Ezekiel’s Message of Hope and Restoration: Ezekiel 34–48, the second major part of this book, is concerned with a message of hope for the exiles and with the promise of Israel’s future restoration. That message has broken through in a muted sense in chapters 1–33 (11:14–21; 16:53–63; 20:33–44; 28:25–26), but it now becomes the central theme. These fifteen chapters fall into three sections. The first, chapters 34–37, is a series of seven oracles dealing with the restoration of Israel. The second section describes the rise and fall of Gog of Magog, Israel’s last great enemy (chs. 38–39). Finally, chapters 40–48 express a message of hope for Israel’s present and future, grounded in the presence of the Lord. These chapters present Ezekiel’s third great vision of the Glory of the Lord (see chs. 1–3 and 8–11) entering the perfect temple of the prophet’s vision just as it had departed the corrupted temple in Jerusalem.
The first two of the seven oracles in chapters 34–37 both concern shepherds and sheep. Ezekiel 34:1–10 is an allegory of Judah’s fall and exile, based on the ancient image of the king as a shepherd, which places the blame for the scattering and plundering of the flock on its wicked shepherds. In contrast, 34:11–31 affirms the Lord as Israel’s true shepherd and describes a future, more modest role for the descendants of David (34:23–24). The next two oracles both address mountains. The first (35:1–15) is an oracle of judgment against Mount Seir (that is, Edom; see 25:8, 12–14), reflecting the role Edom had played in the sack of Jerusalem. By contrast, the oracle directed to the mountains of Israel (36:1–15) is a stirring promise of restoration. Ezekiel 36:16–38 continues this theme, underlining that the restoration is in no sense due to any righteousness on Israel’s part: “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone” (36:22). The sixth oracle in this section is perhaps the most famous and influential passage in the book: Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones (37:1–14). This section ends with a sign-act representing the reunification of all the tribes, north and south (37:15–28), and promising the restoration of king and temple (37:24–28). Three of the passages from Ezekiel used in the Common Lectionary (34:11–16, 20–24; 36:24–28; 37:1–14) are taken from these words of hope and promise.
34:1–10 On the basis of the thematic distinction between the judgment on human shepherds and God’s role as true shepherd, we will treat verses 1–10 and verses 11–34 as two intimately related, but distinct, oracles (see Additional Notes). The divine word formula (v. 1) introduces the allegory of the false shepherds in verses 1–10, which is in two parts: God’s accusation of the shepherds of Israel (vv. 1–7), and the announcement of judgment upon them (vv. 9–10), introduced by “O shepherds, hear the word of the LORD” (v. 9) and the messenger formula (v. 10). The image of the king as the shepherd of his people, the basis of this allegory, was widespread in the ancient Near East and is very old, going back to the ancient Sumerian king lists (Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 80). Hammurabi, founder of the first great Babylonian empire in the eighteenth century B.C., had written, “I am Hammurabi, the shepherd, selected by the god Enlil, he who heaps high abundance and plenty” (trans. M. Roth, cited by Odell, Ezekiel, p. 426). The expression was still in use in Ezekiel’s day at the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire—both Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar were called “shepherds” (Odell, Ezekiel, p. 432). The point of the image is that the king cares for his people, as a shepherd tends the flock.
But Israel’s shepherds have not lived up to that responsibility: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock?” (v. 2). It is important not to sentimentalize this picture: the sheep are not pets, after all. Ezekiel does not question the right of the shepherds to take milk and wool, or even to slaughter their charges for the meat (v. 3); neither does he question the right of rulers to command their subjects, and to benefit from their rule over their people. What Ezekiel does do is accuse the shepherds of cruelty, and hence of poor stewardship: “You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally” (v. 4; consider the hirelings in John 10:12–13, as contrasted with the Good Shepherd). As a result, the sheep have strayed and become lost: They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them (v. 6). Verse 8 succinctly summarizes God’s accusation. Predators have plundered and ravaged the flock. The sheep are lost, and no one looks for them, because the shepherds cared for themselves rather than for my flock. In brief: my flock lacks a shepherd (v. 8; see also Matt. 9:36//Mark 6:34). This description of exiled, defeated, leaderless Israel draws upon the oracle of Micaiah ben Imlah concerning the fate of Ahab and the armies of Israel: “I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the LORD said, ‘These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace’” (1 Kgs. 22:17//2 Chr. 18:16; compare esp. Ezek. 34:5–6, where the same key words appear). For Ezekiel, the second half of that prophecy takes on a new resonance. Only after the shepherds are slain and the flock is scattered can God, as true shepherd, act to bring God’s people home in peace (vv. 12–13, 25).
Because of their cruelty and neglect, the Lord pronounces judgment upon the shepherds (vv. 9–10). God is against the shepherds (v. 10)—a strikingly ominous phrase. They will not escape accountability for their crimes, indeed God will remove them from their positions of authority. This, of course, takes the story up to where Ezekiel and his fellows find themselves: in exile in Babylon, their temple destroyed, their city in ruins, their kingly line cut off.
34:11–16 The allegory, which never describes the shepherds as the owners of the flock that they neglect, has already set the scene for this next step. Instead, the Lord declares, these are My sheep (vv. 6, 8). The theme of verses 11–31 is the Lord as Israel’s true shepherd. The messenger formula (v. 11) introduces this second unit, and a modified recognition formula (“Then they will know that I, the LORD their God, am with them and that they, the house of Israel, are my people, declares the Sovereign LORD,” v. 30) and the oracular formula (v. 31) conclude it. The oracle is in three parts: verses 11–16 describe God as the true shepherd; verses 17–24 concern God’s judgment between the fat sheep and the lean sheep (v. 20); and verses 25–31 describe God’s covenant of peace (v. 25) with Israel, leading to the affirmation that Israel is “the sheep of my pasture . . . and I am your God” (v. 31). This unit is used in the Common Lectionary; 34: 11–16, 20–24 are to be read on the feast of Christ the King in Year A.
Unlike the false shepherds, the Lord says, “I myself will search for my sheep and look after them” (v. 11). Some have seen the phrase a day of clouds and darkness (v. 12) as an explanation of how the flock came to be scattered: they are unable to find one another in the dark. However, this is typical language for the Day of the Lord (see the discussion at 30:3). The “day of clouds and darkness” is the Lord’s Day of vengeance and deliverance, when God will seek out and save God’s scattered flock. Jesus uses this image of God searching for the lost sheep in a powerful way in the parables (Matt. 18:12–14; Luke 15:1–7).
Verses 13–15, which describe the return of the flock into their own land (v. 13), is reminiscent of Psalm 23. The Lord will cause Israel to lie down in good pasture, beside streams of water (NIV ravines, v. 13). The mention of the settlements in the land (v. 13), however, breaks up this pastoral imagery to remind the reader of the point of this allegory: God will bring the exiles home and repopulate desolated Judah.
The last verse of this section begins as a summary of verses 11–16, reiterating God’s determination to seek out and care for the scattered sheep. But then, abruptly, the image shifts: “I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy” (v. 16). This statement, like the mention of “settlements” in verse 13, explodes the metaphor: it makes no sense for any shepherd to destroy the strong and healthy sheep. The next phrase, however, makes the meaning clear: “I will shepherd the flock with justice” (v. 16). We saw God’s justice in verses 1–10, with the punishment of the false shepherds. But just because the shepherds were guilty does not mean that the sheep are therefore innocent. Throughout this book, Ezekiel has rejected the exilic community’s claims of innocence (most recently, see 33:31). In the next section God will visit justice on the sheep, just as God visited justice on the shepherds.
