number of days, even three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And again, when thou hast accomplished these, thou shalt lie on thy right side, and shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah: forty days, each day for a year, have I appointed it unto thee. And thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, with thine arm uncovered; and thou shalt prophesy against it. And, behold, I lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to the other, till thou hast accomplished the days of thy siege-vers. 4-8.
It is not easy to understand the exact meaning of the times recorded here. J. N. Darby says, It is certain that these days do not refer to the duration of the kingdom of Israel apart from Judah, nor to that of Judah, because the kingdom of Israel lasted only about 254 years, while that of Judah continued about 134 years after the fall of Samaria. He suggests, therefore, that the longer period mentioned is reckoned from the separation of the ten tribes under Rehoboam, counting the years as those of Israel, because from that moment Israel had a separate existence and comprised the great body of the nation; while Judah was everything during the reign of Solomon, which lasted forty years. After his reign Judah would be comprised in the general name of Israel according to Ezekiels usual habit, although on certain occasions he distinguishes them on account of the position of Zedekiah and of Gods future dealings (Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, p. 413, new ed.). This is perhaps as good an explanation as any of the day-for-a-year periods during which Ezekiel was to lie first on one side and then on the other, as the people of the captivity looked on. He was to be their sign, telling of Gods long-drawn-out patience to their fathers and intimating that this day of His mercy was now coming rapidly to a close. The hand of Jehovah was to be upon him, enabling him to fulfil these weary vigils, which otherwise would have been almost impossible for flesh and blood.
The third sign was designed to express Jehovahs disgust at the vile abominations connected with the idolatrous practices into which His people had fallen from time to time.
Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentils, and millet, and spelt, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof; according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, even three hundred and ninety days, shalt thou eat thereof. And thy food which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it. And thou shalt drink water by measure, the sixth part of a hin: from time to time shalt thou drink. And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it in their sight with dung that cometh out of man. And Jehovah said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their bread unclean, among the nations whither I will drive them. Then said I, Ah Lord Jehovah! behold, my soul hath not been polluted; for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn of beasts; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. Then He said unto me, See, I have given thee cows dung for mans dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread thereon. Moreover He said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with fearfulness; and they shall drink water by measure, and in dismay: that they may want bread and water, and be dismayed one with another, and pine away in their iniquity-vers. 9-17.
To a pious Jew, the manner in which the prophets food was to be prepared, according to the first command of the Lord, would be unspeakably abhorrent. Ungodly men have misread these directions and have inveighed against the supposition that a holy God could ever have given such instruction. Misreading the command to prepare the food with human excrement as though it meant to mix unclean filth with the vegetables the prophet was to eat, has given ground for this. But the offal was to be used in the fuel, not in the food. And when Ezekiel (like Peter at Caesarea) protested that nothing unclean had ever entered his mouth, God, in pity for His servant, ordered that the dung of cattle be used instead. Anyone who has made a fire of buffalo chips on our western plains will understand at once what is meant. The food itself would not actually be contaminated, but the method of its preparation was meant to impress the captivity with Gods detestation of everything connected with the worship of the false gods of the nations. Idolatry is ever unclean and so exceedingly vile that nothing could be too filthy to picture its abominable character in the sight of Jehovah.
In times of famine men have resorted to the most detestable things for food in their efforts to satisfy the cravings of their hunger. To such straits Jerusalem was reduced, and as the siege progressed, conditions would become worse and worse. There could be no mitigation of Judahs sufferings so long as they refused to heed the voice of God speaking through His servants the prophets. At this very time Jeremiah, in the holy city, was giving a similar testimony to that of Ezekiel among the captives in Chaldea, yet the people refused to hearken, so judgment had to take its course.
Eze 4:1-3. The word tile means brick. They were used by the Babylonians to preserve their records, and many have been found marked with building plans, etc. The sign of the tile foretells the siege of Jerusalem and Jehovahs opposition against the city.
Eze 4:4-8. While in the preceding sign Jehovahs action against Jerusalem was pictured, in this new sign a portrayal is given of the punishment which should come upon the inhabitants of the city. In his own person Ezekiel had to experience the great degradation and judgment which was to fall upon all the people. The critical school has invented all kinds of theories to explain, or rather to explain away, the divine command given to the prophet. They say that probably Ezekiel suffered from some form of epilepsy or catalepsy; they also point out the physical impossibility for a man to lie continuously for 390 days on his left side. But it says nowhere that the Prophet should be in that position day and night during these allotted days. The 390 and 40 days are symbolical. They mean years, giving us a total of 430 years. This reminds us of Exo 12:40-41, where the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt is given as 430 years.
But the 390 years apply more specifically to Israel, the period of unfaithfulness of the ten tribes, beginning with Jeroboam. 1Ki 11:31). The 40 years describe the unfaithfulness of the house of Judah. The captives were reminded by the prophets position of the shameful history of their long apostasy. But more than that. The Lord said to Ezekiel: I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity… so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. The sign, therefore, pictured the actual punishment which was now to fall upon the nation.
Eze 4:9-17. Both the sign of the famine and the bread baked in an unclean manner predict the horrors of famine in connection with the siege of Jerusalem, and how the people in the subsequent captivity among the Gentiles should live in defilement.
take
The symbolic actions during the prophet’s dumbness were testimonies to the past wickedness and chastisement of the house of Israel (the whole nation), and prophetic of a coming siege. They therefore intermediate between the siege of 2Ki 24:10-16 at which time Ezekiel was carried to Babylon, and the siege of 2Ki 25:1-11 eleven years later.
take: Eze 5:1-17, Eze 12:3-16, 1Sa 15:27, 1Sa 15:28, 1Ki 11:30, 1Ki 11:31, Isa 20:2-4, Jer 13:1-14, Jer 18:2-12, Jer 19:1-15, Jer 25:15-38, Jer 27:2-22, Hos 1:2-9, Hos 3:1-5, Hos 12:10
a tile: [Strong’s H3843], levainah generally denotes a brick, and Palladius informs us that the bricks in common use among the ancients were “two feet long, one foot broad, and four inches thick;” and on such a surface the whole siege might be easily pourtrayed. Perhaps, however, it may here denote a flat tile, like a Roman brick, which were commonly used for tablets, as we learn from Pliny, Hist. Nat. 1. vii. c. 57.
even: Jer 6:6, Jer 32:31, Amo 3:2
Reciprocal: Deu 28:52 – General 2Ki 13:18 – Smite 2Ki 25:1 – pitched Jer 43:9 – great Jer 52:4 – pitched Eze 2:1 – Son Eze 3:24 – Go Eze 5:2 – the city Eze 5:5 – This Eze 21:19 – General
Eze 4:1. The chief sin of the Jewish nation and for which it went into captivity was idolatry. In order to Impress ils people with the seriousness of the offence, the prophet was required to do some of the “acting” mentioned in the preceding chapter. He was to dramatize the siege of Jerusalem which was the capital of the nation. In this drama he was to do some very unpleasant performances. The city of Jerusalem was -to be represented by a tile or brick, on which a likeness of Jerusalem was portrayed.
Section 4 (Eze 4:1-17; Eze 5:1-17).
Delivered to the nations as worse than they: the four signs.
1. The language of parable is now taken up again, the significance of which is so fully declared to us by the Lord in relation to His own use of it (Mat 13:13). It is only the remnant from whom anything can now be expected. The call of the parable is to “him who hath ears to hear.” And thus we have now four signs, in which the prophet is to address himself to those about him.
