Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezekiel 3:6

Not to many people of a strange speech and of a hard language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee.

6. many people ] Rather: peoples, i.e. different foreign nations.

Surely, had I sent thee ] More exactly: surely if I sent thee they would hearken. There is some difficulty about the construction, but the sense is sufficiently clear. The heathen have a greater susceptibility for the truth than Israel, which has acted more wickedly than the nations (ch. Eze 5:6-7, Eze 16:48; Eze 16:51. Cf. Jer 2:10-11). Others would render: but I send thee to them (Israel), they will understand thee. The last words, however, cannot mean “understand thee;” they mean “hearken unto thee,” as Eze 3:7, where the phrase is the same.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

To many people – To various nations using diverse languages.

Surely – The thought is that expressed by our Saviour Himself (margin reference). Some render it: but I have sent thee unto these; they can hearken etc.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

This verse is much what the former, yet strengthens and illustrates what is laid down there.

Many people here may be, according to the comprehensiveness of the Hebrew word, either numerous, whose multitudes would be their pride, and tempt them to deride thee; or, mighty in valour and feats of war and policy, whose might would harden them; or, far off, who would wonder a stranger should come to tell them their destiny; or, divers nations, that thou shouldst need divers tongues, to speak to them all in their own language. This difficult work is reserved to those whom Shiloh will send, it is kept to the times when the Spirit poured forth shall enrich with the gift of tongues in gospel days.

Strange speech; deep lip, &c.: see Eze 3:5.

Whose words thou canst not understand: words are articulate and significant, and when understood they are words to the hearer, but whilst not understood they are but empty and barbarous sounds, as the apostle observes in 1Co 14.

Surely: in the Hebrew the words occasion difficulty and variety of translations, but all of no great moment. Some would refer it to the Jews, and make this sense, Hadst thou gone in any name but mine they would have heard; so parallel it with Joh 5:43; but it is better, and more agreeable with the text, to refer it to many nations mentioned, who would have heard what the house of Israel refused to hear, (of which Jonahs Ninevites are pregnant proofs,) and to them I would have sent thee, (say some,) but that they did not understand thee: this is but a very slender guess, and ill consists with the power of God, which can give the tongue, if he would have sent the message, as he intimated to Moses, unwilling to go. Our version hath well read and referred the words; with that asseveration,

surely, they have expressed what some will have the Hebrew to be, a form of an oath. God assures the prophet the message is such that any men in their wits would hear; go therefore to thy people, try whether they will act like men and hear, especially when their condition is quite otherwise than that I now suggest of the nations, for the Jews are few, weak, reduced to this by neglecting to hear; in reason, they should now hear, repent, seek me, do my word, and live.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

6. many peopleIt would haveincreased the difficulty had he been sent, not merely to one, but to”many people” differing in tongues, so that the missionarywould have needed to acquire a new tongue for addressing each. Theafter mission of the apostles to many peoples, and the gift oftongues for that end, are foreshadowed (compare 1Co 14:21;Isa 28:11).

had I sent thee to them, theywould have hearkened (Mat 11:21;Mat 11:23).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Not to many people of a strange speech and of an hard language,…. The prophet was sent, not to different nations, of different languages; but to one nation of the same language; indeed several of his prophecies concern other nations, as the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Tyrians, Philistines, Egyptians, and Assyrians; but then these had a relation to the, people of Israel, and were chiefly on their account; and therefore he was not sent to those nations to deliver his prophecies unto them, but to the people of Israel only; and so had no difficulty on his part concerning their language, which he would have had, had he been sent to the barbarous nations;

whose words, thou canst not understand: the prophet being, only used to the language of the Jews and not having the gift of speaking with and understanding divers tongues; as the apostles of Christ had, when they were sent to many people of different languages, and which is here tacitly intimates:

surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee; which is an aggravation of the obstinacy and disobedience of the people of Israel; that had the barbarous nations been favoured with the same means of instruction they were they would have been obedient; see

Mt 11:21; for though they could not understand the prophet’s language, nor he theirs; yet, as Kimchi observes, they would have sought for an interpreter to have explained the prophecy to them. The thing is very strongly affirmed, “surely”, verily, , “of a truth”; as the same Jewish writer interprets ; and both he and Jarchi take it to be the form of an oath. Some render the words, “if I had not sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee” i; and the sense is, either that if the Lord had not sent him to the Israelites, but to the peopled a strange speech, they, the people, would have hearkened to him: or, if the Lord had not sent the prophet, but he had gone of himself, as the false prophets in their own name, the Israelites would have hearkened to him; such was their perverseness and rebellion: others render the words, “if not”, or had it not been for their strange speech and hard language, “I would have sent thee to them” k, the barbarous nation, and “they would have hearkened unto thee”; but the first sense seems best; which is confirmed by the Targum, Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, and the Oriental versions.