34:17–24 As in verses 1–10, God’s judgment upon the flock falls into two parts: the accusation (vv. 17–19); and the pronouncement of judgment (vv. 20–24), introduced by the messenger formula (v. 20) and concluding with “I the LORD have spoken” (v. 24). The accusation opens “I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats” (v. 17). These words will remind Christian readers of the judgment scene in Matthew 25 (compare 25:32). There, as here, the basis of the judgment is regard for the least (Matt. 25:40, 45). So, God takes the strong sheep to task for selfishly and greedily trampling the pasture and muddying the water so that others cannot eat or drink (vv. 18–19; compare 32:2, 13). Verse 21 expands the point: God condemns the strong for thrusting the weak aside. In our own day, the gap between rich and poor is wider than it has ever been, as a small minority of the world’s people claim the lion’s share of its resources. The trampling of our earth and fouling of our water, through irresponsible use of this world’s resources, threaten the entire planet even as these practices rob opportunity from the vulnerable. Ezekiel plainly states God’s place in this: on the side of the poor, and on the side of the abused land. God declares, “I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered” (v. 22). God will accomplish Israel’s deliverance by re-establishing kingship (vv. 23–24).
This is a remarkable statement. Throughout this book, Ezekiel has condemned Jerusalem’s kings for their faithlessness (17:1–21) and cruelty (in addition to 34:1–10, see 19:1–9); it is little wonder many have argued that the abrupt, awkward statement in verses 23–24 is a later expansion to the book (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 218; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, p. 159). But then, Ezekiel is not entirely disinterested in the future of kingship. By dating his oracles by the years of Jehoiachin, Ezekiel suggests a preference among the pretenders to the throne (see 17:22–24). Further, the language here referring to the re-established king is modest, and typical of Ezekiel. Consistent with the prophet’s practice throughout the book, he calls this future ruler a prince, not a “king” (v. 24, Heb. nasiʾ; see the discussion of this term at 12:10). The future Davidide will rule expressly as one under divine authority: “I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them” (v. 24; see Levenson, Program of Restoration, p. 80).
34:25–31 Many have also seen this glowing description of restoration after the exile as a later expansion to the text. The language is awkward (note, e.g., the repeated recognition formulae, vv. 27, 30), suggesting that Ezekiel or an editor has revised and expanded this passage (and all of vv. 11–31).
The terms and imagery in this passage are priestly, as we would expect from either the prophet or his priestly editors. Verse 25 describes God’s covenant with Israel as a covenant of peace (see also 37:26, and Isa. 54:10, likely influenced by the use of this expression in Ezekiel)—the expression that also refers to the covenant of eternal priesthood the Lord made with Phineas at Baal-Peor (Num. 25:12). God’s new covenant with Israel will be eternal and unbreakable, unlike the first (see the discussion of 16:59–63). The imagery of the restoration in verses 25–31 is likewise priestly, drawn from the promises in the Holiness Code regarding the life God intends for Israel in the land (Lev. 26:3–13; Odell, Ezekiel, p. 429). So, God will banish wild beasts from the land, so that one may lie down anywhere, even in the desert or in the forests, and be safe (vv. 25, 28; compare Lev. 26:6, and see the Additional Note on 14:15). They will be safe from foreign nations (vv. 27–29; compare Lev. 26:6–8). God will send showers in season; there will be showers of blessing (v. 26; compare Lev. 26:4), yielding abundant crops (vv. 27, 29; compare Lev. 26:4–5). Most of all, however, the Lord says, “they will know that I, the LORD their God, am with them and that they, the house of Israel, are my people, declares the Sovereign LORD” (v. 30; see also v. 26, and compare Lev. 26:11–12). This promise of divine presence, bringing life and fruitfulness, will be an important feature of the third vision of the Lord’s Glory, the climax of these oracles of hope (see 43:7a; 47:1–12). Whether Ezekiel or his editors penned verses 25–31, the message is consistent with the vision of the entire book.
35:1–15 Like the oracles against the nations in chapters 25–28, the oracle against Mount Seir (another name for Edom; see the discussion of 25:8) takes the form of a prophetic proof-saying (Hals, Ezekiel, pp. 255–56). Following the introductory divine word formula typical of Ezekiel (v. 1), the oracle begins “Son of man, set your face against Mount Seir” (v. 2; compare 25:2; 28:21). The messenger formula (v. 3) leads into three distinct judgments on Edom, each concluding with the recognition formula (for the function of this formula in the oracles against the nations, see the discussion of 25:5, 7). The first, verses 3–4, simply announces the Lord’s judgment, without giving a reason. However, the judgments in verses 5–9 and 10–15 each begin with “because” and state the reason for the judgment (vv. 5, 10; compare 25:3, 6, 8, 12, 15; 26:2 [though without the messenger formula]; 28:2, 6), followed by the statement of the penalty.
The first summary statement of the judgment on Edom is scathing: “I will stretch out my hand against you and make you a desolate waste. I will turn your towns into ruins and you will be desolate” (vv. 3–4). The expression “desolate waste” appears in the oracle against the mountains of Israel (see 6:14), and in the judgment upon the survivors in the land (33:28–29). The mountains of Seir will suffer the same fate that God meted out to the mountains of Israel.
In the second judgment, God gives a reason for Edom’s condemnation: “Because you harbored an ancient hostility and delivered the Israelites over to the sword at the time of their calamity” (v. 5). The second half of this statement is fairly straightforward: frequently, texts from the period of the exile target Edom for its participation in the sack of Jerusalem (see the discussion of 25:12–14, above). For example, Psalm 137:7 reads:
Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried,
“tear it down to its foundations!”
But what is the “ancient hostility” Edom harbors against Israel? Ezekiel 25:12 condemns Edom for taking revenge on the house of Judah—this is also a puzzle, which this oracle may help us to understand. The oracle attributes Edom’s actions against Jerusalem not to current squabbles, but to age-old hatreds. The expression “ancient hostility” (Heb. ʾebat ʿolam) also occurs in 25:15, referring to the hatred of the Philistines—evidently to ancient conflicts from the time that these Sea Peoples first encountered the Israelites. The “ancient hostility” between Edom and Israel may refer to the story in Genesis of the conflict between the twin brothers Jacob, later renamed “Israel,” and Esau, also called “Edom.” This conflict began in the womb and escalated to attempted murder (Gen. 25:19–44; 27:1–45; see also Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 316, and Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, pp. 162–63). Isaac’s deathbed “blessing” on Esau, after Jacob had stolen the better part, describes Edom’s condemnation to a warlike life and the conflict bound to arise between Edom and Israel: “You will live by the sword and you will serve your brother. But when you grow restless, you will throw his yoke from off your neck” (Gen. 27:40). Because Edom has wielded the sword in ancient, bitter enmity against Israel, the Lord decrees, “bloodshed . . . will pursue you” (v. 6). God’s judgment is annihilation for Edom: “I will make you desolate forever; your towns will not be inhabited (v. 9; compare 25:13).
God pronounces the third judgment “Because you have said, ‘These two nations and countries will be ours and we will take possession of them,’ even though I the LORD was there” (v. 10). In context, of course, the “two nations” are Israel and Judah, destined for restoration and reunification in Ezekiel’s prophecy (37:15–28). However, this is also an allusion to the oracle the Lord pronounced over Rebekah and her fractious unborn sons: “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated” (Gen. 25:23). Again, the conflict between Edom and Israel is set in the context of an ancient feud. This statement of God’s presence (“I the LORD was there”) is a bit of a surprise: didn’t Ezekiel see the Lord depart from Jerusalem (11:22–23)? However, while God has indeed withdrawn the Glory—God’s particular, special presence—from the city, God has by no means rescinded God’s claim to this place. Therefore, Edom’s land seizure robs God.
The Lord bases the judgment in verses 10–15 not only on Edom’s land seizure after Jerusalem’s fall, but also on “all the contemptible things you have said against the mountains of Israel” (v. 12; compare 25:3; 26:2). Edom had boasted, “They have been laid waste and have been given over to us to devour” (v. 12). In a sense, this statement is no different than what the Lord, through Ezekiel, has said about Judah—particularly in the oracle against the mountains of Israel in chapter 6. The land has been laid waste (6:6), and given over to plunder by enemies (6:3, 11–12). However, the Lord, as Israel’s creator and judge, has the authority and the right to pronounce this judgment; Edom does not.
