Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezekiel 33:22
Now the hand of the LORD was upon me in the evening, before he that was escaped came; and had opened my mouth, until he came to me in the morning; and my mouth was opened, and I was no more dumb.
22. Though the date is inserted here, it is probably to be understood as applicable to the whole chapter, for Eze 33:1-2 the prophet is commanded to speak publicly to the children of his people. In the evening he felt the hand of the Lord upon him, he fell into an excitation. Thoughts such as those in Eze 33:1-20 of the new Israel that God would create and of the conditions of belonging to it filled his mind. He was well aware that the city’s fall was inevitable, to him it was as good as fallen. And full of the new thoughts of the future he felt himself standing before his fellow exiles with an impulse strong upon him to speak to them of this future in the name of the Lord. In the morning the fugitives arrived with the confirmation of all his past predictions.
until he came to me ] should come: against his coming, Exo 7:15.
no more dumb ] i.e. silent, Psa 39:2; Isa 53:7.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Was upon me … was opened – For was read had been. The prophet was under the hand of God in ecstatic trance on the evening preceding the arrival of the messenger, and continued in this state until his arrival.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 22. My mouth was opened] They had now the fullest evidence that I had spoken from the Lord. I therefore spoke freely and fully what God delivered to me, Eze 24:27.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The hand of the Lord was upon me; the powerful influence of the prophetic Spirit inspired me, and prepared me for what followed.
Had opened my mouth; not that the prophet was dumb through impotence and inability to speak, for he had prophesied against many nations, but he was forbidden to say any thing of the Jews, to threaten, warn, counsel, or command, Eze 24:25-27; 29:21; but now the Spirit moved me to speak, and continued his motion till the messenger came, and ever after, for God did not command him silence any more.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
22. in the evening(see on Eze33:2). Thus the capture of Jerusalem was known to Ezekiel byrevelation before the messenger came.
my mouth . . . no moredumbthat is, to my countrymen; as foretold (Eze24:27), He spake (Eze33:2-20) in the evening before the tidings came.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now the hand of the Lord was upon me in the evening, afore he that was escaped came,…. The prophet felt a divine impulse on his mind; he was under the influence of a spirit of prophecy, and knew before the messenger came to him what his message was, and was prepared to receive it, and to prophesy upon it; for this is to be understood of prophecy, as the Targum,
“prophecy from before the Lord was with me in the evening k;”
see Isa 8:11:
and had opened my mouth, until he came to me in the morning; the hand of the Lord, or the power of the Lord, had done it, as he promised he would, Eze 3:27 so that he spoke freely and boldly, and continued to do so from the evening, to the time the messenger came to him in the morning, to all those that were with him:
and my mouth was opened, and I was no more dumb: as he had been for three years past; for though he had been prophesying against several nations, yet these prophecies were not delivered, it is very likely, by word of mouth, but by writing, and sent into those countries by proper messengers; but now the prophet’s mouth is opened by the Spirit of God, as it was said it should, when this messenger should come to him,
Eze 24:27 and from this time he was not silent, but prophesied to his people, the Jews, verbally, as he was bid to do by the Lord.
k So R. Sol. Urbin. Ohel Moed, fol. 54. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(22) Was upon me.The sentence becomes clearer by translating this in the pluperf.: The hand of the Lord had been (already) upon me.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22. Was upon me R.V., “had been upon me.” (Compare Eze 33:2.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Now the hand of Yahweh had been on me in the evening before he who had escaped came, and he had opened my mouth by the time he came to me in the morning, and my mouth was opened and I was no more dumb.’
The arrival of the man had, for Ezekiel, been preceded by something equally remarkable. In an ecstatic state before Yahweh in the evening, his mouth had been opened, and his enforced dumbness, which had lasted for some years, had ceased (see Eze 3:26). This in itself must have told him that something awesome was about to happen. And then the man came, and he was able to speak with him ordinarily. He was no longer restricted only to speaking when he had an oracle from Yahweh. It was the news that he had been expecting. Only the timing had been unknown to him. All he had said had been confirmed.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
“Therefore will I save my flock, and they will no more be a prey. I will judge between cattle and cattle. And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he will feed them, even my servant David. He will feed them and he will be their shepherd. And I Yahweh will be their God, and my servant David prince among them. I Yahweh have spoken it.”