i “si non ad eos misissem te”, Vatablus; “si non misero te”, Montanus; “si non mitterem”, Pagninus. k “Si non misissem te ad eos”, Calvin.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Now he adds, not to many peoples Those who translate “many” by “great,” do not understand the Prophet’s meaning, for God had spoken in the singular number concerning all people, but now he uses the plural, as if he had said, I send thee neither to Egyptians, nor to Chaldeans, nor to any other remote nation, since the world is on all sides of thee, inhabited by peoples whose language thou dost not understand: to those therefore I do not send thee. The particle, if not, follows, and Jerome translates, “If I had sent thee unto them,” although the negative particle is interposed, literally, if not, but because this phrase appears harsh, some have supposed אם-לא, am-la, to have the sense of swearing, and interpret it affirmatively for כאמת , cameth, “truly,” or “surely.” But if we receive it so, the passage will be defective; for they understand אם , am, “again,” “afterwards:” for these two words, אם-לא, am-la, have the force of an oath interposed. What sense then shall we extract from the words, “truly I will send thee unto them, and they shall hear thee?” We see then this sense to be too forced. Some explain the passage thus: “If I had not sent thee unto them, they would have heard thee,” as if God here blamed the disposition of the people, because they rather sought vain and foolish prophecies:, than submitted themselves to the truth; just as if he had said, if any impostor should pour darkness upon them, they would immediately embrace his fables and lies, as they are so prone to foolishness. Since, therefore, I send thee, therefore they do not hear. But this explanation does not suit, because a little afterwards we shall see it in its own place. To me therefore this context is most probable, if I had not sent thee to them, these also would have heard thee, as if it had been said, unless a difference of speech had interposed, I had rather have used thine assistance with reference to foreign nations. In this way God signifies his displeasure, when he says, that he would rather send his Prophet hither and thither than to the Israelites, except through the want of a common language; for this difference of language presented the only boundary to the Prophet, so that he was confined to his own people. In this sense there is nothing forced. I do not, therefore, send thee to many peoples, profound in speech and strange in tongue, because thou wouldst not understand their language But if this had not been an obstacle, I would have sent thee, and they would have heard thee. We see then what I have just touched upon, that the Israelites are compared to foreign or uncircumcised tribes, because they rejected the instruction offered them, not through ignorance of the language, but through the hardness of their heart. Isaiah also says, (Isa 28:11,) that the word of God would be deep and obscure to even the Jews themselves, but in another sense; he also compares his prophecies to a sealed book, since God had blinded them according to their deserts. Since therefore they were so given over to a reprobate mind, and were destitute of sound understanding, therefore he says, that his teaching would be like a closed and sealed book: then he says, that he would be a barbarian, as if he was using an unknown language. So God in this place clearly shows that the house of Israel were suffering no impediment in profiting by his word, except their own unwillingness to hear. (Isa 8:16; Isa 29:11.) For he says, that the heathen would be obedient, if they could be partakers of such a benefit. Unless therefore the language of the Prophet had been unknown to the profane and uncircumcised heathen, he had there found attentive and obedient disciples, as God testifies. How then comes it to pass that the house of Israel cannot hear! It now follows, But the house of Israel are unwilling to hear, that is, the house of Israel is unwilling to hear thee, because it will not hear me, says he.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

Eze 3:6 Not to many people of a strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee.

Ver. 6. Surely had I sent unto them, they would have hearkened. ] Or, If I had sent thee to them, would they not have hearkened unto thee? It may seem by the Ninevites that they would, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, Mat 12:41 at one single sermon made by a mere stranger, who sang so doleful a ditty to them that their city should be shortly destroyed, &c. Vatablus rendereth this text, Dispeream nisi te audissent, ei ad cos te misissem. And couldst thou but skill of foreign languages, thou couldst not easily be without disciples. The punishment of strange language, saith a grave divine, a was a heavy punishment, next to our casting out of paradise and the flood.

a Mr Whatel. Prototyp.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)