Further, Edom has no right to possess the land. The Holiness Code states, “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants” (Lev. 25:23). One can rent the use of the land until the year of jubilee, but every fifty years all debts are cancelled and the land reverts to the clan to whom God assigned it (Lev. 25:8–24). Whether the Israelites actually ever put this idealistic legislation into practice or not, the principle unquestionably held true. The land belongs to the Lord—not to the insurgents fighting on against the Babylonians in Judah, not to the exiles, and certainly not to the Edomites. God entrusts the use of the land to whomever God chooses, but the land itself remains the Lord’s possession.
Edom’s punishment fits its crime. Because Edom had rejoiced when Jerusalem fell (v. 15), “While the whole earth rejoices, I will make you desolate” (v. 14). On the day of the Lord’s judgment, Mount Seir will be forsaken, abandoned, and ruined.
36:1–15 The oracle to the mountains of Israel is explicitly related to the preceding oracle against Mount Seir (see v. 5), as well as to the earlier oracle against the mountains of Israel in 6:1–14. Indeed, in many ways the structure of verses 1–15 is like that of one of Ezekiel’s judgment oracles. The command “Son of man, prophesy” (v. 1) elsewhere opens a message of judgment (13:2; 21:9, 14, 28; 30:2; 34:2; 39:1). Similarly, the pattern of the messenger formula followed by “because” (v. 3) generally leads into the reasons for the judgment God is about to give (see, most recently, 35:5, 10). However, unlike those earlier oracles of judgment and condemnation, this unit describes the restoration of Israel. Also unlike the earlier oracle against the mountains of Israel, in which the territory stood for its inhabitants, God addresses this oracle to the uninhabited land itself, to the mountains and hills, to the ravines and valleys, to the desolate ruins and the deserted towns that have been plundered and ridiculed by the rest of the nations around you (v. 4, see also v. 6). The Lord promises the desolate land that it will once more be inhabited.
The oracle is in two parts. The first, in verses 1–12, is a proof saying which reaches its climax in the recognition formula (v. 11). That saying itself divides into a judgment against the surrounding nations, particularly Edom (vv. 1–7), and the promise that the mountains of Israel will once more be inhabited (vv. 8–12). The second part, in verses 13–15, cites and refutes a saying regarding the mountains of Israel (compare 12:22, 27; 16:44; 18:2).
As in the preceding oracle against Mount Seir, the oracle to the mountains of Israel aims to correct a misunderstanding on the part of the nations. They had thought that, since the mountains of Israel had been depopulated, the land was up for grabs: The enemy said of you, “Aha! The ancient heights have become our possession” (v. 2). However, as the land’s true owner, the Lord, makes clear, the judgment that has befallen the people of Israel in no way means that God has surrendered claim to the land. God’s response to the nations’ possession of the land, and to their malicious talk and slander (v. 3) is brief and pointed: “I swear with uplifted hand that the nations around you will also suffer scorn” (v. 7).
In contrast, God promises the land of Israel exaltation and blessing. The land will not remain desolate; instead, the mountains of Israel “will produce branches and fruit for my people Israel, for they will soon come home” (v. 8). Once more, the land will be plowed and sown (v. 9), and the abandoned towns will be rebuilt and inhabited once more (v. 10). The population, consisting of the whole house of Israel (v. 10; evidently, the exiles of both Judah and Israel [see 37:15–28]), will increase, as will their flocks and herds. “I will settle people on you as in the past and will make you prosper more than before” (v. 11). By this, the formerly desolate mountains of Israel “will know that I am the LORD” (v. 11). For Ezekiel, a wild place is a desolate and forsaken place. God’s blessing on the land means its habitation.
In language reminiscent of statements to Abraham and Joshua (Gen. 13:17; Josh. 1:3; 24:3), the Lord promises that the people Israel will walk upon the mountains and so claim and possess them once more (v. 12). In contrast to the fraudulent claim of the nations, which the Lord scornfully rejects, the people Israel will find here their true inheritance. While in former days, the wild, desolate land consumed its inhabitants (see 33:27), in the days to come “you will never again deprive them of their children” (v. 12).
This verse provides a neat segue into the final section of this oracle, where the nations are making precisely this claim about the mountains of Israel: “You devour men and deprive your nation of its children” (v. 13). Implicitly acknowledging the truth of this claim in the past, the Lord declares that it will no longer be so in the future (v. 14). God will claim control of the land’s future destiny, so that the shame and loss of former days will never come again.
36:16–21 The fifth oracle (36:16–38) in chapters 34–37 is also a promise of restoration, which the divine word formula introduces (v. 16), and the recognition formula concludes (v. 38). In its final form, the text falls into four parts. First, verses 16–21 set forth the circumstances that resulted in Israel’s exile. Then three passages, each of which begins with the messenger formula (vv. 22, 33, 37), describe God’s restoration of the exiles in the land: verses 22–32, 33–36, and 37–38.
There is considerable evidence that the original unit ended with the recognition formula in verse 23 and that, from the latter part of that verse to the end of the chapter, we are dealing with a later expansion (see the Additional Notes). Yet this oracle forms an important part of the MT of Ezekiel and contains one of the most important theological statements in the book (vv. 24–28; note that this passage is listed in the Common Lectionary together with 37:1–14, to be read as part of the vigil leading up to Easter). Though more a witness to the receptin of Ezekiel’s message than to the message itself, verses 23b–38 are certainly consistent with the spirit of this book.
Before speaking of restoration, the prophet turns first to the reasons for the exile: “Son of man, when the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions” (v. 17). They stood condemned not merely by particular evil acts (the word translated “actions” in the NIV), but by their entire way of life (“their conduct”—lit., in Heb., “their way”). As a result, the land itself became unclean (reflecting Ezekiel’s priestly concerns). The prophet expresses the defilement of the land in God’s sight with an image from priestly law that is strange to us: “Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight” (v. 17). In the priestly worldview, the ultimate source of uncleanness was death; by extension, contact with blood was ritually defiling, because “the life of a creature is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11, 14; see also Gen. 9:4–5). A woman’s menstrual period, then, was a time of impurity (Lev. 15:19–24). But the Holiness Code takes this further. Leviticus 18:19 groups sex with a woman during her menstrual period together with other “detestable things” (Heb. toʿebot) that had prompted the land to vomit out its former inhabitants, and would lead to Israel’s expulsion as well (Lev. 18:24–30; see the discussion of Ezek. 18:6, 19, above). Extending a metaphor we have encountered before in this book (most forcefully, in chs. 16 and 23), Ezekiel imagines Israel as a menstruating woman, who passes her uncleanness to whatever she touches, and with whom her husband (that is, the Lord) can have no intimate relationship. However, as the medieval Jewish commentator Kimchi observed, this simile also expresses hope for Israel’s future: Israel “is compared in her sinful state to a menstruant whose husband puts her away all the days of her impurity, but draws her near once she becomes pure” (translated by Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, p. 728).
For Ezekiel, it was this defilement of the land, caused by oppression and idolatry, which prompted God to act: “because they had shed blood in the land and because they had defiled it with their idols,” the Lord says, “I dispersed them among the nations, and they were scattered through the countries” (vv. 18–19). The exile was necessary, to spare the land from pollution and to give it the opportunity to heal. However, the exile posed another problem: “wherever they went among the nations they profaned my holy name” (v. 20). This profanation is not the result of anything that the exiles do. It derives, rather, from the fact of their exile itself. Among the nations, people are saying, “These are the LORD’s people, and yet they had to leave his land” (v. 20)—implying that the Lord had been unable to save them. They have called the Lord’s honor into question (“I had concern for my holy name,” v. 21).