The first sign is a simple, but what a significant one! He is instructed to take a brick,* and lay it before him, and portray upon it a city -Jerusalem, in fact, and lay siege against it, and place battering rams against it round about. All simple enough, surely, in view of what was actually threatening the people at that time. But there is a deeper significance: “Take thou unto thee an iron plate, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city, and set thy face against it, and it shall be in siege; even thou shalt lay siege against it.” A sign indeed this, for the prophet is the representative of God Himself, and it is God who is at work through these strange hostile hands of His people’s enemies. There is, as it were, indeed a wall of iron between the prophet and the city. The separation which their sins had caused is not too vividly pictured here. But more: for separation from God cannot be with any indifference on the part of Him who is the living God, ever moving in the activity of His own nature; and if He separates Himself from the people it is not simply to cast them off, but to “lay siege” Himself against them. In Jerusalem centre the hopes of the people and the promises of God. For Jerusalem to be in siege, and God, as seen in the attitude of the prophet, Himself to lay siege against it, is indeed a sign to the house of Israel which should stir them to the very depth.
{*The brick may suggest Babylon, as the tower of Babel (Gen 11:3) was made of bricks. It would thus suggest that Jerusalem had morally become assimilated to Babylon, and therefore would be subjugated by it. -S. Ridout.}
2. But another sign quickly follows. He is to lie upon his side, the left one, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it. He is to bear this 390 days, each day of penalty corresponding to a year of their iniquity. But this is not all. When he has accomplished this, he is to lie again upon his side, the right one, and now bear the iniquity of the house of Judah 40 days, each day once more given for a year. The siege of Jerusalem is through all, we may say, the object-lesson, and as he lies under the burden of their sin, his arm is to be uncovered, and his prophecy to be against it. He is not to turn from one side to the other until the days of the siege are accomplished.
What we have here has been a cause of great perplexity to all commentators. The separation between the house of Israel and the house of Judah has been supposed to refer, and quite naturally, to the two kingdoms, of Judah and of the ten tribes; and thus the 390 years have been attempted to be applied to the separate kingdom of Israel, already in the prophet’s time long and completely overthrown. The separate kingdom of the ten tribes lasted about 254 years, and that of Judah about 134 years, at least, afterwards. The lying upon the left side, which, according to the common use of the right hand for the south, might refer to the position of the northern kingdom (and which probably does refer to this), yet if it be taken as applying exclusively to Israel, as separate from Judah, breaks down entirely. There were no 390 years of the separate kingdom, and these cannot be read into it in any intelligible way. If you carry them back from the taking of Samaria by the Assyrians and the deportation of the people, they would reach into the times of the Judges; and thus it has been contended that the number of years can be only allegorically significant. This, however, surely seems impossible as an interpretation of what is here. The 390 days, a day for a year, is the time of the remembering of the sins of the people, which the prophet, as representative of the remnant according to God (and in this way inferring the attitude of God Himself), has been so long suffering under. The allegorical reckoning of the number 390 itself is hard to make out, and in order to justify it at all, the 40 years of Judah have sometimes been added to these, in order to reproduce, as it were, the 430 years which was the limit of Egyptian bondage; but such a reference confounds two periods which are certainly meant here to be distinguished, as well as the connection of the house of Israel with the one, and that of Judah with the other. But the years also must surely be years of sin, of actual sin which is provoking the punishment, and no 430 years have ever been marked out in this way at all.
What then are we to say with regard to it? It is plain that only the separate notice of the house of Judah here seems to require the application of the 390 years to the separate Ephraimitic kingdom. If this can be otherwise explained, then there is no reason why the 390 years should not be those of divine forbearance as to the nation as a whole; and if we date them from the separation of the kingdoms under Jeroboam to the fall of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar, we have, as closely as possible, exactly this time. This separation was the break-up, under God, of a time of unexampled prosperity, and it was the break-out of man’s will at the same time; judgment thus already beginning while yet the long-suffering of God tempered it during all this period. The separation of the northern kingdom may thus have fully its place here, and be that which, as it were, weighed heavily on that side the nation as a whole, which never recovered itself from that great disaster. It is striking also that the actual siege of Jerusalem lasted for about the 390 days of the prophet’s burden. It lasted from the 10th day of the 10th month of the 9th year of Zedekiah to the 9th day of the 4th month of his 11th year; and this, says Schroeder, “can very simply be made to correspond by making a deduction for the temporary raising of the siege on account of the Egyptians” (Jer 37:5). The reference to the actual siege of Jerusalem is thus strictly in conformity with the actual fact.
With regard to the forty years of the house of Judah, the difficulties have been considered great. The symbolism of numbers has been very naturally invoked in this case, and there is no need at all to deny that there is a significance of this sort in them. Nevertheless it is impossible to make this the whole matter. But where are these 40 years then? The 390 having already run on from the beginning of Rehoboam’s reign to the fall of the city (thus including all Israel, not the ten tribes only), makes it impossible to put the period for Judah anywhere among these. It has been thought, therefore, that we must go back for them to the time of Solomon. Solomon’s reign was just forty years; it was a time, it is said, in which Judah had necessarily a special prominence. It was also a time in which the remarkable prosperity which God gave them tested them as to their real condition. The departure of the people into idolatry, Solomon himself drawn into it through his wives, was the sad answer to a test like this. Thus, it is considered, that this is what is pointed to, as significant of their whole history, and through which their captivity was already assured.
But, as already said, this application is entirely against the order here, in which the prophet is distinctly told that when he had accomplished the 390 days, each standing for a year, he was to lie again upon his side, the right one, to bear the iniquity of the house of Judah. This is emphasized, then, as coming after the injunction concerning the house of Israel. If, therefore, this period is to be reckoned chronologically at all (as everybody would say it should, but for the difficulty of finding it) we must go forward and not backward for its discovery.
Now it is undeniable that from the time of the destruction of the temple to its rebuilding, according to Ezr 3:8, there elapse just 40 years; and they have reference distinctly to Judah, whose captivity was then at an end.* The ten tribes never did return. Judah, it is true, only partially; nevertheless the temple was built once more, and the city; and here they were permitted to abide that according to the divine promise the Messiah might come to them. Accordingly the post-captivity prophets, especially Haggai and Zechariah, are full of the coming of Christ. Their very names point to this. Haggai means “festive;” Zechariah, “Jehovah has remembered.” Those also who come forward to rebuild the temple, as Zerubbabel, the prince of Judah, and Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, are. according to the latter prophet, the double type of Christ as Priest and King. Thus the air is full of the rays of the coming dawn, and the very names breathe the music of it. All seems prepared; and in their prophecies the present is the prelude of a glorious future into which it seemed ready to develop. All seems prepared -except, alas, once more the people; and here the significance of the number puts its impress upon the result. Those 40 years of their captivity should indeed have convinced them where their only hope lay; and under the solemn teaching of men like Ezekiel, they should surely have received the sentence of death in themselves that they should not trust in themselves, but in God who raiseth the dead. To such grace as is in God, had they had hearts to receive it, no power upon earth could be an impediment. But the issue proved how little, in fact, they had learnt by the long story of their past; and Malachi, with whom the voice of prophecy closes, points once more to the needed separation of a remnant, to whom alone the Sun of Righteousness should arise with healing upon His wings. After this, therefore, their history is a mere blank. The prophetic voices cease; then a long silence, and the 40 years have proved, as far as the people are concerned, the determination of the whole matter.
{*The text of the notes present a difficulty which cannot be solved. The reference to Ezr 3:8 does not seem to help matters. Our beloved brother is no longer here to explain his meaning. It has therefore been thought best to let the text stand as he wrote it, and to add this note.