No solution will be found to the problem of false shepherds and bad leaders until there arises one appointed by God, one out of the house of David, one who is like David, to be prince over them. He will feed them rightly and be a good shepherd to them. And that is what Yahweh intends to bring about. Note that he is a ‘prince’. Yahweh is God (and king).
God intends to save His flock, and deliver them from being continual victims (‘a prey’). He will separate the good from the bad, judging between cattle and cattle (see on Eze 33:17). And He will establish over them the shepherd of His own choosing. It is clear that this shepherd was going to be a powerful and striking figure, and we can see why people began to look forward to the coming of a son of David, of a Messiah. And this promise was certain. It was the word of Yahweh.
This idea of the raising up of a son of David (and thus of Judah) is found throughout the Old Testament. The very suggestion indicated that there could be no solution until He came, that nothing would finally be settled until His arrival, otherwise why was He needed? It began in Gen 49:10, continued in Num 24:17, and grew as an idea throughout the prophets (e.g. Isa 9:6-7; Isa 11:1-10; Isa 55:3-4; Jer 23:5-6; Jer 31:21-22; Hos 3:5; Mic 5:2; Zec 9:9; Dan 7:13-14). There is no wonder that many Psalms came to be interpreted in the light of the Messianic hope (see Psalms 2; Psalms 72; Psalms 110). It was clear that Israel’s destiny could not be settled until He came on the scene. But note that He would introduce an everlasting kingdom with everlasting promises. This is no ordinary prince, no mortal man. His success and authority go on beyond the end of time. The thought of everlastingness clings to Him (Isa 9:6-7; Isa 55:3; Dan 7:13-14; Mic 5:2). It is the vision of an eternal future which cannot be put into words.
So none of them, Ezekiel included, could have literally put into words what He would achieve. It was outside their experience and their knowledge. It was beyond their comprehension. And thus they all without exception necessarily had to express their prophecies in terms of what they could understand, of their own ideas of perfection. They knew that He would bring in the perfect everlasting state, but they inevitably had to express it in terms of their own present understanding, and in terms that their hearers and readers could understand. So the remainder of this chapter deals with that conception in terms that Ezekiel’s hearers would appreciate. New Testament ideas would have been totally incomprehensible to them.
How far then should it be taken absolutely literally? Are these promises necessarily to be completely fulfilled in the literal mountains of Israel, in a literal Jerusalem, restricted basically to Jews? Or is their fulfilment put here in these terms simply so that people who had no conception of a living world beyond the grave could grasp and appreciate them. In other words, is it in the final analysis wider reaching than having just a literal meaning, to convey lessons about the heavenly to those who had no conception of eternity?
The choice is not necessarily an either/or. The people of Israel would (to a certain extent) certainly be gathered back to the land. There would certainly be enjoyment of these promises to some extent by the literal mountains and rivers of Israel. The Shepherd would come to Israel. But the perfection implied in them was never attained, and could never be attained, and the New Testament applies that partly to the invisible Kingly Rule of God on earth, and finally to the everlasting state in ‘a new Heaven and a new earth’. This is clearly brought out in Eze 37:24-28 which speak of an everlasting state, but in terms of the land of Israel.
Our view is thus that it must not, indeed cannot, all be taken literally. There can be no everlasting state on earth. Thus it is a vision of a perfect world to come depicted in terms of the day. The New Testament takes this up and reveals that it was the church which was the new Israel, continuing as the people of God, with the old Israel cast off, and that the promises to Israel were to be fulfilled in the church, the new Israel (something Paul emphasised), first in the suffering church, gathered from among all nations, and then in the glorified church, thus themselves following in the footsteps of the suffering and glorified Messiah. This is what the message of Revelation especially makes clear.