36:22–32 It is for this reason—to vindicate the Lord’s honor—that the Lord will act among the exiles: “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone” (v. 22). As Greenberg observes, “Ezekiel remains true to his ruthless focus on the majesty of God, the safeguarding of which is, in his view, the prime motive of Israel’s history” (Ezekiel 21–37, p. 738). God’s action depends not on the worthiness, righteousness, or repentance of Israel, but on God’s own identity and character: “You will know that I am the LORD, when I deal with you for my name’s sake and not according to your evil ways” (20:44; see also 16:59–63). God’s actions on Israel’s behalf will show the holiness of (better, with the NRSV, “sanctify”) my great name (v. 23). Leviticus 22:32 commands that God’s name not be profaned (compare Deut. 32:51), but it is Israel, not the Name, that God sanctifies (as is usual in the Holiness Code; see Lev. 20:8; 21:8; 22:32; so also Ezek. 37:28). This is the only place in Scripture where the Lord acts to sanctify the Lord’s own name. In this way, the LORD says, “the nations will know that I am the LORD” (v. 23). In the original text the unit ended here and the restoration and reunification of God’s people in vision and sign in Ezekiel 37 immediately followed. However, there is no explicit connection between the sanctification of the Lord’s name and the restoration chapter 37 describes.
Verses 23b–32 specifically link the vindication of God’s name to Israel’s restoration. The Lord will display the Lord’s holiness through you before their eyes (v. 23b), because God “will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land” (v. 24; compare 37:21). God will remove Israel’s defilement and idolatry (v. 25). The statement “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean” (v. 25) reflects priestly ideas of washing with water as a means of removing ritual uncleanness (Lev. 11:32; 14:8–9; 15:13; 17:15; Num. 8:7; 19:19; see also the story of Naaman’s cleansing from leprosy in 2 Kgs. 5:1–19).
God acts to bring the people of Israel home and to cleanse them from impurity on God’s own initiative, out of God’s own character, and for the sake of God’s own honor. There is no mention, here or elsewhere in Ezekiel, of God’s love or mercy (the sole exception, the reference to God’s compassion in 39:25, likely belongs to an editor rather than to the prophet). As Gowan frankly observes, “Ezekiel does not speak of the love of God, as other prophets do, and as the nt does, and his theology seems deficient for that reason” (Ezekiel, p. 118). Indeed Greenberg claims, “The restoration would not be a gracious divine response to human yearning for reconciliation. . . . It would be an imposition on wayward Israel of a constraint necessary for saving God’s reputation” (Ezekiel 21–37, p. 737). A powerful image from earlier in this book expresses this “constraint” as Ezekiel declares that restored Israel will receive from the Lord a new heart and a new spirit (v. 26; see the discussion of this expression in 11:19 and 18:31). But this text clarifies the character and purpose of this transformation: “I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws” (v. 27). The new spirit is God’s spirit (compare 37:14; Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40,” p. 526). Together with the new heart (that is, a transformed will), this infusion of God’s spirit means that Israel will obey God’s commands in future (compare Ps. 51:10 and Jer. 31:31–34).
For Greenberg, this also means that Israel will no longer be free: “so that God’s name never again suffer disgrace, Israel’s restoration must be irreversible. Such it can be only if Israel be denied the ability ever again to disobey God’s laws. God’s uninterrupted glorification entails the curtailment of human freedom” (Ezekiel 21–37, p. 735). Indeed, Israel’s restoration and purification (vv. 28–29), and even the fruitfulness of the land (vv. 29–30), are intended to vindicate God’s honor, not to liberate God’s people (“I want you to know that I am not doing this for your sake, declares the Sovereign LORD,” v. 32). Restoration will lead not to Israel’s exaltation, but to its shame: “Then you will remember your evil ways and wicked deeds, and you will loathe yourselves for your sins and detestable practices. . . . Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, O house of Israel!” (vv. 31–32).
How are we to understand this bleak, cold, loveless view of Israel’s future and of Israel’s God? It is no help to say that these verses are likely from an editor: first, because they are nonetheless a part of the traditional Hebrew text of our Old Testament; second, because these same ideas occur and recur throughout this book (see the discussion of 16:59–63 and 20:43–44, above). One way forward is to consider what the logic of Ezekiel’s argument avoids. By basing Israel’s future entirely upon God’s activity and identity, the prophet avoids the uncertainty—indeed, ultimately, the despair—of a future dependent upon human accomplishment.
A historical perspective may prove helpful. In nineteenth-century Europe, when optimism about human nature and ability was at its height, scholars such as Ernest Renan produced biographies of Jesus as a champion of moral progress. The kingdom of God about which Jesus had preached was thought to be just around the corner, the inevitable result of human advancement. But in 1863, the same year that Renan’s Vie de Jésus (Life of Jesus) was published in France, fifty thousand men died at the battle of Gettysburg. The American Civil War, still the bloodiest conflict in the history of the United States, demonstrated that human ingenuity and technological progress could lead to heightened savagery rather than to peace and enlightenment. Then, at the dawn of the twentieth century, World War I shattered the last vestiges of that naive optimism. Today, looking back over the century now past, we see it as a century of genocide: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Darfur—the roll call of mass death and destruction goes on and on, a brutal and final rebuke to shallow, optimistic trust in human progress. But does that mean that the kingdom of God Jesus proclaimed is a hollow dream? Surely the problem lies rather in our forgetting that it is God’s kingdom, not ours.
We cannot, by our own willing and doing, accomplish God’s dream of justice and peace. But the point, for Jesus or for Ezekiel, is not surrender to quietism. One is able to act in the world because of the confidence that, ultimately, the victory belongs to the Lord. So Ezekiel can at the same time call upon his community to repent and affirm that God’s deliverance is not dependent upon their repentance. He can refer to the new heart and new spirit as both gift (11:19; 36:26) and goal (18:31). This inescapable, irreducible paradox is a common feature of the life of faith.
Nor is it necessary to conclude that the future Ezekiel envisions reduces Israel to an inhuman race of puppets. The new heart God promises is, after all, a heart of flesh in the place of a heart of stone (v. 26; so also 11:19). God does not remove, but rather restores, our humanity. As Gowan observes, “What is wrong is that our hearts of flesh, which had the potential for deciding to obey God, have become so calloused by continual disobedience that they have become virtually petrified, and we are trapped in our commitment to rebellion until God intervenes” (Ezekiel, p. 120). It is in our stony-hearted state that we are bound, unable to will or choose the good for others or for ourselves (as Paul well understood; see Rom. 7:14–25). The “heart transplant” which makes us truly human also makes us truly free.
36:33–36 This account of the restoration harks back to the oracle promising restoration to the mountains of Israel at the beginning of this chapter (vv. 1–15). The desolate land will be populated, and will flourish once more. Indeed, the nations will say, “This land that was laid waste has become like the garden of Eden; the cities that were lying in ruins, desolate and destroyed, are now fortified and inhabited” (v. 35). This marks the fifth reference to Eden in Ezekiel (see also 28:13; 31:9, 16, 18), which mentions the garden of paradise nearly as often as Genesis (2:8, 10, 15; 3:23–24, 4:16). Indeed, apart from Ezekiel and Genesis, only Isaiah 51:3 and Joel 2:3 mention Eden. The prominence of Eden in Ezekiel may derive from the identification of the garden with the temple on Zion (see the discussion of and Additional Notes on 28:11–19). At any rate, the paradisial state of the land will bring the knowledge of God to the nations. They “will know that I the LORD have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate” (v. 36).