The following is suggested as a possible explanation in line with the author’s thought: The first deportation to Babylon was in B.C. 606 (2Ki 24:14). The second and main deportation was in B.C. 598 (2Ki 25:11). This was probably when Ezekiel was carried away -Eze 1:1-2. The Temple was destroyed (Jer 52:28-29) in the third deportation, B.C. 588. There seem to be two ways of counting the 70 years’ captivity: from the first deportation, 606 B.C., to the Edict of Cyrus (Ezr 1:1), B.C. 536; and from the destruction of the Temple, B.C. 588, to its rebuilding, B.C. 518. Thus there is a general as well as a specific meaning to these 70 years. If we consider them as general, not from one date to the other, we have, then, from 598 to 588, ten years in which Judah is not completely in captivity; and twenty years from 538 to 518, during which they are in their land. If these 30 years are deducted from the 70 we have the 40 of complete captivity which the prophet expressed. -S. Ridout.}
Christ comes indeed, as we know; comes to His own according to the promise, but only to be decisively rejected by them, so that they are finally scattered for the whole time in which, already for so long, the Jebusite, “the treader down,” has held Jerusalem. Thus the significance of these 40 years is unmistakable; they are seen to be at once symbolical and chronological, and filling their proper place with regard to the 390 years at the close of which they come. There is no contradiction between a symbolical and a chronological import. God is constantly showing His control over human history in giving the facts of history such deeper significance.
3. The third sign follows -some features of which corroborate the view which has just been taken. The prophet is to take wheat and barley and beans and lentils and millet and spelt, and put this miscellaneous material into one vessel, and make bread of it according to the number of the days that he has been lying upon his side. But, notice, the limit is plainly given here as that of 390 days only, not 430 as we should have imagined. Thus there is a distinction of some sort plainly between this period and the 40 days following it. It says, “390 days shalt thou eat thereof.” This was, as has already been said, probably at least, the exact time of the siege of the city, which according to the first sign given has fundamental relation to all that is here. The siege of the city is, on the part of the people, their bearing the iniquity of the previous time. Yet, as we know, this is not the whole of the matter. Scattered then among the nations by which they were led captive, they are, in fact, still bearing their iniquity before God; and this extension of the character of the siege to the time following is intimated in what we have here; for the unclean bread which they eat under the pressure of the siege is to be eaten also among the nations whither Jehovah drives them. Thus, while the days of the siege are distinguished in one sense from the period following. yet, in another, they are connected with it. Thus, the 40 years are distinguished from the time of siege, while yet some of the character of that time still attached to them. All seems thus plain enough and that which at first sight is a difficulty, brings in its solution the solution of other difficulties.
This third sign, indeed, shows the state of the people more than the distresses of the siege themselves do, for here is signified the destruction of their sanctification as a separate people. This polluted bread that is eaten among the Gentiles is no longer the consequence of being shut up within the walls of the besieged city. As we have already seen, they can have, after all, their Telabib by the desolating “river.” and rally, alas, all too soon, from the hopelessness of such a condition as the siege of the city implies. But their new hopes only reveal more deeply their condition, despising as they do the chastening of the Lord, and building themselves up on hopes which, instead of encouraging them to a true separation of heart to God, practically reduce them in God’s sight to the level of the nations around them. In fact, the contamination of contact with the heathen, in more ways than their captivity would necessarily involve (for an Ezekiel and a Daniel were among t he captives too), is shown, as we have already seen, most signally on their return from captivity. If after their return they learned to build themselves up in a proud isolation, such as we find in the Rabbinism which soon began, and which found its perfect expression in the pretentious hypocrisy of Pharisaism, this was at the farthest extreme from any return to God. Their bread, in fact, become most thoroughly defiled, when, instead of the precious Word which God had given them, they taught “for commandments, the doctrines of men,” and once more substituted for that Word by which men live, “statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby man could not live.” For a remnant among those that had returned from Babylon it was a period in which there was a famine of the word of God itself; and their association with those that had returned from the captivity must have become a thing less endurable than the captivity itself.
4. A fourth sign closes the series here. As in the last we have already got beyond the siege of the city, so in the present we are manifestly beyond it, but with no revocation of the sentence upon them. Ezekiel was now to take a sharp sword, using it as a barber’s razor to put upon himself the brand of shame upon his head and beard -thus manifestly in the sight of all. This was forbidden to the priest (which Ezekiel was), and thus the loss of the priestly character is made apparent. But this enforced shaving of the hair is used with a further significance, to show the fate of Israel’s scattered multitudes, thus smitten. A third part was to be burnt in the midst of the city when the days of the siege were fulfilled, most evidently referring to the slaughter of the multitude when the city was taken. A third part was to be smitten about with the sword, the sword drawn out after them in the land of their captivity itself. The final third part was to be scattered to the wind, and of these, only a few in number were to be bound in the prophet’s skirts for preservation; while again even of these also some are taken and cast into the midst of the fire to be burned. It is the awful fire of the wrath of God which is thus going forth to all the house of Israel. The significance here is so plain that it hardly needs comment. There is, as we see, the sparing of a feeble remnant -alas, how feeble now! But this is all that even the voice of mercy has any longer to say to them.
5. We have now the summing up of the judgment in general, along with the solemn declaration of that for which the judgment comes. Jerusalem is still taken as the sign of the state of the people as a whole, the city in which the house of God was: to lose which was to lose the only place in which the atoning blood could be presented to God; so that for Jerusalem to be set aside was for the nation to be left to the full burden of its sins. But for what a Purpose had God set them in this place of privilege -this people alone in all the earth the recipient of divine revelations? In the midst of the nations, as we have seen abundantly, it should have been theirs to maintain a testimony for God amongst those that had turned their backs upon Him -a testimony which might appeal to every heart that sought God in the lands around. But what was the result? Israel had gone beyond the very nations themselves in wickedness, refusing His judgments and rebelling against His statutes; copying the manners of those from whom, because of their condition, God had separated them, they became all the more (as would necessarily be the case, for the abuse of their privileges) aliens from God and devoted to their abominations. God therefore had to make their judgment as unique as their iniquity had been. Even here the tenderness of His love is shown in the very announcement of His judgment; and we see indeed again the “appearance as of a Man upon the throne.” “I will withdraw mine eye,” He says, “that it may not spare thee.” The eye affects the heart, and it is as if He said that, if He allowed Himself but to let His eye rest upon them, He could not bear to execute the judgment. This is the Heart behind the Hand; but the Hand does not on that account really falter in the carrying out of that which righteousness now so imperatively demands. If, on the one hand, He has a pitiful eye that would spare, yet on the other there is that in His character which makes Him speak of the wrath which He causes to rest upon them as that in which He will “comfort Himself.”
Yet even here there is a lesson, as we know, for every susceptible heart amongst them, as there is a terrible lesson of holiness for the nations around. “They shall know that I, Jehovah, have spoken in my jealousy when I have accomplished my wrath upon them. And I will make thee a desolation and reproach among the nations that are round about thee, before the eyes of every passer by; and it shall be a reproach and a taunt and a warning and an astonishment to the nations that are round about thee.” This is sealed again and again by the solemn asseveration: “I, Jehovah, have spoken.”
SECOND VISION OF GLORY
Remember that in the first part of this book, chapters 1-24, we are dealing with prophecies before the siege of Jerusalem and foretelling its overthrow. The present lesson begins at Eze 3:22. (Compare v. 23 with Eze 1:1; Eze 1:24 with Eze 2:2; and Act 2:4; Act 4:31.) Verse 25 is to be taken figuratively. (Compare 2Co 6:11-12.) The same is true of verse 26, which means that as Israel had rejected the words of the prophets hitherto, the time had now come when God would deprive them of those words for the time being at least (1Sa 7:2; Amo 8:11-12).
THE SIGN OF THE TILE (Ezekiel 4)
The sign (Eze 4:1-3) and those that follow immediately, were symbolic testimonies to the wickedness of the nation as well as prophetic of the coming siege. It is common to say that these things were performed in vision and not in external action, but we can hardly be sure of that. At all events the tile represents that God has set a wall of separation between Him and the nation, that cannot be forced through. The second action, lying first on one side and then the other, (Eze 4:4-8) supplements the first.
