Ezekiel. John W. Hilber

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ be (Ezek 2:3–4, 6; cf. Ezek 3:8–9).

2:3 a rebellious nation: Some translations emphasize the plural, “nations,” of the Hebrew text (cf. ESV; NET), which is important to Ezekiel’s eventual message of deliverance—God’s plan encompasses both the northern and southern kingdoms (Ezek 37:15–27) that had been divided since the days of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 12:19).21 Here, the stress is on the rebellious nature of all Israel. The word translated “rebellious” describes political revolt by a vassal nation against its overlord (Gen 14:4; 2 Kgs 18:7), and so it has the connotation of treason. It describes Israel’s refusal to obey God’s initial command to enter the promised land (Num 14:9), an illustration appropriate to the mention of “ancestors” in this verse. A similar tone reverberates from the word translated “revolt” (1 Kgs 12:19; 2 Kgs 1:1). The nation’s obstinacy (v. 4) is a well-known characteristic of the ancestors (“stiff-necked”; Exod 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Deut 9:6, 13; 2 Chr 30:8). What is so pointed about God’s comment here is that the combination of words translated “stubborn” is an idiom used outside of Ezek 2:4 and 3:7 for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Exod 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:35). The language could not be more derogatory.

      2:4 the Sovereign Lord says: Traditionally translated “Lord God,” this form of the divine name combines the proper name for Israel’s God, “Yahweh” (translated with lower case capitalization on “Lord”) and the general word in the Old Testament for “lord.” The latter term generally denotes a person of superior social rank, often as a term in respectful address (Gen 42:10; Num 11:28; 1 Sam 16:16; even within family, Gen 18:12; 31:35). It acknowledges authority (Gen 45:9), sometimes denoting ownership (1 Kgs 16:24). Hence, this divine name combines the proper name of Israel’s God, Yahweh, with a term emphasizing his sovereign authority to which all must submit.

2:6 Do not be afraid: Ezekiel should take courage that he will prevail against all who oppose him. The metaphors of briars, thorns, and scorpions likely refer to severe social discomfort that Ezekiel will experience. Some interpret these terms as metaphors of protection.22 However, the “fear not” formula used the second and third time in this verse seems to be connected with a reason one might fear (“at their words” . . . “a rebellious house”), so more likely these metaphors give reason why the prophet might be tempted to fear. Later in the commission, God assures Ezekiel that his fortitude will be adequate for the challenge (Ezek 3:8–9).

      2:8 Do not rebel . . . open . . . and eat: In contrast to the rebellious nation, Ezekiel must willingly receive the message. The visionary experience of eating a scroll seems bizarre, yet the metaphor of consumption nicely describes what is involved when one responds receptively. His embracing it (metaphorically internalizing) was not merely a superficial acquiescence, rather he willingly acknowledged the rightness of God’s judgments. We might say, he “took it to heart” (cf. Ezek 3:10; Jer 15:16). This agreement is indicated by the description, “sweet as honey,” which compares to the psalmists’ delight in God’s words (Pss 19:10; 119:103).

      Normally, such language is sweet because it is gracious (Prov 16:24); however, the words of this message are “lament and mourning and woe” (filling both sides of the scroll). To describe such distressing content as “sweet” is paradoxical. It seems best to recognize the complexity of such an experience. On the one hand Ezekiel recognizes the validity of the message, in this case, the justice of God’s judgment; but at the same time he responds with dismay at the terrifying tragedy about to unfold. This is consistent with what was noted above with respect to the complex nature of Ezekiel’s call. He is reluctant but not resistant. He willingly submits yet not without misgivings. So at the end of the whole experience Ezekiel is left with bitter anger (see comments on Ezek 3:14–15). Obstinacy by people in the face of God is senseless and Ezekiel anguishes over their obstinacy.

      3:5–6 obscure speech and strange language: The comparison of Israel to foreign peoples whose language Ezekiel does not share is to underscore the stubborn nature of Ezekiel’s community. He would receive a better response from idolatrous foreigners with whom he has a language barrier than he will from his own people.

3:8–11 I will make your forehead: The change of imagery from “heart” to “forehead” (“face,” ESV, NASB, NET) stresses the intimate nature of the confrontation ahead. The word translated “hardest stone” is used elsewhere in comparison to iron (Jer 17:1; a gem more akin to diamond, so ESV, NASB, NET). This enablement of Ezekiel befits his name, which means “God hardens.”23

3:12 the glory of the Lord arose: Due to the difficulty of the Hebrew text at this point, there are two significantly different ways this phrase is translated; and the expositor must be aware. Traditionally, translators have rendered the Hebrew as a doxology, “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from its place” (NIV [1984]; cf. ESV; NASB; NKJV). This is awkward in both English and Hebrew; perhaps too awkward to make sense. This would suggest the Hebrew text became corrupted in transmission. The NIV (2011) is likely correct here (cf. NET; NLT margin; NRSV).24 In either case, the passage brings the visionary experience to a close as the living creatures resume their movement to carry away God’s throne (cf. Ezek 1:24).

3:14–15 I went in bitterness . . . anger of my spirit: The question is, toward what is Ezekiel’s anger directed? There are two possibilities: (1) Ezekiel was angry because of the inescapable hardship of his mission (Ezek 2:6; 3:8–10).25 The following phrase, “and the strong hand of the Lord was upon me,” might imply that such divine force was necessary to overcome his resistance. This would be similar, but for different reasons, to the reaction of Jonah (Jonah 4:1–9). (2) Ezekiel’s feelings were caught up in the Lord’s righteous anger toward the nation’s sin and obstinacy (cf. Jer 6:10–11).26 This is compatible with the observation that the message of God’s judgment was sweet to him (Ezek 3:3). The choice depends largely on one’s overall view of Ezekiel’s attitude toward his call. Because Ezekiel’s response is a reluctance due to the horrors of his message rather than resistance to the call, the second option is preferable (cf. Ezek 9:8; Rev 10:8–11).27

The phrase, “deeply distressed,” translates a word used to describe devastation and desolation of objects or emotions (Gen 47:19; 2 Sam 13:20; Ezra 9:3). Ezekiel’s feelings were complex; indignation coupled with dismay at the horrors to come (cf. Ezek 21:6). “Seven days” likely corresponds to the length of time for completion of mourning (Gen 50:10; Job 2:13).28

      Theological Bridge to Application

      The contrast between human inadequacy (“son of man”) and divine enablement (“the Spirit came into me”) underscores the important truth that God is sufficient to accomplish his agenda. Furthermore, human nature is naturally inclined to resist the message of truth; it is not just ancient Israel that is hard of heart. But Ezekiel’s title for God, “Sovereign Lord,” leaves no doubt who wins in any contest of wills.

      Focus of Application

The temptation in teaching this passage is to over emphasize analogies between the call-experience of Ezekiel the priestly-prophet (cf. Ezek 1:3) and that of ordinary believers today, who in a qualified sense are priests (mediators between God and the non-believing world; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6) as well as “prophets.” The report of the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–18) indicates that all believers function “prophetically” in a less technical sense, as ambassadors of the New Covenant who proclaim the gospel to the world (2 Cor 3:6; 5:18–20).29 However, while СКАЧАТЬ