36:37–38 This brief account of the restoration is based on the image (from 34:11–31) of Israel as a flock of sheep restored to their proper pastures. However, these verses add several new features to this image. While in that earlier oracle God had sought after lost Israel (34:11–12), now God invites Israel to seek after God, who will be responsive to them (compare Isa. 55:6–7). In contrast to 36:22–32, where God acts despite Israel, these verses depict God as responsive to Israel’s prayers. In this account, the image of the flock becomes an image of abundance: “I will make their people as numerous as sheep” (v. 37). Further, there is a link between that abundance and the temple: the people in their formerly ruined towns and villages will be as numerous as the flocks for offerings at Jerusalem during her appointed feasts (v. 38). This is an ironic image, given what happens to sheep at the temple (as Andrew Mein has observed [“Profitable and Unprofitable Shepherds: Economic and Theological Perspectives on Ezekiel 34,” presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, 2005])! This unit concludes by stating the purpose of God’s restoration and deliverance of Israel: “Then they will know that I am the LORD” (v. 38).
37:1–10 The sixth oracle in this section of Ezekiel, the vision of the dry bones, is arguably the most famous and influential passage in this book. As one of the passages from Ezekiel used in the Common Lectionary, it is read during Lent in Year A, and every year in the Paschal Vigil. The use of this passage in the great vigil leading up to Easter underlines the influence of verses 1–14 on Jewish and Christian theology. For while in its context this passage is a symbolic representation of the restoration and reunification of Israel, later readings of Ezekiel’s vision find here the primary image for life after death in Judaism and Christianity: that is, the resurrection of the body.
Like the wheels in Ezekiel’s vision of God’s chariot throne in chapters 1–3, the odd and powerful imagery of this passage captured the imagination of African slaves in America. A familiar African-American spiritual describes the macabre scene from verse 7 in joyous sing-song (“the foot bone connected to the ankle bone, the ankle bone connected to the leg bone . . .”), punctuated by “Now hear the word of the Lord!” The song reaches its climax, as does Ezekiel’s vision, with an image of life brought from death, and joy from sorrow: “Them bones, them bones gonna walk around.” For the victims of the slave trade in America, as for Ezekiel’s audience of exiles, this text spoke of hope for the hopeless, freedom for the captives, and life for those who had thought themselves as good as dead. For this same reason, verses 1–14 are read in synagogue at Passover, that great festival of liberation from bondage.
Verses 1–14 comprise the third of four vision reports in Ezekiel (see also chs. 1–3; 8–11, and 40–48). It is the only report which has no date (compare 1:1; 8:1; 40:1), and which does not concern the Glory of the Lord. However, this report does begin with Ezekiel’s typical expression for entry into the vision state, The hand of the Lord was upon me (v. 1; see the discussion of 1:3, and compare 3:14, 22; 8:1; 40:1). The report is in two parts: first, verses 1–10 describe the vision, and then verses 11–14 interpret it. In the interpretation, the messenger formula (v. 12) introduces God’s promise of new life, and a dual expression of the recognition formula (vv. 13–14) pronounces its purpose.
As the vision opens, Ezekiel finds that the hand of the Lord has transported him to a valley filled with dry, dead, disjointed bones (vv. 1–2). Attempts to locate this valley, or to identify the particular battle that left these grisly remnants behind, are simply wrong-headed: this is a vision. On the other hand, Ezekiel’s education and experiences certainly provide background for understanding this imagery. Assyrian kings threatened in treaty curses to leave the corpses of rebels scattered on the ground as food for carrion birds, and boasted in their battle accounts of leaving their slain enemies covering the plain like grass (Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, p. 748). On the long march to Babylon, the prophet may have seen unburied corpses left for the scavengers on bloody battlefields, and this vision may well reflect the memory of such horrors. For a priest, the valley of dry bones through which Ezekiel walks in his vision would have been a dangerously unclean place, defiled by the unburied dead (Num. 19:11–20; Deut. 21:22–23). But in his vision Ezekiel walks about among the bones without protest (contrast 4:14).
Now the Lord addresses the prophet: “Son of man, can these bones live?” (v. 3). The reasonable answer, obviously, is no—there is no life, and no possibility of life, in this place. The bodies strewn across the valley are not only dead, they are long dead—their disjointed bones are very dry (v. 2). Ezekiel speaks, however, out of his long experience. Since his call, he has seen (and done!) very odd things in the Lord’s service. His answer reflects both confidence in the depth of the Lord’s perception and submission to whatever the Lord may choose to say or do: I said, “O Sovereign LORD, you alone know” (v. 3).
Through the remainder of the vision, Ezekiel becomes a channel of divine power (see the discussion of 32:3). First, God commands the prophet, “Prophesy to these bones and say to them, ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD!’” (v. 4). As Ezekiel delivers God’s promise of life to the dead bones, he hears a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone (v. 7). He watches as, in accordance with the word he had proclaimed (v. 5), the bones are joined by tendons and covered over with flesh. Now, instead of a valley full of dry bones, the prophet is standing in a valley filled with corpses: there was no breath in them (v. 8).
As the footnote in the NIV observes, the Hebrew word ruakh (“breath” in the NIV of v. 8) carries multiple meanings. It can mean simply “breath.” So to say that there was no ruakh in the bodies could simply mean that they were not breathing. Related to this meaning is the use of ruakh for “wind” (as in 1:4 and 37:9). In keeping with the invisible force of the wind and the life-giving power of the breath is a third meaning. Ruakh can also mean “spirit”—that is, the empowering, enlivening agency of persons (see 1:12, 20), and particularly of God (as in 36:26–27). A similar ambiguity in the Greek stands behind John 3:8, where Jesus uses the power of the wind (pneuma in Gk.), which “blows wherever it pleases,” to describe the mysterious force active in those “born of the Spirit” (also pneuma).
A pun on ruakh runs through the Lord’s second command to the prophet: Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe into these slain, that they may live’” (v. 9). So, as Ezekiel prophesied to the wind (ruakh), breath (ruakh) entered the bodies, and they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army (v. 10). The third meaning of ruakh will come to the fore in the Lord’s message interpreting this vision.
37:11–14 Now God explains to Ezekiel the meaning of his vision: “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel” (v. 11). Just as, in the prophet’s vision, the bones were dry and scattered, so the exiles say of themselves, “Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off” (v. 11). God does not deny this self-assessment; the exiles are in fact quite right. Israel, as a nation, is no more. However, God remains God and, therefore, hope for the future remains possible and meaningful. Twice (vv. 12 and 13) the Lord declares to the exiles (called my people) that God will open their graves, and bring God’s people up out of them. These statements flank the promise of restoration: “I will bring you back to the land of Israel” (v. 12). Dead Israel will live again, in its homeland. Further, God declares, “I will put my Spirit [again, ruakh] in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land” (v. 14). The restoration will involve more than resettlement. God will restore Israel spiritually as well—renewing, enlivening, and enabling them (see 11:19; 18:31; 36:26–27).
As powerfully effective as the language and imagery of this passage still are today, it is difficult for us to recapture the explosive impact it must have had upon its original audience. No one had ever said anything like this before. To be sure, Hosea had raised the idea of national resurrection (6:1–3), as had Isaiah (26:19), but what was for them a metaphor has become, for Ezekiel, an experience. In a vision, the prophet smells the dust of the dry bones, hears the rattling as the power of the divine word reunites the bones, feels the wind of God’s enlivening spirit, sees dead Israel raised to new life—and, through his words, we share in that vivid experience. There are, of course, elements from Israel’s tradition which here receive new dress: the notion of the breath of God transforming the dust into living beings (see Gen. 2:7, 19), and the stories of Ezekiel’s prophetic forebears Elijah and Elisha raising the dead (1 Kgs. 17:17–24; 2 Kgs. 4:18–37; 13:20–21). However, no one before Ezekiel had put these ideas together into a single, powerful image.