The third, eating the coarse and polluted bread, and by weight, is explained in the closing verses of the chapter (Eze 4:16-17; compare Jer 52:6). As to Eze 4:12, the Arabs use beasts dung for fuel, as wood is scarce, but to use that of man implies the most awful need. As to do so was in violation of the Mosaic law (Deu 14:3; Deu 23:12-14), the command to the prophet, symbolized that now Gods people were, as a judicial punishment, to be outwardly blended with the heathen (Deu 28:68; Hos 9:3).
THE SIGN OF THE HAIR (Ezekiel 5-7)
This symbol (Eze 5:1-4) is explained in the rest of the chapter. The knife or razor was the sword of the enemy which God would use. The whole hair being shaven was a sign of humiliation (2Sa 10:4-5). Balances expresses Gods discrimination in the coming judgments. The hairs are the people in this case. One third was to be killed, another destroyed by famine and pestilence, and the remainder scattered among the Gentiles. The few to escape were symbolized by the hairs bound in Ezekiels skirts, and even of these some were to pass a further ordeal (Eze 5:3-4). Compare these last-named verses with the story of the remnant in Jerusalem in Jeremiah 40-44.
Chapters 6 and 7 are a continuation of the subject of chapter 5, which our familiarity with the prophets preceding will simplify for us. The first of these may be divided into three parts. Eze 6:1-7 contain a message against Israel; Eze 6:8-10, speak of that remnant which God always promised to spare because of their repentance, while the rest of the chapter, and the whole of chapter 7, is filled with the desolations God shall send upon the land for its iniquity.
QUESTIONS
1. What characterizes the prophecies of the first 24 chapters of this book?
2. Have you read 1Sa 7:2 and Amo 8:11-12?
3. To what do the symbols of chapter witness?
4. What is symbolized by the coarse bread eaten by weight?
5. Give the interpretation of the symbol of the hair in your own words.
6. Have you refreshed your recollection by re-reading Jeremiah 40-44?
7. Analyze chapter 6.
Eze 4:1. Take a tile, &c., and lay it before thee The prophets often foreshowed impending judgments by significant emblems, which usually strike more powerfully than words. So Jeremiah was commanded to go down to the potters house, and observe how frequently vessels were marred in his hands, (chap. 18.,) and to take one of those earthen vessels and break it in the sight of the elders of the Jews, (chap. 19.,) that they might thereby be sensibly taught the greatness of Gods power, and their own frailty. So here God commands Ezekiel to take a tile, or such a slate as mathematical lines, or figures, are usually drawn upon, and there to make a portraiture of Jerusalem, thereby to represent it as under a siege. We may observe, that God often suited prophetical types and figures to the genius and education of the prophets themselves: so the figures which Amos makes use of are generally taken from such observations as are proper to the employment of a shepherd, or a husbandman. Ezekiel had a peculiar talent for architecture, therefore several of his representations are suitable to that profession. And they that suppose the emblem here made use of to be below the dignity of the prophetical office, may as well accuse Archimedes of folly for making lines in the dust: see Lowth.
Eze 4:1. Son of man, take thee a tile. It is probable that the prophet took a sheet of plastic clay proper for his purpose; for the Hebrew root banah, is generally applied to construction in various kinds of architecture. On this tablet of clay he made a model of Jerusalem, and so well defined that all the jews would know it. Against this city he traced the lines of the besieging army, and against the towers of Jerusalem he built his pugnacula, as the Greek seems to import, little wooden forts. He raised his mounts, and set to work his scorpions, his battering rams, and other engines of war. The ram was powerful against the wall. It was a whole timber with an iron head. Forty men swung it with slings in one hand, and covered themselves with bucklers in the other, and boldly approached the wall amidst a shower of arrows from the besieged. They feared little, except from the slings, which threw down rocks on the assailants. Ezekiel did all this to win souls, that the jews who would not hear his sermons, might at least decypher his figures.
Eze 4:5. Three hundred and ninety days, reckoning a day for a year, as was done in regard of the twelve spies. There are some difficulties in our calculation, which requires the consummate skill of criticism. Vide Poli Synop. From the fourth day of the fourth month, of the fifth year, is four hundred and thirteen days; whereas the prophet lay forty days on his left side for the sin of Israel. These being taken off, there remain three hundred and ninety.How do the critics account for the loss of the seventeen years from the accession of Jeroboam, who made Israel sin by the calves in Bethel and Dan? Answer, by collating the chronology of the kings of Judah with some of the kings of Israel, where the ra of each may not be distinctly fixed, for the prophetic vision respects both those kingdoms.
Years.
Rehoboam reigned 17
Abijah 3
Asa 41
Jehoshaphat 25
Abijam, after the death of his father 4
These comprise the ninety years 90
Athaliah reigned 6
Jehoash 40
Amaziah 15
Jeroboam 2
Till the commencement of king Azariah 26
Azariah, called Uzziah 52
Jehoram 19
Jotham to the 7th of Hezekiah 9
Hezekiah, after the fall of Samaria 23
Manasseh 55
Amon 2
Josiah 31
Jehoiakim 11
Jeconiah, three months Zedekiah to the burning of the city. 11
Total 390
The prophet lay on his left side for the expiation of Judahs sin forty days or years, completing 430 years Total = 430
The last forty days or years is generally reckoned from the rejection of Jeremiah as a prophet, commencing in the thirteenth year of king Josiah; for though in the eighteenth year of his reign the princes at the great passover swore to keep the covenant, they swore with hypocrisy, concealing their idols at home, as stated in Jer 34:18. Thus they are counted. Under Josiah eighteen years, under Jehoiakim eleven years, and under Zedekiah eleven, which gives precisely forty years.
Eze 4:10. Thy meattwenty shekels a-day, of barley meal, about ten ounces. See the map of Jerusalem.
Eze 4:11. Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of a hin, the quantity contained in twelve shells of a hens egg. In some sieges more could not be allowed. The daily loaf of our prisoners often weighs eighteen ounces: the prophets short allowances designated the severities of the siege.
REFLECTIONS.
Truly Gods work requires workmen not discouraged by difficulties, nor fainting with hardship and fatigue. Jeremiah had long been prophesying concerning the invasion of the Chaldeans, and seeking to avert the calamity by repentance and by treaty; but the people he addressed were more worthy of the sword than of peace. Now, Ezekiel, inspired by the same spirit, foretels the same event, and by a double sign. He was directed to take a tile, whose frailty would strikingly express the weakness of the Jews, and engrave upon it the siege of Jerusalem in all its terrors. A ministry thus connected with singular tokens conveyed a double force to language. Such was Jeremiahs constructing a model of the city, hiding his girdle near the Euphrates, his preaching with a yoke on his neck, and offering the Rechabites wine. It interested the curiosity of a nation, and conveyed to the mind unequivocal conviction.
The command to lie three hundred and ninety days on his side to expiate the sins of Israel, and forty for the sins of Judah, with all the severities of his diet, marks the great exactness of providence in weighing the guilt, and measuring the punishment of nations. There are some traces of this custom among the Brahmins of Indostan existing at this time. They often enjoin penitents to sit or stand in a painful posture for a considerable time, and their bodies not unfrequently become distorted by the severities of the discipline.
From the time Ezekiel thus laid upon his side, we learn the awful consequences of breaking covenant with God. Jeroboams breach is notorious, and Judahs was not less so in itself. They never recovered from Manassehs abominable idolatries and rites. When Josiah afterwards renewed the covenant, the people secreted their idols where they could. Hence forty years of the most flagrant hypocrisy and crimes stood against them in the book of God.