Those who would apply the ideas to the old Israel, simply restored, are taking a backward step. They are partly missing the glory of what happened through the death and resurrection of Christ, when He, as the One Who was the chosen of God and incorporated Israel within Himself, and as the representative of the true Israel, established the new Israel, based on His Apostles, after which the old order was finished and destroyed in 70 AD. Such interpreters are trying to revive what in Christian terms has been put aside for ever. (See Romans 9-11; Gal 3:7; Gal 3:28-29; Gal 6:15-16; Eph 2:12-13; Eph 2:19-22; Jas 1:1; 1Pe 1:1).
We have only to see what the result would be if we took all the Old Testament promises literally. We have an earthly temple and an earthly Jerusalem erected after they have been replaced by the heavenly temple and Jerusalem (Heb 12:22; Gal 3:26; Rev 21:2; Rev 21:10; 1Co 3:16-17; 1Co 6:19; 2Co 6:16; Eph 2:21; Heb 8:2; Heb 9:11-13; Heb 10:19-21; Heb 13:10; Rev 6:9; Rev 8:3-5; Rev 11:1; Rev 11:19; Rev 14:15; Rev 14:17; Rev 15:5; Rev 15:8; Rev 16:1). We have the restoration of literal blood sacrifices when Hebrews has made clear that they have been replaced by something far better (see Heb 10:12; Heb 13:10). Indeed to commence earthly sacrifices is to do exactly what Hebrews forbade us to do. We have a so-called ‘gospel of the kingdom’ which is a sideline, and debased, compared with the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and offers lesser benefits, a poor shadow of the great reality.
And we could go on to demonstrate how impossible it is that all the descriptions of the so-called ‘coming kingdom age’ can be woven together, for if taken literally they conflict with each other. Does anyone really believe that we will have spears and bows and arrows in use in the last days, and that all the people of the whole earth will be required, or able, to gather at Jerusalem and Judah for the feast of Tabernacles, using seething pots (Zechariah 14)? Indeed that all nations will gather at Jerusalem for worship week by week on the Sabbath and will go out and look at the dead carcasses in the valley of Hinnom (Isa 66:23). What a contrast, if taken literally, with the glorious picture in Revelation 21-22. But how meaningful if seen as indicating the glorious fulfilment of all the promises of God and restoration of full harmony with Him in His covenant.
And can we believe that anyone in an age of glory, would gather at the slaughter of thousands of beasts and have their blood sprinkled on them in the presence of Christ, at a time when the animal creation was at total peace and killing was no more (Isa 11:6-9), and the sacrifices were not really necessary? Why should they have their eyes turned to the slaying of brute beasts when the Lamb is present? Men who take all the Old Testament literally (or largely literally) have to believe it, but few surely do so without some doubts or questionings in their hearts.
Furthermore in Eze 37:26-28 it is made clear that what Ezekiel is describing has eternal dimensions. It is not for a thousand years but for ever. Can we believe that this world will go on for ever? For that is what is involved.
However, we must recognise that there are many godly men who do hold these views in various measure, as I once did when as a young man I used the Scofield reference Bible, before I gained the knowledge to see the greater application, and I would point out that I honour these men for their true faith in Christ, and look on many of them as faithful and beloved fellow-servants of our Lord Jesus Christ, and have been blessed through their ministry. I recognise that they do so because they take literally words which in my view were intended to convey ideas which if expressed otherwise would not have been comprehended. They are therefore seeking to be faithful to the word of God.
But I cannot accept their ideas on this matter, which appear to me to be retrograde, and not in accordance with New Testament revelation. It is my view that they have missed the point, something that all readers must judge for themselves. (But for His sake let us do it in Christian love. Our views will not change what will really happen).
In order to be literally fulfilled they require not only the present return of Israel to their own land, but also that, in some way, literal Israel are to be differentiated from the true Israel as described by Paul (the true ‘foreknown’ Israel which grew out of the old Israel – Romans 9-11) in the purposes of God. For the latter is not just to be seen as a ‘spiritual Israel’, the stress in the New Testament is that it is the real Israel, being incorporated into the covenant as renewed in the new covenant.