Verses 1–14 portray a symbolic vision of exile and restoration as the national death and resurrection of Israel. However, the image proved too powerful to be restricted to that single, historical interpretation. Indeed, the resurrection of the dead becomes the dominant mode for understanding life beyond this life in Judaism and Christianity. Already Daniel 12:2, arguably the earliest interpretation of Ezekiel 37 extant, plainly presents this idea: “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” Similarly, the Syriac translation of 37:11 in the Peshitta has “these are the bones of the whole house of Israel,” rather than “these bones are the whole house of Israel”—reading the metaphor as reality. Early Christian interpreters (with the exception of Origen, who treats this passage metaphorically) uniformly read verses 1–14 as a depiction of the resurrection at the end of time.
But not all ancient readers of verses 1–14 found a general resurrection here. Talmud records a fascinating discussion of whether this passage relates to the resurrection of the dead or not (b. Sanhedrin 92b). Rabbi Judah says, ʾemet mashal hayah (“It is true, it is a parable,” or perhaps, “Truly, it is a parable”). Elsewhere Talmud also identifies Job as a mashal, meaning “Job never was and never existed” (b. Bava Batra 15a). Rabbi Judah’s point is that Ezekiel’s vision was indeed a vision; he did not actually raise the dead. But Rabbi Nehemiah responds, “If it is true, how is it a parable, and if it is a parable, how is it true?” Debate about the meaning of Rabbi Judah’s statement continued among the medieval commentators. Rashi too said that Ezekiel had offered to the exiles a metaphor for their circumstance, but in his commentary on Ezekiel he nonetheless held that verses 12–13 referred to a literal resurrection to come. Kimchi allowed for that possibility but still proposed that verses 1–14 were a metaphor for exile and restoration (cited in Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, p. 750).
The bulk of the discussion in b. Sanhedrin 92b assumes that an actual resurrection took place. The rabbis debate when the resurrection that verses 1–14 describe occurred (at the same time that Nebuchadnezzar cast Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego into the furnace; Dan. 3:19–30), exactly who was raised, and how long they lived after their resurrection (Rabbi Eliezar held that they rose up, sang a hymn, and died again, while Rabbi Jose the Galilean said that they had lived to return to Palestine and father children; Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra claimed to be one of their descendants!). Still, since those Ezekiel had raised did die again, the rabbis did not hold that this text was relevant for the discussion of the resurrection at the end of the age.
While verses 1–14 address exile and restoration, then, that reading did not exhaust its significance for ancient interpreters, who found here a basis for hope in the face of death itself (see also Additional Notes, below). For the Christian, this hope is inseparable from the Easter confession: God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will raise us up as well (see 1 Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:13–18).
37:15–17 The typical divine word formula (v. 15) introduces the seventh oracle in this section, the sign-act of the two sticks. It closes with a variation of the recognition formula (“Then the nations will know that I the LORD make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever,” v. 28). There are two parts: the sign (vv. 15–17), and its interpretation (vv. 18–28). As is common with the sign-acts in Ezekiel, nothing is said of Ezekiel actually performing the sign (compare chs. 4–5, and contrast 12:1–16)—the description of the act suffices.
God tells Ezekiel to take two sticks. On one he is to write, “Belonging to Judah and the Israelites associated with him,” on the other, “Ephraim’s stick, belonging to Joseph and all the house of Israel associated with him” (v. 16). We might ask how Ezekiel was to write on the sticks, or how an audience could tell what he had written (though if this is a literary sign-act rather than one he actually performed, that objection fades). But the next part of the sign is difficult even to imagine: “Join them together into one stick so that they will become one in your hand” (v. 17). Perhaps Ezekiel places the sticks end to end, hiding the join in his hand, so that they appear as one—though that would be hard to do if the sticks were of any length at all. He may have prepared two interlocking halves of a single broken stick, which he now rejoins—but if so, why didn’t he just say so?
The Hebrew term ʿets, translated “stick of wood” in the NIV means, simply, “wood.” It can refer, depending on the context, to a stick, a board, a branch, or even a tree. The LXX of verses 16–17 renders ʿets as hrabdos, which often means “staff.” In Hebrew, the words for “staff” (shebet and matteh) can also mean “tribe” or “clan,” since the head of a tribe or clan bears a staff as a symbol of authority (see Num. 17:1–11). Often, then, interpreters have found in verses 16–17 a reference to two staves, symbolizing rulership over the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel. As Odell observes, the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser shows Jehu of Israel bowing to the Assyrian ruler and records in an inscription that he presented to Shalmaneser his ruler’s staff, representing his kingdom (Odell, Ezekiel, pp. 456–57). She proposes that when Ezekiel takes the two staves, he is playing the role of God, who has now assumed rule over all the tribes: “The two ‘sticks’ thus signify Yahweh’s sovereign prerogative to rule and protect these people” (Odell, Ezekiel, p. 456). This is a tempting interpretation, though it leaves unexplained how Ezekiel combines the two staves into one; still, as Zimmerli wryly observes, “the argument of clearness of presentation is much less forceful in Ezekiel than with one of the other prophets” (Ezekiel 2, p. 274).
But there is another interpretation that grants greater clarity to every aspect of this sign-act, from the writing on the two “sticks of wood” to their combination into one. In Targum Jonathan, ʿets is translated as “tablet,” suggesting that Ezekiel’s “sticks of wood” may in fact have been writing boards. As Block observes, writing boards coated with colored beeswax and written upon with a pointed stylus are widely attested in the ancient world (Block, Ezekiel 25–48, pp. 400–401). If verses 16–17 refer to a writing board, there would be no problem either with the prophet writing on the board, or with the legibility of his message. Finally, writing tablets were often hinged or tied together, so that two could, literally, be brought together as one (Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 405).
37:18–28 The meaning of the sign-act is certainly obvious. Still, the Lord says that when Ezekiel’s audience asks what all this means, he is to tell them, “This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel” (vv. 21–22). The reunification of the tribes into “one nation” will be manifest through one ruler: the line of David will be established once more (vv. 22–25; compare 34:23–24). Almost certainly, the lines in verses 22 and 24 which identify the future Davidic ruler as king (Heb. melek; by contrast v. 25, like 34:24, uses nasiʾ) represent the later editing of this book (Eichrodt, Ezekiel, pp. 511–12; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, pp. 271–72; Hals, Ezekiel, pp. 273–74). It is doubtful that Ezekiel, who has been so consistent in his avoidance of the term “king,” would change his characteristic usage now.
Once more (see the discussion of 34:25), God says “I will make a covenant of peace with them” (v. 26), though this time God expressly identifies that covenant as an everlasting covenant (v. 26; see the discussion of 16:60). One temple will demonstrate the unity and permanency of Israel, and the place of God in their midst: “I will put my sanctuary among them forever. My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people” (vv. 26–27). This promise has a dual significance. First, consistent with the concern expressed in 36:16–23, God’s commitment to dwell permanently in Israel’s midst vindicates the divine honor in the sight of the nations: “Then the nations will know that I the LORD make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever” (v. 28). But secondly, this promise opens up a guarantee of divine presence that brings the book full circle. In chapters 1–3, Ezekiel experienced the Glory in exile, prompting the question: What has become of Jerusalem? In chapters 8–11, the prophet watched in horror as the Glory departed from Jerusalem, abandoning city and temple to their fate. Now Ezekiel promises that, in the future, God will once more establish a dwelling among God’s people. But how can we understand that in a way that avoids the tragic failures of the past? Further, where is God’s Glory now, in the meantime? These questions will be the concern of Ezekiel’s final vision complex, in chapters 40–48.
Additional Notes
34:1–10 Commentaries generally treat this entire chapter as a unified oracle (e.g., Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, pp. 705–9; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, pp. 273–76; Odell, Ezekiel, p. 423). Block argues that, as a unit, this chapter draws upon Jer. 23:1–6: “The linkages in theme and in structure, style, and diction are too numerous and too specific to be accidental, and their distribution throughout Ezek. 34 may support the unitary interpretation of the latter” (Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 275). Given the close relationship evident between these two prophetic books, dependence on Jer. is certainly possible. On the other hand, the many resemblances between these two chs. could represent dependency either way. Perhaps the later editors of Jer. shaped Jer. 23:1–6 to mirror Ezek. 34.