We may next notice the compassion of God, in shortening the time of the prophets affliction as a day to a year. Be encouraged then, oh sinner, in seeking God, and afflicting thy soul for sin. When repentance melts the heart, the Sovereign of heaven and earth can shorten the days of vengeance and anger, by an effusion in thy heart of his forgiving love. Christ in one day bore our iniquity, and in him the Lord is more merciful than man can estimate. Learn also of Ezekiel to abhor the slightest pollution. He suffered not the flesh to shrink at severities, but was afraid of becoming ceremonially unclean. St. Peter was equally afraid to eat of unclean beasts. Acts 10. Happy is the delicate conscience which fears the slightest touch of defilement that would either obstruct its communion with God, or alienate it from the fellowship of saints. This holy fear is the strong fence of pure religion, and the glory of religious men.
Ezekiel 4, 5. Four Symbols, Prophetic of the Coming Doom of Jerusalem.
Eze 4:1-3. (A) The Siege of JerusalemBut if Ezekiel may not speak, he is a prophet still, preaching, if not by the word, at least by symbolic action; and, ominously enough, his first message is the announcement of the siege of Jerusalemand this, be it remembered, four and a half years before that siege began. How the message came to his own soul, we cannot explain except on his own assumption, that it was the voice of God: its truth was certainly justified by the sequel. He sets forth the truth symbolically by portraying upon a brick (such as the Babylonians used for writing upon) a walled city exposed to a furious siege from surrounding forts, mounds, and battering rams.
The brick and the plate 4:1-3
The Lord instructed Ezekiel to construct a model of Jerusalem under siege. He was to build a model of the city using a clay brick (Heb. lebenah) to represent Jerusalem. The Hebrew word for "brick" describes both clay tablets on which people wrote private correspondence, official documents, and other data, as well as common building bricks (cf. Gen 11:3). It is not clear exactly which type Ezekiel used. In either case, he built a model of the siege of Jerusalem with enemy siege-works, an earth ramp, camps of soldiers, and battering rams, much like a small boy uses toy soldiers and models of tanks and buildings to play war today. It is not clear either whether the whole model fit on the brick or whether the brick just represented the city of Jerusalem. I tend to think the brick represented Jerusalem and Ezekiel built other models that he placed around it. The outline of Jerusalem would have been distinctive and easily recognizable by Ezekiel’s audience, and he may even have labeled the brick as Jerusalem.
THE END FORETOLD
Eze 4:1-17 – Eze 7:1-27
WITH the fourth chapter we enter on the exposition of the first great division of Ezekiels prophecies. The chaps, 4-24, cover a period of about four and a half years, extending from the time of the prophets call to the commencement of the siege of Jerusalem. During this time Ezekiels thoughts revolved round one great theme-the approaching judgment on the city and the nation. Through contemplation of this fact there was disclosed to him the outline of a comprehensive theory of divine providence, in which the destruction of Israel was seen to be the necessary consequence of her past history and a necessary preliminary to her future restoration. The prophecies may be classified roughly under three heads. In the first class are those which exhibit the judgment itself in ways fitted to impress the prophet and his hearers with a conviction of its certainty; a second class is intended to demolish the illusions and false ideals which possessed the minds of the Israelites and made the announcement of disaster incredible; and a third and very important class expounds the moral principles which were illustrated by the judgment, and which show it to be a divine necessity. In the passage which forms the subject of the present lecture the bare fact and certainty of the judgment are set forth in word and symbol and with a minimum of commentary, although even here the conception which Ezekiel had formed of the moral situation is clearly discernible.
I.
The certainty of the national judgment seems to have been first impressed on Ezekiels mind in the form of a singular series of symbolic acts which he conceived himself to be commanded to perform. The peculiarity of these signs is that they represent simultaneously two distinct aspects of the nations fate-on the one hand the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem, and on the other hand the state of exile which was to follow.
That the destruction of Jerusalem should occupy the first place in the prophets picture of national calamity requires no explanation. Jerusalem was the heart and brain of the nation, the centre of its life and its religion, and in the eyes of the prophets the fountain-head of its sin. The strength of her natural situation, the patriotic and religious associations which had gathered round her, and the smallness of her subject province gave to Jerusalem a unique position among the mother-cities of antiquity. And Ezekiels hearers knew what he meant when he employed the picture of a beleaguered city to set forth the judgment that was to overtake them. That crowning horror of ancient warfare, the siege of a fortified town, meant in this case something more appalling to the imagination than the ravages of pestilence and famine and sword. The fate of Jerusalem represented the disappearance of everything that had constituted the glory and excellence of Israels national existence. That the light of Israel should be extinguished amidst the anguish and bloodshed which must accompany an unsuccessful defence of the capital was the most terrible element in Ezekiels message, and here he sets it in the forefront of his prophecy.
The manner in which the prophet seeks to impress this fact on his countrymen illustrates a peculiar vein of realism which runs through all his thinking. {Eze 4:1-3} Being at a distance from Jerusalem, he seems to feel the need of some visible emblem of the doomed city before he can adequately represent the import of his prediction. He is commanded to take a brick and portray upon it a walled city, surrounded by the towers, mounds, and battering-rams which marked the usual operations of a besieging army. Then he is to erect a plate of iron between him and the city. and from behind this, with menacing gestures, he is as it were to press on the siege. The meaning of the symbols is obvious. As the engines of destruction appear on Ezekiels diagram, at the bidding of Jehovah, so in due time the Chaldaean army will be seen from the walls of Jerusalem, led by the same unseen rower which now controls the acts of the prophet. In the last act Ezekiel exhibits the attitude of Jehovah Himself, cut off from His people by the iron wall of an inexorable purpose which no prayer could penetrate.
Thus far the prophets actions, however strange they may appear to us, have been simple and intelligible. But at this point a second sign is as it were superimposed on the first, in order to symbolise an entirely different set of facts-the hardship and duration of the Exile (Eze 4:4-8). While still engaged in prosecuting the siege of the city, the prophet is supposed to become at the same time the representative of the guilty people and the victim of the divine judgment. He is to “bear their iniquity”-that is, the punishment due to their sin. This is represented by his lying bound on his left side for a number of days equal to the years of Ephraims banishment, and then on his right side for a time proportionate to the captivity of Judah. Now the time of Judahs exile is fixed at forty years, dating of course from the fall of the city. The captivity of North Israel exceeds that of Judah by the interval between the destruction of Samaria (722) and the fall of Jerusalem, a period which actually measured about a hundred and thirty-five years. In the Hebrew text, however, the length of Israels captivity is given as three hundred and ninety years-that is, it must have lasted for three hundred and fifty years before that of Judah begins. This is obviously quite irreconcilable with the facts of history, and also with the prophets intention. He cannot mean that the banishment of the northern tribes was to be protracted for two centuries after that of Judah had come to an end, for he uniformly speaks of the restoration of the two branches of the nation as simultaneous. The text of the Greek translation helps us past this difficulty. The Hebrew manuscript from which that version was made had the reading a “hundred and ninety” instead of “three hundred and ninety” in Eze 4:5. This alone yields a satisfactory sense, and the reading of the Septuagint is now generally accepted as representing what Ezekiel actually wrote. There is still a slight discrepancy between the hundred and thirty-five years of the actual history and the hundred and fifty years expressed by the symbol; but we must remember that Ezekiel is using round numbers throughout, and moreover he has not as yet fixed the precise date of the capture of Jerusalem when the last forty years are to commence.