Now if the argument is that God is gathering unbelieving members of that Israel, who have been cut off, back to their land in order that they might be converted in the final days and become incorporated back into the true Israel, the genuine church of Christ, we can only say ‘amen’ to that. But to go back to restoration of the old Israel, a mixture of belief and unbelief, building failure upon failure, re-erecting the temple, establishing a sacerdotal order, and dealing with separate issues than those of the Gospel, is such a backward step that it is incomprehensible why it should be so. Indeed it seems to suggest that the Gospel has not been successful, and that the shadow is more important than the reality. But the Scriptural truth is that the church is the Israel of God. There is surely now therefore no place for another Israel in the divine reckoning, except as being re-grafted into the new Israel (Rom 11:23). For Paul the only future for the old Israel was to become part of the new Israel.
So we see these verses (and similar verses throughout the prophets), as pointing forward to the days when His Kingly Rule began first to be established, and concluding in the perfection which will be finally achieved in the new Heaven and the new earth.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Eze 33:22 Now the hand of the LORD was upon me in the evening, afore he that was escaped came; and had opened my mouth, until he came to me in the morning; and my mouth was opened, and I was no more dumb.
Ver. 22. The hand of the Lord, ] i.e., The Spirit of the Lord, which acted me and carried me out. 2Pe 1:21 1Co 12:3
And my mouth was opened.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the evening. Doubtless, of the same day of his escape. he that was escaped. As foretold in Eze 24:26.
my mouth was opened. Compare Eze 24:27; Eze 29:21, i.e. in prophecy.
no more dumb : i. e silent from prophesying, Note the Figure of speech Pleonasm (App-6), to emphasise the fact.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
the hand: Eze 1:3, Eze 3:22, Eze 37:1, Eze 40:1
and my: Eze 3:26, Eze 3:27, Eze 24:26, Eze 24:27
Reciprocal: Exo 4:11 – General Eze 29:21 – the opening Dan 10:15 – I set Dan 10:16 – touched Luk 1:64 – his mouth Rev 9:17 – brimstone
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Eze 33:22. Now the hand of the Lord was upon me in the evening I felt a sensible impulse of the prophetic spirit: see Eze 1:3. And had opened my mouth, until he came to me in the morning Had so influenced my mind, that I found myself disposed and prepared to speak freely and with authority. Not that he had been utterly dumb before: for he had probably been able to converse with the Jews concerning the predictions formerly delivered to them, and perhaps spake, or delivered in writing to them, the prophecies which he uttered concerning other nations; but he had received no further revelation from God respecting their affairs: in this sense he had been dumb. Scott. But now the Spirit moved him to speak, and continued so to do till the messenger came, whose information concerning the taking and burning of Jerusalem, which had been repeatedly and clearly foretold by the prophet, would give an indisputable authority and credit to all his predictions, and prepare the peoples minds to receive, with faith and a due regard, every future message which he was commissioned to deliver to them.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
33:22 Now the {k} hand of the LORD was upon me in the evening, before he that had escaped came; and had opened my mouth, until he came to me in the morning; and my {l} mouth was opened, and I was no more dumb.
(k) I was endued with the Spirit of prophecy, Eze 3:22 .
(l) By which is signified that the ministers of God cannot give them courage and open their mouths, Eze 24:27; Eze 29:21, Eph 6:19 .
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The Lord had spoken to Ezekiel the evening before the refugees arrived and gave him permission to speak to the people when they heard the announcement of Jerusalem’s fall. This broke the silence that God had imposed on him (cf. Eze 3:26-27; Eze 24:27).
"He was now able to converse with people and have a ’pastoral’ ministry among them apart from his prophetic preaching. For about seven and a half years, Ezekiel had been under this constraint, but now he was free to speak." [Note: Wiersbe, p. 224.]