Certainly, vv. 11–31 presuppose vv. 1–10 and are closely related to them. However, a shift of perspective is also evident, from human shepherds to the divine shepherd, and from judgment on the shepherds to judgment on the sheep. Although the placement of vv. 1–10 assumes a setting after the fall of Jerusalem the text provides no date, and one might ask why Ezekiel is penning an oracle against kingship when there are no longer any kings to condemn. Perhaps this allegory was written before the fall and has been recalled here to serve as a base for the oracle of reconstruction and renewal in vv. 11–34. On the other hand, the oracle condemns the shepherds in broad, general terms, making it more applicable to the entire history of kingship in Israel than to the particular abuses of specific monarchs. This is a complicated chapter, with many problems (particularly in vv. 11–31), and the interrelationships among its parts are not always easy to unravel.
34:16 The sleek and the strong I will destroy. The NIV, like the NRSV and the NJPS, follows the MT, which reads ʾashmid (“I will destroy”). The LXX, Syr., and Vulg. all read instead “watch over,” assuming an original Heb. ʾeshmor. The two words are nearly identical in Heb. (d and r look a great deal alike), so it is easy to understand a scribe mistaking one for the other. The reading the LXX follows certainly seems a better fit with the context of vv. 11–16, which stresses God’s care for the flock, in striking contrast to the shepherds’ cruelty (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 208; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 287; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, p. 157). On the other hand, the following section, vv. 17–24, will deal with God judging the sheep and siding with the weak and injured over against the fat and strong. The shocking introduction of this idea in v. 16 is in keeping with Ezekiel’s style elsewhere. The NIV is right to stay with the Heb. here.
34:31 “You my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are people, and I am your God.” The awkward Eng. of the NIV translation is a faithful representation of the awkward Heb. in the MT. The initial “you” is feminine, not the masculine form that Ezekiel has used throughout this chapter, and is missing in the LXX; likely it is an addition, meant to correct the grammar (tsoʾn, the word for “sheep,” is feminine). The word “people” (Heb. ʾadam) also does not appear in the Gk. or Old Latin texts of this verse, and three Heb. manuscripts also lack it (Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 295), suggesting that it is a gloss, meant to indicate that the sheep are not literal sheep but Israelites. There is no conjunction before the pronoun “I” in the Heb., but the LXX has this. Perhaps the best reconstruction would be “My sheep, the sheep of my pasture, you are; and I am your God.”
35:6 “I will give you over to bloodshed and it will pursue you. Since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you.” This is a difficult verse. The word the NIV renders “bloodshed” is simply the Heb. word for “blood” (dam), repeated four times in this verse. The first clause, “I will give you over to bloodshed, and it will consume you,” is better translated “I will make you blood (or, perhaps, “bloody”), and blood will pursue you.” The NIV represents one attempt to make sense of this odd phrase. Another is the NRSV “I will prepare you for blood.” Though Tg. assumes the presence of this strange clause, it does not appear in the LXX. Further, the expected ending to the oath at the verse’s beginning (“therefore as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD”) is found in the second clause; the first clause interrupts that sequence. It is perhaps best, then, to delete this clause as a dittography (an error caused by a scribe mistakenly copying a word or phrase twice; here, “blood will pursue you”). Among commentators who delete this clause are Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 312; Darr, “Ezekiel,” p. 1476; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, p. 167.
The second clause, which the NIV renders “Since you did not hate bloodshed,” is more accurately translated “Since you hated (or, were an enemy of) blood,” which appears to make no sense in context. The NIV and the NRSV simply read as though the text said the opposite—and indeed, the Heb. ʾim-loʾ dam saneʾta, if read literally, would be “if you did not hate blood.” However, in an oath formula, the Heb. ʾim-loʾ (“if not”) “expresses not the negative, but an emphatic affirmative” (Darr, “Ezekiel,” p. 1477; see, e.g., 36:7, in which this formula also appears). The LXX reads, “since you are guilty of blood,” perhaps assuming an original Heb. ʾashamta, though how the MT could have been derived from this is unclear. Others propose emending the text to nasata (reversing the n and s), which yields “you bear (presumably, the guilt of) blood” (S. R. Driver, cited by Darr, “Ezekiel,” p. 1477) or to sinʾah, hence “blood of hatred” (Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 312).
The MT, while difficult, is meaningful. Greenberg notes that all three words in this phrase, “hate,” “blood,” and “pursue,” occur in the context of laws involving the “avenger of blood” (a kinsman charged with avenging the death of family members, see Deut. 19:6; Num. 35:20–21). Edom is “an enemy of blood,” opposed to Israel’s very existence (Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, p. 713). Its actions against Israel, motivated by ancient hatred, are not warfare but murder, which must be avenged: “The blood shed by such a murderer will hound him, and be satisfied only by his death” (Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, p. 713).
36:11 “I will settle people on you.” Ezekiel does not value the land for its own sake. It is not the unsettled wilderness but the settled places, farms and villages, which reflect the presence and blessing of God. This instrumental view of the land having value in its usefulness for humanity was common in the ancient world (J. Galambush, “God’s Land and Mine: Creation as Property in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Cook and Patton, eds., Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World, pp. 102–3). Also common was the corresponding notion that the wilderness is dangerous and threatening, if not outright evil. After all, it is in the wilderness that Jesus encounters the devil (Matt. 4:1–11//Mark 1:12–13//Luke 4:1–13; see also Matt. 12:43–45//Luke 11:24–26). There are, to be sure, other biblical witnesses which affirm the inherent goodness of the world, apart from its utility (see Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25), as well as the caring presence of God in wild places (e.g., Job 38–39; Ps. 104:10–30).
36:15 No longer will you . . . cause your nation to fall. This is an entirely unexpected and unprecedented statement, at odds with the entire message of this book: nowhere does Ezekiel ever suggest that the land has somehow caused Israel to fall. The verb translated “cause to fall” (takshili) is nearly identical to the verb in v. 14 translated “make childless” (teshakkeli); the only difference in the consonants is the order of the letters sh and k. Indeed, the written text of v. 14 also has takshili, but ancient scribal tradition dictates that that is an error; the word is to be read as teshakkeli. The LXX confirms that the Heb. text the Gk. translators had before them read “make childless” in v. 14, and all the modern translations read accordingly. Perhaps (as Block suggests, see Ezekiel 25–48, p. 333) we should read “make your nation childless” here in v. 15 as well. However, the LXX lacks the final phrase in v. 15, suggesting that its presence in the MT is an error. It is likely that a scribe has mistakenly copied this phrase from the also mistaken text of the preceding verse (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 231; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, p. 722). It is best, then, to delete it.
36:23b–38 These verses were probably composed to make the connection between sanctifying the Lord’s name and ch. 37 explicit (J. Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40 in the Oldest Greek Manuscript,” CBQ 43 [1981], pp. 525–27). Lust, however, holds that the original text placed chs. 38–39 prior to ch. 37, as in Papyrus 967, and that the movement of the Gog material to its present location necessitated this bridge in the MT (see the discussion and notes on chs. 38–39 below).