In the third symbol (Eze 4:9-17) the two aspects of the judgment are again presented in the closest possible combination. The prophets food and drink during the days when he is imagined to be lying on his side represents on the one hand, by its being small in quantity and carefully weighed and measured, the rigours of famine in Jerusalem during the siege-“Behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with anxiety; and drink water by measure, and with horror” (Eze 4:16); on the other hand, by its mixed ingredients and by the fuel used in its preparation, it typifies the unclean religious condition of the people when in exile-“Even so shall the children of Israel eat their food unclean among the heathen” (Eze 4:13). The meaning of this threat is best explained by a passage in the book of Hosea. Speaking of the Exile, Hosea says: “They shall not remain in the land of Jehovah; but the children of Ephraim shall return to Egypt, and shall eat unclean food in Assyria. They shall pour out no wine to Jehovah, nor shall they lay out their sacrifices for Him: like the food of mourners shall their food be; all that eat thereof shall be defiled: for their bread shall only satisfy their hunger; it shall not come into the house of Jehovah”. {Hos 9:3-4} The idea is that all food which has not been consecrated by being presented to Jehovah in the sanctuary is necessarily unclean, and those who eat of it contract ceremonial defilement. In the very act of satisfying his natural appetite a man forfeits his religious standing. This was the peculiar hardship of the state of exile, that a man must become unclean, he must eat unconsecrated food unless he renounced his religion and served the gods of the land in which he dwelt. Between the time of Hosea and Ezekiel these ideas may have been somewhat modified by the introduction of the Deuteronomic law, which expressly permits secular slaughter at a distance from the sanctuary. But this did not lessen the importance of a legal sanctuary for the common life of an Israelite. The whole of a mans flocks and herds, the whole produce of his fields, had to be sanctified by the presentation of firstlings and firstfruits at the Temple before he could enjoy the reward of his industry with the sense of standing in Jehovahs favour. Hence the destruction of the sanctuary or the permanent exclusion of the worshippers from it reduced the whole life of the people to a condition of uncleanness which was felt to be as great a calamity as was a papal interdict in the Middle Ages. This is the fact which is expressed in the part of Ezekiels symbolism now before us. What it meant for his fellow exiles was that the religious disability under which they laboured was to be continued for a generation. The whole life of Israel was to become unclean until its inward state was made worthy of the religious privileges now to be withdrawn. At the same time no one could have felt the penalty more severely than Ezekiel himself, in whom habits of ceremonial purity had become a second nature. The repugnance which he feels at the loathsome manner in which he was at first directed to prepare his food, and the profession of his own practice in exile, as well as the concession made to his scrupulous sense of propriety (Eze 4:14-16), are all characteristic of one whose priestly training had made a defect of ceremonial cleanness almost equivalent to a moral delinquency.
The last of the symbols {Eze 5:1-4} represents the fate of the population of Jerusalem when the city is taken. The shaving of the prophets head and beard is a figure for the depopulation of the city and country. By a further series of acts, whose meaning is obvious, he shows how a third of the inhabitants shall die of famine and pestilence during the siege, a third shall be slain by the enemy when the city is captured, while the remaining third shall be dispersed among the nations. Even these shall be pursued by the sword of vengeance until but a few numbered individuals survive, and of them again a part passes through the fire. The passage reminds us of the last verse of the sixth chapter of Isaiah, which was perhaps in Ezekiels mind when he wrote: “And if a tenth still remain in it [the land], it shall again pass through the fire: as a terebinth or an oak whose stump is left at their felling: a holy seed shall be the stock thereof.” {Isa 6:13} At least the conception of a succession of sifting judgments, leaving only a remnant to inherit the promise of the future, is common to both prophets, and the symbol in Ezekiel is noteworthy as the first expression of his steadfast conviction that further punishments were in store for the exiles after the destruction of Jerusalem.
It is clear that these signs could never have been enacted, either in view of the people or in solitude, as they are here described. It may be doubted whether the whole description is not purely ideal, representing a process which passed through the prophets mind, or was suggested to him in the visionary state but never actually performed. That will always remain a tenable view. An imaginary symbolic act is as legitimate a literary device as an imaginary conversation. It is absurd to mix up the question of the prophets truthfulness with the question whether he did or did not actually do what he conceives himself as doing. The attempt to explain his action by catalepsy would take us but a little way, even if the arguments adduced in favour of it were stronger than they are. Since even a cataleptic patient could not have tied himself down on his side or prepared and eaten his food in that posture, it is necessary in any case to admit that there must be a considerable, though indeterminate, element of literary imagination in the account given of the symbols. It is not impossible that some symbolic representation of the siege of Jerusalem may have actually been the first act in Ezekiels ministry. In the interpretation of the vision which immediately follows we shall find that no notice is taken of the features which refer to exile, but only of those which announce the siege of Jerusalem. It may therefore be the case that Ezekiel did some such action as is here described, pointing to the fall of Jerusalem, but that the whole was taken up afterwards in his imagination and made into an ideal representation of the two great facts which formed the burden of his earlier prophecy.
II.
It is a relief to turn from this somewhat fantastic, though for its own purpose effective, exhibition of prophetic ideas to the impassioned oracles in which the doom of the city and the nation is pronounced. The first of these (Eze 5:5-17) is introduced here as the explanation of the signs that have been described, in so far as they bear on the fate of Jerusalem; but it has a unity of its own, and is a characteristic specimen of Ezekiels oratorical style. It consists of two parts: the first (Eze 5:5-10) deals chiefly with the reasons for the judgment on Jerusalem, and the second (Eze 5:11-17) with the nature of the judgment itself. The chief thought of the passage is the unexampled severity of the punishment which is in store for Israel, as represented by the fate of the capital. A calamity so unprecedented demands an explanation as unique as itself. Ezekiel finds the ground of it in the signal honour conferred on Jerusalem in her being set in the midst of the nations, in the possession of a religion which expressed the will of the one God, and in the fact that she had proved herself unworthy of her distinction and privileges and tried to live as the nations around. “This is Jerusalem which I have set in the midst of the nations, with the lands round about her. But she rebelled against My judgments wickedly more than the nations, and My statutes more than [other] lands round about her: for they rejected My judgments, and in My statutes they did not walk. Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, even I am against you; and I will execute in thy midst judgments before the nations, and will do in thy case what I have not done [heretofore], and what I shall not do the like of any more, according to all thy abominations” (Eze 5:5-9). The central position of Jerusalem is evidently no figure of speech in the mouth of Ezekiel. It means that she is so situated as to fulfil her destiny in the view of all the nations of the world, who can read in her wonderful history the character of the God who is above all gods. Nor can the prophet be fairly accused of provincialism in thus speaking of Jerusalems unrivalled physical and moral advantages. The mountain ridge on which she stood lay almost across the great highways of communication between the East and the West, between the hoary seats of civilisation and the lands whither the course of empire took its way. Ezekiel knew that Tyre was the centre of the old worlds commerce, (See chapter 27) but he also knew that Jerusalem occupied a central situation in the civilised world, and in that fact he rightly saw a providential mark of the grandeur and universality of her religious mission. Her calamities, too, were probably such as no other city experienced. The terrible prediction of Eze 5:10, “Fathers shall eat sons in the midst of thee, and sons shall eat fathers,” seems to have been literally fulfilled. “The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children: they were their meat in the destruction of the daughter of My people.” {Lam 4:10} It is likely enough that the annals of Assyrian conquest cover many a tale of woe which in point of mere physical suffering paralleled the atrocities of the siege of Jerusalem. But no other nation had a conscience so sensitive as Israel, or lost so much by its political annihilation. The humanising influences of a pure religion had made Israel susceptible of a kind of anguish which ruder communities were spared. The sin of Jerusalem is represented after Ezekiels manner as on the one hand transgression of the divine commandments, and on the other defilement of the Temple through false worship. These are ideas which we shall frequently meet in the course of the book, and they need not detain us here. The prophet proceeds (Eze 5:11-17) to describe in detail the relentless punishment which the divine vengeance is to inflict on the inhabitants and the city. The jealousy, the wrath, the indignation of Jehovah, which are represented as “satisfied” by the complete destruction of the people, belong to the limitations of the conception of God which Ezekiel had. It was impossible at that time to interpret such an event as the fall of Jerusalem in a religious sense otherwise than as a vehement outburst of Jehovahs anger, expressing the reaction of His holy nature against the sin of idolatry. There is indeed a great distance between the attitude of Ezekiel towards the hapless city and the yearning pity of Christs lament over the sinful Jerusalem of His time. Yet the first was a step towards the second. Ezekiel realised intensely that part of Gods character which it was needful to enforce in order to beget in his countrymen the deep horror at the sin of idolatry which characterised the later Judaism. The best commentary on the latter part of this chapter is found in those parts of the book of Lamentations which speak of the state of the city and the survivors after its overthrow. There we see how quickly the stern judgment produced a more chastened and beautiful type of piety than had ever been prevalent before. Those pathetic utterances, in which patriotism and religion are so finely blended, are like the timid and tentative advances of a childs heart towards a parent who has ceased to punish but has not begun to caress. This, and much else that is true and ennobling in the later religion of Israel, is rooted in the terrifying sense of the divine anger against sin so powerfully represented in the preaching of Ezekiel.
III.
The next two chapters may be regarded as pendants to the theme which is dealt with in this opening section of the book of Ezekiel. In the fourth and fifth chapters the prophet had mainly the city in his eye as the focus of the nations life; in the sixth he turns his eye to the land which had shared the sin, and must suffer the punishment, of the capital. It is, in its first part (Eze 6:2-10), an apostrophe to the mountain land of Israel, which seems to stand out before the exiles mind with its mountains and hills, its ravines and valleys, in contrast to the monotonous plain of Babylonia which stretched around him. But these mountains were familiar to the prophet as the seats of the rural idolatry in Israel. The word bamah, which means properly “the height,” had come to be used as the name of an idolatrous sanctuary. These sanctuaries were probably Canaanitish in origin; and although by Israel they had been consecrated to the worship of Jehovah, yet He was worshipped there in ways which the prophets pronounced hateful to Him. They had been destroyed by Josiah, but must have been restored to their former use during the revival of heathenism which followed his death. It is a lurid picture which rises before the prophets imagination as he contemplates the judgment of this provincial idolatry: the altars laid waste, the “sun-pillars” broken, and the idols surrounded by the corpses of men who had fled to their shrines for protection and perished at their feet. This demonstration of the helplessness of the rustic divinities to save their sanctuaries and their worshippers will be the means of breaking the rebellious heart and the whorish eyes that had led Israel so far astray from her true Lord, and will produce in exile the self-loathing which Ezekiel always regards as the beginning of penitence.
But the prophets passion rises to a higher pitch. and he hears the command “Clap thy hands, and stamp with thy foot, and say, Aha for the abominations of the house of Israeli.” These are gestures and exclamations, not of indignation, but of contempt and triumphant scorn. The same feeling and even the same gestures are ascribed to Jehovah Himself in another passage of highly charged emotion. {Eze 21:17} And it is only fair to remember that it is the anticipation of the victory of Jehovahs cause that fills the mind of the prophet at such moments and seems to deaden the sense of human sympathy within him. At the same time the victory of Jehovah was the victory of prophecy, and in so far Smend may be right in regarding the words as throwing light on the intensity of the antagonism in which prophecy and the popular religion then stood. The devastation of the land is to be effected by the same instruments as were at work in the destruction of the city: first the sword of the Chaldaeans, then famine and pestilence among those who escape, until the whole of Israels ancient territory lies desolate from the southern steppes to Riblah in the north.
Chapter 7 is one of those singled out by Ewald as preserving most faithfully the spirit and language of Ezekiels earlier utterances. Both in thought and expression it exhibits a freedom and animation seldom attained in Ezekiels writings, and it is evident that it must have been composed under keen emotion. It is comparatively free from those stereotyped phrases which are elsewhere so common, and the style falls at times into the rhythm which is characteristic of Hebrew poetry. Ezekiel hardly perhaps attains to perfect mastery of poetic form, and even here we may be sensible of a lack of power to blend a series of impressions and images into an artistic unity. The vehemence of his feeling hurries him from one conception to another, without giving full expression to any, or indicating clearly the connection that leads from one to the other. This circumstance, and the corrupt condition of the text together, make the chapter in some parts unintelligible, and as a whole one of the most difficult in the book. In its present position it forms a fitting conclusion to the opening section of the book. All the elements of the judgment which have just been foretold are gathered up in one outburst of emotion, producing a song of triumph in which the prophet seems to stand in the uproar of the final catastrophe and exult amid the crash and wreck of the old order which is passing away.
The passage is divided into five stanzas, which may originally have been approximately equal in length, although the first is now nearly twice as long as any of the others.
1. Eze 7:2-9 -The first verse strikes the keynote of the whole poem; it is the inevitableness and the finality of the approaching dissolution. A striking phrase of Amo 8:2 is first taken up and expanded in accordance with the anticipations with which the previous chapters have now familiarised us: “An end is come, the end is come on the four skirts of the land.” The poet already hears the tumult and confusion of the battle; the vintage songs of the Judaean peasant are silenced, and with the din and fury of war the day of the Lord draws near.
2. Eze 7:10-13 -The prophets thoughts here revert to the present, and he notes the eager interest with which men both in Judah and Babylon are pursuing the ordinary business of life and the vain dreams of political greatness. “The diadem flourishes, the sceptre blossoms, arrogance shoots up.” These expressions must refer to the efforts of the new rulers of Jerusalem to restore the fortunes of the nation and the glories of the old kingdom which had been so greatly tarnished by the recent captivity. Things are going bravely, they think; they are surprised at their own success; they hope that the day of small things will grow into the day of things greater than those which are past. The following verse is untranslatable; probably the original words, if we could recover them, would contain some pointed and scornful antithesis to these futile and vainglorious anticipations. The allusion to “buyers and sellers” (Eze 7:12) may possibly be quite general, referring only to the absorbing interest which men continue to take in their possessions, heedless of the impending judgment. {cf. Luk 17:20-30} But the facts that the advantage is assumed to be on the side of the buyer and that the seller expects to return to his heritage make it probable that the prophet is thinking of the forced sales by the expatriated nobles of their estates in Palestine, and to their deeply cherished resolve to right themselves when the time of their exile is over. All such ambitions, says the prophet, are vain-“the seller shall not return to what he sold, and a man shall not by wrong preserve his living.” In any case Ezekiel evinces here, as elsewhere, a certain sympathy with the exiled aristocracy, in opposition to the pretensions of the new men who had succeeded to their honours.
3. Eze 7:14-18 -The next scene that rises before the prophets vision is the collapse of Judahs military preparations in the hour of danger. Their army exists but on paper. There is much blowing of trumpets and much organising, but no men to go forth to battle. A blight rests on all their efforts; their hands are paralysed and their hearts unnerved by the sense that “wrath rests on all their pomp.” Sword, famine, and pestilence, the ministers of Jehovahs vengeance, shall devour the inhabitants of the city and the country, until but a few survivors on the tops of the mountains remain to mourn over the universal desolation.
4. Eze 7:19-22 -At present the inhabitants of Jerusalem are proud of the ill-gotten and ill-used wealth stored up within her, and doubtless the exiles cast covetous eyes on the luxury which may still have prevailed amongst the upper classes in the capital. But of what avail will all this treasure be in the evil day now so near at hand? It will but add mockery to their sufferings to be surrounded by gold and silver which can do nothing to allay the pangs of hunger. It will be cast in the streets as refuse, for it cannot save them in the day of Jehovahs anger. Nay, more, it will become the prize of the most ruthless of the heathen (the Chaldaeans); and when in the eagerness of their lust for gold they ransack the Temple treasury and so desecrate the Holy Place, Jehovah will avert His face and suffer them to work their will. The curse of Jehovah rests on the silver and gold of Jerusalem, which has been used for the making of idolatrous images, and now is made to them an unclean thing.