While these verses were certainly incorporated into the text of Ezek. by the first century A.D., as the Ezek. fragment from Masada demonstrates (see S. Talmon, with C. Newsom and Y. Yadin, “Hebrew Fragments from Masada,” in Masada VI: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Report [ed. J. Aviram, G. Foerster, E. Netzer; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1999], pp. 59–75), it seems most probable that the original text of the book lacked these verses. This material is missing from Papyrus 967, generally regarded as an excellent witness to the best old Gk. translation of Ezek. (esp. Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40,” p. 517; see also Lust, “Shorter and Longer Texts,” pp. 12–13). A Coptic-Sahidic lectionary listing several passages from Ezek. also has 36:16–23a as a unit, ending the passage at the same point as Pap. 967 (M. N. van der Meer, “A New Spirit in an Old Corpus? Text-Critical, Literary-Critical and Linguistic Observations regarding Ezekiel 36:16–38,” in The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy (Festschrift for Henk Leene) [ed. F. Postma, K. Spronk, and E. Talstra; Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese van de Bijbel en zijn Tradities; Maastricht, 2002], p. 148, though van der Meer argues that since the manuscript “is not a complete Bible text, but a lectionary . . . it is not possible to draw conclusions from this text”). In Codex Wiceburgensis, one of the oldest and best witnesses to the old Latin translation of the text, this entire ch. is missing (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, p. 242); however, from reconstruction of the folios that remain it appears most likely that here as well, the latter half of the chapter was never part of the complete codex (P.-M. Bogaert, “Témoignage de la Vetus Latina dans l’étude de la tradition des Septante Ézéchiel et Daniel dans le Papyrus 967,” Bib 59 [1978], pp. 390–91). Further, in the LXX as we have it, the translators responsible for the rest of Ezek. did not write the latter part of ch. 36: “The Greek style and vocabulary of Ez 36, 23c–38 differs considerably from its context” (Lust, “Shorter and Longer Texts,” p. 13). Apparently, this section has been filled in from another, later Gk. translation, similar in style to Theodotian, a translator of the Jewish Scriptures into Gk. who worked in the late second or early third century A.D. (Lust, “Shorter and Longer Texts,” p. 13, citing the work of H. St. J. Thackeray). Finally, in the Heb. of 36:23b–38 we find an odd combination of quotes and allusions from elsewhere in the book and the use of vocabulary not found anywhere else in Ezek. (see the discussion of these vv. above, and Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40,” pp. 521–25). Further, the MT seems disjointed and uneven: note that van der Meer, who argues for the unity of 36:16–32, accepts that 36:33–36 and 37–38 “may be even later appendices to that section” (“New Spirit,” p. 157, see also p. 147 and Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, pp. 733–34).
Of course, it is possible that the absence of these verses from Pap. 967 is due to scribal error (Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 273, though it is a stretch to think that a scribe could unknowingly skip this much material) or to a scribe missing a page from the text he was copying (van der Meer, “New Spirit,” p. 151; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 340). However, that would not explain the absence of the same section from Codex Wirceburgensis, the different character of the LXX translation through this same section, or the curious coincidence of an Egyptian lectionary regarding 36:16–23a as a complete unit. Scholars who have noted its close connection with its context have defended the authenticity of 36:23b–38. In particular, scholars often observe that, without these verses, God’s defense of God’s name is left undefined (esp. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, pp. 339–43; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, pp. 738–40; and van der Meer, “New Spirit,” pp. 153–57). However, such a good fit could also demonstrate an able and accomplished editor. This editor (or editors) could have written 36:23b–38 in order to describe the vindication of God’s name more fully (as Block acknowledges, though he says “Ezekiel should not be prematurely eliminated as a candidate for that redactor,” Ezekiel 25–48, p. 343). Most likely, these verses belong to the editing of our book.
36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you. The Heb. verb zaraq (“pour, sprinkle”) refers to purification by water only here and in Num. 19:13, 20 (a text which deals with uncleanness through contact with a corpse; see Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40,” p. 523), and the expression translated “clean water” is found only here in Scripture.
36:38 Flocks of people. This unique expression persuasively demonstrates that these verses represent a later expansion to the context. The Heb. tsoʾn ʾadam is based on a scribal error in 34:31 (Lust, “Ezekiel 36–40,” p. 524; see the Additional Note on 34:31).
37:7 A rattling sound. The word translated “a rattling sound” in the NIV (Heb. raʿash) generally indicates a loud rumbling roar, like an earthquake (1 Kgs. 19:11–12; Isa. 29:6; Amos 1:1; Zech. 14:5; see also the LXX of v. 7, which has seismos), a battle (Isa. 9:5; Jer. 10:22), or the hoof-beats and rolling wheels of chariotry (Jer. 47:3; Nah. 3:2). In Ezek., the term describes the roar of the wind, wings, and wheels in the prophet’s first vision of the Lord’s Glory (1:12–13), and the manifestation of God’s wrath against Gog (38:19; the NIV reads, “there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel”), which could suggest that v. 7 also describes a loud noise, like an earthquake. Evidently, the painter of the Dura Europas synagogue fresco depicting vv. 1–14 (from around the third century A.D.) understood the term in this way, as the wall painting shows a mountain split in two as the dead are raised (see Odell, Ezekiel, pp. 453–54). The writer of Matthew also understood that an earthquake accompanied the resurrection of the dead (see Matt. 28:2, and particularly 27:51–53, which many propose is based on Ezek. 37).
However, nothing else in vv. 1–14 suggests an earthquake—no description of rocks splitting, or the ground opening up, appears in this vision. In Ezek. 12:18, where raʿash also occurs, the prophet quietly acts out the terror of the siege: “Son of man, tremble as you eat your food, and shudder in fear as you drink your water” (compare Job 39:24; 41:29, which also refer to shaking or rattling, rather than the roar of an earthquake). The NIV, like the NRSV and NJPS, has made the right choice: raʿash in v. 7 most likely describes the rattling sound of the bones joining together.
37:10–14 St. Cyril of Jerusalem (fourth century A.D.) quotes v. 12 in his catechetical lectures as a scriptural proof for the resurrection of the dead, and St. Ambrose (340–397 A.D.) writes of vv. 9–14, “We notice here how the operations of the Spirit of life are again resumed; we know after what manner the dead are raised from the opening tombs” (The Two Books of St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, on the Decease of His Brother Satyrus, 2.75–76, trans. H. DeRomestin).
In contrast to the rabbis, Second (or Pseudo-) Ezekiel, a work based on Ezekiel found at Qumran (4Q386–390; the specific fragment dealing with Ezek.37 is 4Q385) does apply Ezekiel’s vision to the future resurrection of the dead. This mid-first century A.D. Jewish text describes resurrection as the reward for the khesed (“steadfast love” or “covenant loyalty;” Geza Vermes translates it here as “piety”) of “many from Israel who have loved your name” (G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English [4th ed.; London: Penguin, 1981], p. 327; note that this reading is a reconstruction from a fragmentary text).
37:11 We are cut off. The verb here, gazar, is a surprise. In priestly law generally (e.g., Lev. 7:20–21; 17:10–11), and in the Holiness Code particularly (e.g., see Lev. 18:29; 19:8; 20:5–6), the term that refers to expulsion from the community is karat, which also means “cut off.” The word gazar is not common; it appears only fourteen times in the HB, and never in priestly legislation. The oldest meaning of the word seems to be “cut in two” (Gen. 15:17; 1 Kgs. 3:25–26; still reflected in Ps. 136:13 [where gazar appears twice]) or “cut down” (2 Kgs. 6:4). In late texts, oddly, gazar can refer to issuing a decree (Esth. 2:1; Job 22:28). However, texts from around the time of the exile use gazar for separation in a more abstract sense. The preexilic Hab. 3:17 expresses faith in God “though there are no sheep in the pen” (lit., “though the sheep are cut off from the pen”), and postexilic 2 Chr. 26:21 records that the leprous King Uzziah was “excluded [that is, “cut off”] from the temple of the LORD.” Lam. 3:54 and Isa. 53:8, also from the exilic period, use gazar as v. 11 does here, for the separation of death (see also Ps. 88:5).
37:23 For I will save them from all their sinful backsliding. NIV here follows the LXX and Symmachus; the MT reads “I will save them from the settlements in which they have sinned.” The Heb. word moshebotehem (“their settlements”) is almost identical to meshubotehem (“their turnings-back”), which was evidently the text in front of the Gk. translators. Apparently, a scribe reversed the letters sh and w in the MT (Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 407; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, p. 756).