5. Eze 7:23-27 -The closing strophe contains a powerful description of the dismay and despair that will seize all classes in the state as the day of wrath draws near. Calamity after calamity comes, rumour follows hard on rumour, and the heads of the nation are distracted and cease to exercise the functions of leadership. The recognised guides of the people-the prophets, the priests, and the wise men-have no word of counsel or direction to offer; the prophets vision, the priests traditional lore, and the wise mans sagacity are alike at fault. So the king and the grandees are filled with stupefaction; and the common people, deprived of their natural leaders, sit down in helpless dejection. Thus shall Jerusalem be recompensed according to her doings. “The land is full of bloodshed, and the city of violence”; and in the correspondence between desert and retribution men shall be made to acknowledge the operation of the divine righteousness. “They shall know that I am Jehovah.”
IV.
It may be useful at this point to note certain theological principles which already begin to appear in this earliest of Ezekiels prophecies. Reflection on the nature and purpose of the divine dealings we have seen to be a characteristic of his work; and even those passages which we have considered, although chiefly devoted to an enforcement of the fact of judgment, present some features of the conception of Israels history which had been formed in his mind.
1. We observe in the first place that the prophet lays great stress on the world-wide significance of the events which are to befall Israel. This thought is not as yet developed, but it is clearly present. The relation between Jehovah and Israel is so peculiar that He is known to the nations in the first instance only. as Israels God, and thus His being and character have to be learned from His dealings with His own people. And since Jehovah is the only true God and must be worshipped as such everywhere, the history of Israel has an interest for the world such as that of no other nation has. She was placed in the centre of the nations in order that the knowledge of God might radiate from her through all the world; and now that she has proved unfaithful to her mission, Jehovah must manifest His power and His character by an unexampled work of judgment. Even the destruction of Israel is a demonstration to the universal conscience of mankind of what true divinity is.
2. But the judgment has of course a purpose and a meaning for Israel herself, and both purposes are summed up in the recurring formula “Ye [they] shall know that I am Jehovah,” or “that I, Jehovah, have spoken.” These two phrases express precisely the same idea, although from slightly different starting-points. It is assumed that Jehovahs personality is to be identified by His word spoken through the prophets. He is known to men through the revelation of Himself in the prophets utterances. “Ye shall know that I, Jehovah, have spoken” means therefore, Ye shall know that it is I, the God of Israel and the Ruler of the universe, who speak these things. In other words, the harmony between prophecy and providence guarantees the source of the prophets message. The shorter phrase “Ye shall know that I am Jehovah” may mean Ye shall know that I who now speak am truly Jehovah, the God of Israel. The prejudices of the people would have led them to deny that the power which dictated Ezekiels prophecy could be their God; but this denial, together with the false idea of Jehovah on which it rests, shall be destroyed forever when the prophets words come true.
There is of course no doubt that Ezekiel conceived Jehovah as endowed with the plenitude of deity, or that in his view the name expressed all that we mean by the word God. Nevertheless, historically the name Jehovah is a proper name, denoting the God who is the God of Israel. Renan has ventured on the assertion that a deity with a proper name is necessarily a false god. The statement perhaps measures the difference between the God of revealed religion and the god who is an abstraction, an expression of the order of the universe, who exists only in the mind of the man who names him. The God of revelation is a living person, with a character and will of His own, capable of being known by man. It is the distinction of revelation that it dares to regard God as an individual with an inner life and nature of His own, independent of the conception men may form of Him. Applied to such a Being, a personal name may be as true and significant as the name which expresses the character and individuality of a man. Only thus can we understand the historical process by which the God who was first manifested as the deity of a particular nation preserves His personal identity with the God who in Christ is at last revealed as the God of the spirits of all flesh. The knowledge of Jehovah of which Ezekiel speaks is therefore at once a knowledge of the character of the God whom Israel professed to serve, and a knowledge of that which constitutes true and essential divinity.
3. The prophet; in Eze 6:8-10, proceeds one step further in delineating the effect of the judgment on the minds of the survivors. The fascination of idolatry for the Israelites is conceived as produced by that radical perversion of the religious sense which the prophets call “whoredom”-a sensuous delight in the blessings of nature, and an indifference to the moral element which can alone preserve either religion or “human love from corruption. The spell shall at last be broken in the new knowledge of Jehovah which is produced by calamity; and the heart of the people, purified from its delusions, shall turn to Him who has smitten them, as the only true God. When your fugitives from the sword are among the nations, when they are scattered through the lands, then shall your fugitives remember Me amongst the nations whither they have been carried captive, when I break their heart that goes awhoring from Me, and their whorish eyes which went after their idols.” When the idolatrous propensity is thus eradicated, the conscience of Israel will turn inwards on itself, and in the light of its new knowledge of God will for the first time read its own history aright. The beginnings of a new spiritual life will be made in the bitter self-condemnation which is one side of the national repentance. “They shall loathe themselves for all the evil that they have committed in all their abominations.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
4:1-5:4
Ezekiel was instructed to lay siege against the city he had drawn (Eze. 4:2). By a common figure the prophet is here represented as doing that which he portrays. Perhaps he drew on the tile the plan of a siege. On the other hand, it may mean that he was to model the various siege weapons around the brick. A third possibility is that the armament of the besieging troops was represented on other tiles.
1. Assault rowers (KJV, forts). The Hebrew is actually singular. The term dayeq denotes the towers manned by archers by which a besieged city was attacked. Sometimes these towers were of enormous height, as much as twenty stories.[140] Such towers are frequently depicted in Mesopotamian art. According to 2Ki. 25:1 assault towers were used in the final siege of Jerusalem.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Then, again, it conveyed in a few wordsby means of a brief allusionwhat the most lengthened description without it could scarcely have accomplished. It was employing a device which the most powerful and effective orators have sometimes resorted to with the greatest effectas in the memorable words of Mirabeau, when, wishing to repel the thought of danger, he flashed out the pregnant interrogation: Is Hannibal at the gates? In like manner, the prophet here, seeking to impress upon his countrymen the certainty and the awfulness of Gods impending judgments on account of sin, carries them back to the past; he brings up to their view Egypt and the wilderness as ready to renew themselves again in their experience. What thoughts of terror and alarm were these fitted to awaken in their minds! Centuries of bondage and oppression! A wearisome sojourn amid drought and desolation! And then this foreshadowing of the future, not only rendered more distinct, but also strengthened as to its credibility, authenticated by those stern realities of the past! It assuredly has been; shall it not be again?
4. If every one in himself has to bear his guilt, this moral side is supplemented by the specifically religions one, that a freeing from the burden of it, an exculpationnot the denial, nor the lessening, the explaining away, but the removal of guilthas been provided for. Without this thought, by means of which the forgiveness of sins is accomplished, true religion is inconceivable. Such a removal of guilt took place mediatorially in Israel by means of the priesthood. What lay in this case in the office, as of divine form for the period of shadows, lay also in the sacrifice, as of divine substance for the same period of types; by means of the sacrifice, the removal of guilt took place in the way of substitution, of atoning acceptance of that guilt. Everything was in a manner like a bill of exchange, of which God meant to get payment (realisiren) in His own time. This divine realization in the fulness of the times will thus have the form of a priest and the essence of a sacrifice. The Servant of Jehovah in Isaiah 53 is both, priest as well as sacrifice; but the prophet is not so, who has neither to mediate nor to make atonement, but who speaks Gods word or embodies it in actionin our case here the latter; that is to say, he symbolically represents the guilt of the people in his own person, not so much, of course, by action as by suffering.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary