As a priest, Ezekiel was literate and well educated. His learned background is apparent in his imaginative use of a variety of literary forms and styles. The effect of this creativity on his original audience was evidently mixed; some contemporaries dismissed him as a teller of riddles (20:49; the NIV renders the Heb. meshalim “parables”) or “one who sings love songs” (33:32). Certainly, though, this variety makes Ezekiel one of the most interesting, as well as the most baffling, of the prophetic books.
In Ezekiel 15–17, a formally distinctive collection of parables, riddles, and extended metaphors, the prophet’s literary art and creativity are on full display.
In 17:2, the Lord commands, “Son of man, set forth an allegory [Heb. khidah] and tell the house of Israel a parable” [Heb. mashal]. In context, these two terms, both designating a riddle or wise saying that requires interpretation, refer only to the story of the eagle and the vine (17:1–10). However, they are apt designations for all four units in this section of the book. First, in 15:1–8, is a riddle in which Ezekiel uses a familiar metaphor for Israel, the vine, in startlingly unexpected ways. Next, in 16:1–63, the prophet presents an allegory in which he extends another familiar metaphor from the ancient world, the city personified as a woman, into a complex and disturbing narrative. In 17:1–21, Ezekiel presents the allegory of the eagle and the vine (17:1–10) and its interpretation (17:11–21). Finally, in 17:22–24, this section of the book closes with the related parable of the sprig and the cedar.
15:1–8 Although, like so many units in Ezekiel, 15:1–8 begins The word of the LORD came to me (v. 1) and ends declares the Sovereign LORD (v. 8), this is not a typical prophetic speech. It is a riddle, based on a familiar image in ancient Israel: the vine. The text falls into two parts: the actual riddle in the form of a poem (vv. 2–5), and the interpretation of the riddle, in prose (vv. 6–8; note that the interpretation begins with the messenger formula).
In the Hebrew Bible, the vine usually connotes peaceful habitation, joy, and abundance. The spies demonstrate the fertility of the land of promise when they bring a huge bunch of grapes back from the Valley of Eshcol (Num. 13:23–24), and the descriptions of the land itself make clear that it is a place where Israel will enjoy the fruit of vineyards without the labor of planting them (see Deut. 6:11; Josh. 24:13). The Israelites remember the reign of Solomon as a golden age, when “Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, each man under his own vine and fig tree” (1 Kgs. 4:25; compare 2 Kgs. 18:31–32; Mic. 4:4). Love songs use images of the vine and the vineyard for scenes of romance and as symbols of conjugal bliss and fertility (Ps. 128:3; Song 1:6, 14; 2:13; 7:8, 12; Isa. 5:1). It is little wonder, then, that the Bible often describes Israel itself as a vine or a vineyard (e.g., Isa. 5:1–7; Jer. 2:21; Hos. 10:1; 14:7). Jesus’ parable of the wicked tenants (Matt. 21:23–43//Mark 12:1–12//Luke 20:9–19) and the description of Christ and the church as the true vine and its branches (John 15:1–17) both pick up on this image.
In all of this imagery, the most important feature of the vine is, of course, its fruit—from which comes “wine that gladdens the heart of man” (Judg. 9:12–13; Ps. 104:15). Even when texts use the metaphor negatively, it is the fruit of the vine, or the absence of fruit, that is the point (Deut. 32:32; Jer. 6:9). What makes Ezekiel’s riddle so startling, then, is that it does not have to do with fruit at all. Instead, the Lord asks, “Son of man, how is the wood of a vine better than that of a branch on any of the trees in the forest?” (v. 2). Of course, the wood of the vine is not better; in fact it is worthless—nothing can be made from it, not even clothes pegs for a wall (v. 3)! The Lord thus turns the metaphor of Israel as a vine inside out. Even at its best, Israel, like a vine, is weak and unreliable.
Israel, however, is not even at its best—it is instead like a vine charred in the fire, and all but burned in two. Enemies have ravaged the land and its capital city is about to fall to siege (vv. 4–5). There is no longer any excuse for pride—not even among the exiles in Ezekiel’s community, who may congratulate themselves on having escaped the worst of the devastation. The Lord says, “Although they have come out of the fire, the fire will yet consume them” (v. 7; compare 5:4). The Lord clearly states the reason for this judgment: “I will make the land desolate because they have been unfaithful” (v. 8). Like the limp, worthless wood of the vine, too weak to serve any useful purpose, the people of Israel have proven undependable and disloyal, turning from right worship to embrace idols. This betrayal will be the theme of the next unit in Ezekiel’s book, the allegory of the foundling bride (ch. 16).
16:1–34 Broadly speaking, chapter 16 falls into two unequal parts: verses 1–58 and 59–63. The word of the LORD came to me (v. 1) introduces the first section, containing the extended metaphor of the foundling bride, and the oracular formula “declares the LORD” (v. 58) closes the section. We can further divide this parable into three sections: the accusation against Jerusalem (vv. 1–34); the Lord’s judgment (vv. 35–43a—note that this section opens with the messenger formula and closes with the oracular formula); and a curious sort of salvation oracle (vv. 43b–58). Then verses 59–63 offer a message of hope for Jerusalem, which takes the form of a new covenant (again, the messenger formula introduces this section and the oracular formula closes it).
Ezekiel begins with a description of Jerusalem’s birth and foreign parentage: “Your ancestry and birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite” (v. 2). What the prophet says, while intentionally insulting to the race-proud priesthood and nobility of the city, is of course true: Jerusalem was originally not an Israelite city but a Jebusite stronghold (2 Sam. 5:1–10//1 Chr. 11:1–9). Indeed, it may well be that David chose Jerusalem as his capital, at least in part, for this very reason. It was a site located roughly in the center of the territory that Israel’s tribes and clans claimed, yet it was not traditionally connected to any of them. Therefore Jerusalem could serve as a capital to all of them. In a similar way, the United States placed its capital not in one of the states, but rather in the District of Columbia—the better to serve as a fair and unbiased capital to the entire nation.
For Ezekiel, however, the foreign origins of Jerusalem spoke to the city’s corruption from the very beginning. In sharp contrast to his contemporary Jeremiah (see Jer. 2:1–3), Ezekiel does not look back to a pristine golden age when Israel was faithful and righteous. Rather, Ezekiel asserts that Jerusalem has been a corrupt, wicked city from the very first (recall 4:4–8, where the 390 years of the Jerusalem temple are also the years of Israel’s iniquity). Here he symbolizes this with the image of newborn Jerusalem, unwashed, its navel cord uncut (vv. 4–5), kicking about in your blood (v. 6). For the priests, childbirth was defiling to mother and child alike, requiring rituals of purification (Lev. 12:1–8; see also Luke 2:22–24). This was not, as some have suggested, because of Israel’s supposed hatred of women, but rather because of the priestly view that contact with blood brought ritual defilement (Lev. 12:4; 17:10–14). However, no one performs purifying rites for infant Jerusalem! She is an unwanted, abandoned child, left to die unclaimed and unloved.
Now, for the first time, the Lord enters the story, as a sponsor who affirms the unwanted foundling and enables her survival (vv. 6–7). Once more, the point is the radical one-sidedness of Israel’s election. All the Lord does is speak a word. However, just as the world came into being in response to the divine word (Gen. 1), so, when the Lord says “Live!” (v. 6), life flows at once into abandoned, defiled, dying Jerusalem. Abruptly and miraculously, the child grows and matures until the abandoned infant has become a young woman, old enough for love (v. 8; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, p. 278).
Once more, the image shifts. From being sponsor to the foundling Jerusalem, the Lord now becomes her suitor and spouse: “I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign Lord, and you became mine” (v. 8). The Lord not only cleanses Jerusalem of her impurity, but clothes her sumptuously, in rich fabrics, decks her out in gold and silver jewelry, and provides for her the best foods (vv. 9–13). Now, the erstwhile foundling has become a queen, famed among the nations for her beauty (vv. 13–14).
But Jerusalem’s pride and idolatry bring on her destruction. Rather than trusting in the Lord, her husband, who has given her all that she has, Jerusalem trusted in her beauty (v. 15). Formerly the Lord said “you became mine” (v. 8). But now Jerusalem has “become a prostitute. You lavished your favors on anyone who passed by and your beauty became his” (v. 15). In the Hebrew Bible, sexual infidelity is a common symbol for Israel’s unfaithfulness to the Lord, whether politically, by trusting in foreign alliances rather than in God, or spiritually, through idolatry (see the discussion in the Additional Notes). While verse 15 suggests that the Lord is condemning Jerusalem’s political compromises here, verses 16–19 emphasize spiritual corruption. They have placed all of the Lord’s gifts in service to idolatrous worship (for jewelry being turned into idols, a clear allusion to the golden calf incident in Exod. 32:2–4, see also 7:20). The Lord even accuses Jerusalem of the obscene practice of child sacrifice (vv. 20–21; see also 20:26, and the accounts of child sacrifice during the reigns of the wicked kings Ahaz [2 Kgs. 16:3//2 Chr. 28:3] and Manasseh [2 Kgs. 21:5//2 Chr. 33:6]). In short, Jerusalem has forgotten her desperate beginnings and rejected the God who delivered her from death and gave to her all that she has (v. 22).
In verses 23–29, Jerusalem’s prostitution of herself refers to foreign alliances. In deliberately offensive language, Ezekiel describes Jerusalem as wantonly hurling herself at lover after lover. Although the imagery is blatantly sexual, the references are to relationships that are historical, political alliances. The affair with Egypt (v. 26) likely refers to Hezekiah’s alliance with that great southern power, in hopes of prevailing in his rebellion against the Assyrians (see 2 Kgs. 18:21//Isa. 36:6; Isa. 30:1–17). The description of hard times and humiliation following this action (“So I stretched out my hand against you and reduced your territory” [v. 27]) likely reflects the devastation Sennacherib’s armies wrought in Judah while suppressing that revolt (2 Kgs. 18:13). The Lord’s declaration “I gave you over to the greed of your enemies, the daughters of the Philistines, who were shocked by your lewd conduct” (v. 27) may describe the vengeance of the Philistines, whose annexation had been Hezekiah’s declaration of independence from his Assyrian masters (2 Kgs. 18:8). The affairs with Assyria (v. 28) and Chaldea (that is, Babylon, v. 29) would represent the oaths Manasseh and Amon swore to Assyria and that Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah swore to Babylon (see, though, 17:13, 18). For Ezekiel, however, these acts of political expediency demonstrate, as surely as the worship of idols, Israel’s lack of faith in the Lord. Indeed, separating the two creates a false impression. The Israelites carried out the acts of prostitution that verses 23–29 describe on mounds and in lofty shrines: that is, in places of idol worship (with Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, pp. 342–43). Similarly, in Amos 2:6–8, the prophet moves easily back and forth between castigating Israel’s wealthy for their abuse of the poor and condemning their false worship. For Israel’s prophets, right living and right worship are inseparable—two sides of the same coin. Neither is possible without the other. For Ezekiel, then, political misalliance and cultic sin are really just two aspects of Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness. Both constitute a betrayal of Israel’s sole allegiance to the Lord—or, in the story world of Ezekiel 16, adultery.
Although these verses repeatedly level the accusation of prostitution against Jerusalem, the text revises that accusation in verses 30–34. Jerusalem is not a prostitute—she is far worse! Prostitutes at least get paid, but the insatiable lust of Jerusalem prompts her to pay her lovers (vv. 33–34). Indeed, the word the NIV translates “gifts” in verse 33 refers to an allowance given to the wife by her husband. It is little wonder that the Lord is driven to wrath.
16:35–43a The wanton, brazen behavior of Jerusalem leads to the Lord’s judgment. In verse 36, the NIV reads Because you poured out your wealth but the alternate translation in the footnote, “Because your lust was poured out,” is preferable. The Lord condemns Jerusalem not as a spendthrift, but as a wanton (see the Additional Notes). Here we have a summary of all three of the accusations the Lord has raised against this foundling bride thus far: Jerusalem has given herself to other lovers (i.e., has engaged in foreign alliances; see vv. 23–34), has worshipped idols (vv. 16–21), and has even sacrificed her (and the Lord’s) children to idols (v. 21). The shed blood of Jerusalem’s children (v. 36) recalls her own bloody and unclean beginnings, when the Lord found her flailing about in her blood (vv. 6, 22). Now, Jerusalem’s willful self-defilement has brought her full circle. She will find herself reduced to the state in which she was found: bloody, naked, despised, and rejected.
In verses 37–41, Jerusalem’s horrific crimes call forth horrific penalties. First, the Lord will assemble all Jerusalem’s former lovers, those you loved as well as those you hated (v. 37). Then, the Lord says, “I will gather them against you from all around and will strip you in front of them, and they will see all your nakedness” (v. 37). In verse 39, the Lord declares, “Then I will hand you over to your lovers, and they will tear down your mounds and destroy your lofty shrines. They will strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry and leave you naked and bare.” This is not a contradiction: although Babylon will pierce the walls and Judah’s neighbors will pillage the ruins, Jerusalem’s destruction is ultimately God’s doing. Many scholars (e.g., Block, Ezekiel 1–24, pp. 501–2; Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, p. 79; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, p. 287) have argued that Jerusalem’s stripping is a ritual of divorce—the opposite of the marriage rite verse 8 describes, where the Lord spreads his cloak over Jerusalem and covers her nakedness. Certainly, the echo of verse 8 is intentional: God un-does what God had done for Jerusalem earlier and returns her to the state in which she was found (compare Hos. 2:3). However, nowhere does the Hebrew Bible describe public stripping and humiliation either as a rite of divorce or as a penalty for adultery. To understand what happens to Jerusalem in verses 37–41 we need to look not to any understanding of normal human relationships, but rather to the pathological realm of war crimes.
The Hebrew Bible consistently uses the word translated “nakedness” in verse 37, ʿerwah, in the context of shameful exposure or activity (see the discussion in Additional Notes). Isaiah 20:4 describes the humiliation of Egyptian and Ethiopian prisoners of war, marching into captivity naked from the waist down (compare 2 Sam. 10:4). This usage, as we will see, is directly applicable to Jerusalem’s fate in Ezekiel verses 37–41. By far the majority of the occurrences of ʿerwah appear in Leviticus 18:6–19 and 20:11, 17–21, where the term occurs thirty-two times (see also Ezek. 22:10, which makes reference to Lev. 18). The Hebrew idiom “uncover (someone’s) nakedness” (the NIV has “have sexual relations” in Lev.; the same phrase is translated “strip” in the NIV of Ezek. 16:37) describes shameful, defiling sexual intercourse, specifically incest or sexual relations with a menstruating woman (also see Ezek. 23:18, which describes Jerusalem’s alliance with Egypt as a shameful sexual relationship). Elsewhere, the expression “uncover (someone’s) nakedness” refers to rape—though in a metaphorical sense, referring to cities personified as women (Isa. 47:3 of Babylon, Lam. 1:8 of Jerusalem, and Hos. 2:9–10 of Samaria). Here in verses 36–37 as well, this is evidently the point (see also 23:10, which describes Samaria’s fall in rape imagery, and 23:29, where Jerusalem is again the victim).
More may be going on here, however, than a metaphorical depiction of Jerusalem’s siege and fall. It is no accident that rape came to be used as a metaphor for the fall of a city. Rape has followed war throughout history, for as long as humans have taken up weapons against one another. The Bible is certainly not lacking in evidence for this brutality (see, e.g., Isa. 3:16–4:1; Amos 7:16–17; and Jer. 13:18–22). Sadly, such violence was not restricted to Israel’s enemies. Deuteronomy recognizes the women of an enemy as legitimate booty (Deut. 20:14). However, the law does require their captors to treat women taken in battle with respect: they must marry them and are not to sell them as slaves (Deut. 21:10–14).
Another aspect of ritual humiliation aimed at an enemy was the stripping of prisoners of war. Numerous ancient Near Eastern inscriptions and reliefs depict this practice, as do Isaiah 20:4 and 2 Samuel 10:4, as we noted above. The Hebrew term golah, meaning “exile,” is derived from the same Hebrew root as the verb galah (meaning “to strip, uncover”) found here in verse 37. Ezekiel and his fellow exiles may well have directly experienced the stripping and humiliation Ezekiel describes here in verses 37–41. Indeed, as evidence of stripping, sexual abuse, and torture of prisoners of war by the U.S. military in our recent conflicts continues to unfold, the ancient words of Ezekiel have become tragically applicable to our current political situation.
Jerusalem’s abuse and humiliation goes beyond stripping, beyond even rape. The Lord says, “I will sentence you to the punishment of women who commit adultery and who shed blood” (v. 38)—that is, to death (Lev. 20:10; Gen. 9:6). So in verse 40 we read, “They will bring a mob against you, who will stone you and hack you to pieces with their swords.” The following verse alternates between the world of historical reality, which describes the houses of the city of Jerusalem put to the torch, and the story world of the parable, in which this judgment occurs in the sight of many women—evidently, the neighboring kingdoms. Only then, when Jerusalem once more lies naked and dying in a pool of blood, will the Lord’s jealous anger . . . turn away from you (v. 42; see the discussion of the Heb. word qinʾah, “jealous anger, zeal,” in Additional Note on 8:3).
Unquestionably, this is a deeply disturbing, indeed offensive, text. In no way is the intention of this passage to justify or encourage child abuse, spouse abuse, or rape. Remember, too, that Ezekiel did not invent the imagery of this chapter; rather, he participates in a long history in the ancient Near East. Ezekiel 16 is not a literal description of God or of Jerusalem, but an extended metaphor—an allegory, or parable. Similarly, the New Testament refers to Jesus coming like a thief in the night (Matt. 24:43//Luke 12:39; 1 Thess. 5:2, 4; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 3:3; 16:15), and Jesus in his parables describes God as an unjust judge (Luke 18:1–8) and a cruel master (Matt. 25:14–30//Luke 19:11–27). These of course are not literal descriptions either, but metaphors intended to underline some aspect of truth. In the same way Ezekiel seeks, through deliberately shocking and offensive imagery, to confront his audience with truths they do not want to face.
The point of Ezekiel’s disturbing parable is Jerusalem’s radical corruption and faithlessness, prompting in the story her divine spouse’s understandable (though never in human terms excusable or justifiable) wrath and jealousy. Ezekiel 16 is not in any sense a description of normal life: this is not the way human relationships ought to be. Nor is this chapter theology or theodicy: the prophet is not attempting either to preserve or to express some abstract notion of divine justice. Rather, in the language of poetry and metaphor, Ezekiel brings his readers to a visceral experience of the perverse faithlessness of Jerusalem, and the thwarted passion of God. Note, though, that this is not the end of the story. Beyond Jerusalem’s bloody, shameful end lies new hope and possibility.
16:43b–58 The Lord’s harsh, unstinting message of judgment now gives way to a promise of salvation. It is a curious sort of salvation oracle, however, containing as it does more condemnation than salvation. Still, the shift is clear, and in fact began with the summary that concluded the message of judgment in verses 35–43a: “Because you did not remember the days of your youth but enraged me with all these things, I will surely bring down on your head what you have done, declares the Sovereign LORD” (v. 43a). The expression “the days of your youth” first appears in this chapter in verse 22, which also notes that Jerusalem “did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, kicking about in your blood.” The implication is that if Jerusalem had remembered her beginnings, she would not have become arrogant and faithless (we find what Jerusalem should have remembered from those days, and what the Lord does remember, in the final movement of this chapter in v. 60). Jerusalem is to blame for its fate.
To a modern reader, this message seems heartless and cruel: Ezekiel is blaming the victims for their suffering. Recall, however, that Ezekiel and his community are in exile—Ezekiel is a victim, too. For Ezekiel, Jerusalem’s fall is neither a meaningless calamity nor the result of the Lord’s defeat by Babylon’s gods. His message to the community in exile is, “This is our fault; we did this to ourselves.” However, implicitly, this approach contains a glimmer of hope: perhaps, then, things can be made right again!
But first Judah must face up to what went wrong. This section opens with an accusation: “Did you not add lewdness to all your other detestable practices?” (v. 43b). The key words in this accusation are typical of Ezekiel. The second, translated “detestable practices” (Heb. toʿebah), we have seen before, especially in chapters 8–11. In Ezekiel, it refers particularly to idolatry. The first, key word, “lewdness” (Heb. zimmah), appears here for the first time. Nearly half of the occurrences of this term in the Hebrew Bible are in Ezekiel, where it appears fourteen times, mostly in chapters 16 (vv. 23, 43, 58) and 23 (vv. 21, 27, 29, 35, 44, 48, 49). Outside of Ezekiel, the term occurs most often (four times) in Leviticus 18–20, from the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26; zimmah is found in Lev. 18:17; 19:29; and twice in 20:14), where it refers to abominable sexual practices. In context, the meaning is clear: it is not enough that Jerusalem should be an adulteress; she has also become a prostitute!
A proverb makes clear the radical character of Jerusalem’s sin: Like mother, like daughter (v. 44). This is the only proverb Ezekiel cites favorably (compare 12:22, 27; and esp. 18:2–3). Please note: Ezekiel’s point is not that Jerusalem can blame its sin on its antecedents. Rather, Jerusalem continues to do as its pagan forebears once did. Once more, Ezekiel reminds us that Jerusalem’s “parents” were unclean foreign nations: “Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite” (v. 45; compare v. 3, which reverses the order).
Jerusalem is not only like her mother, but also like her sisters, who despised their husbands and their children (that is, their God and their inhabitants, v. 45). Jerusalem’s sisters are Samaria, capital of the defunct northern kingdom of Israel (v. 46; for Samaria and Jerusalem as sisters, see also Ezek. 23; compare Jer. 3:6–10) and Sodom (see Gen. 13:13; 19:1–29), with Jerusalem the worst of this unsavory crew (vv. 47–52; compare Jer. 3:11). Here Ezekiel recalls the sins of Sodom in particular, and their well-known consequences: “She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen” (vv. 49–50). Yet these acts of idolatry (the usual meaning of the Heb. word rendered “detestable things” in Ezekiel) and social injustice pale beside the sin of Jerusalem. The destroyed cities of Samaria and Sodom seem righteous by comparison (vv. 51–52). In fact, Jerusalem has now become what Sodom had been: a proverbial byword for wickedness and divine punishment (e.g., Gen. 13:10, 13; Deut. 29:23; Isa. 1:9–15; Jer. 23:14; Amos 4:11; Zeph. 2:9; Matt. 10:15//Luke 10:12; 2 Pet. 2:6). Just as Jerusalem had despised Sodom in the day of your pride (v. 56), so she is now herself scorned by the daughters of Edom and all her neighbors and the daughters of the Philistines—all those around you who despise you (v. 57). It is little wonder that this section concludes with a statement of Jerusalem’s inevitable punishment: “You will bear the consequences of your lewdness and your detestable practices, declares the LORD” (v. 58).
Yet, curiously, these words of condemnation form the context of a message of restoration for all three wicked sisters: “However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them . . . And your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to what they were before; and you and your daughters will return to what you were before” (vv. 53, 55). Paradoxically, the wickedness of Jerusalem has furnished some justification (v. 52) for Samaria and Sodom; they now appear comparatively righteous! God does not restore these cities in response to repentance: destroyed Samaria and Sodom cannot repent, and nothing is said of Jerusalem repenting, either. Rather, God restores them and Jerusalem alike so that you [Jerusalem] may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them [Sodom and Samaria] comfort (v. 54). To understand this odd statement, we must turn to the new covenant that verses 59–63 affirm.
16:59–63 The final movement of this chapter opens with the messenger formula (v. 59) and closes with the recognition formula (v. 62) and the oracular formula (v. 63). These verses affirm once more that the judgment and punishment that predominate in this chapter are inevitable. They express, however, the motivation for that judgment in somewhat different terms: “I will deal with you as you deserve, because you have despised my oath by breaking the covenant” (v. 59). This raises important questions: what oath has Jerusalem despised, and what covenant has it broken? The following verse answers both questions, as the Lord affirms, “I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth” (v. 60). In the story world of Ezekiel 16, the clear referent is to the Lord’s covenant and oath of marriage (v. 8). The language recalls Hosea 2:15 and Jeremiah 2:1, which also use the image of marriage to describe the covenant between God and God’s people at Israel’s beginnings. Again, as do verses 6–7, these verses stress the one-sidedness of God’s commitment. It is my oath, the Lord declares, that you have despised—not your own. Recall that the Lord castigated Jerusalem earlier for failing to remember “the days of your youth” (vv. 22, 43; but contrast 23:19, where the point is not to recall “the days of your youth”). However, what Jerusalem has forgotten, the Lord remembers (the Heb. emphasizes the subject of the verb: “I will remember”). It is in faithfulness to that remembered oath that the restoration verses 53–55 promise will take place.
In verse 60, the Lord further promises, “I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.” The Hebrew Bible speaks many times of an everlasting covenant (Heb. berit ʿolam). The covenant God made with all living things following the great flood (Gen. 9:16), the Lord’s covenant with Abraham (Gen. 17:1–22; see also Ps. 105:10//1 Chr. 16:17), the covenant God gave at Sinai (Exod. 31:16; Lev. 24:8) and the covenant of kingship with David’s line (2 Sam. 23:5) are all said to be everlasting covenants. Yet these are all past covenants, not future ones. Further, it is clear that Ezekiel understands none of these covenants as “everlasting” in the sense that they guarantee survival for Israel: indeed, quite to the contrary, Judah and Jerusalem are doomed. As in Jeremiah 31:31–34, the promised covenant is implicitly discontinuous with the former, broken one (see the discussion of Ezek. 11:19–21, above).
Ezekiel, Jeremiah and, later, Second Isaiah, understood berit ʿolam in new ways. For these prophets of the exile, the focus of the berit ʿolam became the future, not the past. It will be after the exile is over, and God has brought God’s people home, that “I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them” (Jer. 32:40). This everlasting covenant will not be between the Lord and some exalted individual—Abraham or Moses or David—but between the Lord and the people (as v. 60 here makes clear; see also 37:25–26 where, though David is to be prince forever, God makes the “everlasting covenant” with the people, and compare Jer. 32:40; 50:5; and Isa. 55:3–5). In this new relationship the Lord will not only restore Jerusalem, but honor and exalt her as well. Samaria and Sodom, her erstwhile sisters, will now become her daughters, though “not on the basis of my covenant with you” (v. 61). In other words, this new status will not in any sense be Jerusalem’s due.
Ezekiel emphasizes that in no sense does the Lord restore Jerusalem because of its righteousness or repentance. God acts, as always in Ezekiel, out of God’s own nature and character: “I will establish my covenant with you, and you will know that I am the LORD” (v. 62). Indeed, Ezekiel says, the Lord will make atonement for you for all you have done (v. 63). The verb translated “make atonement” (Heb. kipper) derives, as we would expect, from the priestly vocabulary (see the discussion in the Additional Notes). Usually the subject of the verb is the priest, who performs the sacrificial rites of atonement—purification and consecration (see, e.g., Lev. 4–6, and esp. 16:1–34, which deals with the Day of Atonement). But here it is the Lord who acts as priest and makes atonement personally for Jerusalem’s sins. The Lord does all that needs to be done. Jerusalem’s only role is to receive its unearned deliverance and restoration.
The result of that restoration is, to say the least, puzzling. Once the Lord restores Jerusalem and places her over Samaria and Sodom, “you will remember your ways and be ashamed” (v. 61; compare v. 54). So, too, “when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation, declares the Sovereign LORD” (v. 63). This seems backwards to us: shouldn’t restoration and forgiveness remove Jerusalem’s shame? Indeed, we are likely to think that shame leading to repentance should precede forgiveness (as it does, e.g., in Jer. 3:22b–25 and 31:18–20). Ezekiel 16, however, says nothing of Jerusalem’s repentance, and it is the city’s restoration that brings its people to shame—such shame that Jerusalem will “never again open your mouth because of your humiliation” (v. 63). Once more, for Ezekiel, it is God’s action alone that brings salvation. So too Paul emphasizes everywhere that salvation is a gift of God’s grace, not the deserved reward of our righteousness (Rom. 4:1–5; 6:20–23). Like Ezekiel, Paul can describe shame as the consequence of forgiveness: “What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of?” (Rom. 6:21; emphasis mine). It is the forgiven who in retrospect are ashamed of their actions; sinners, by contrast, are shameless. In the Psalms, too, the righteous, who have known God’s fellowship, experience separation from God as a profound and painful loss (a consistent theme in the penitential psalms; see esp. Pss. 51 and 130). Indeed, Psalm 130:4 reflects the same curious inversion of forgiveness and shame found in Ezekiel: “But with you there is forgiveness; therefore you are feared.” Ezekiel, in short, accurately expresses the experience of the person of faith, who receives God’s deliverance as a completely undeserved gift—a gift whose greatness and generosity throw one’s unworthiness into painfully sharp relief. For Ezekiel it is always the knowledge of God that makes true self-knowledge possible (Lapsley, “Shame,” p. 144).
17:1–21 This unit divides naturally into two parts: the tale of the eagles and the vine (vv. 1–10) followed by its interpretation (vv. 11–21). The characteristic expression The word of the LORD came to me (vv. 1, 11) introduces each part. Verse 2 calls the tale both an allegory (Heb. khidah, rendered “riddle” in the NRSV) and a parable (Heb. mashal, here, the NRSV has “allegory”). Since the various figures in the story stand for historical characters, we would probably find “allegory” the most fitting term. Still, the point of both classifications is that this is a story whose meaning is hidden, requiring interpretation.
The story seems odd to us, but its imagery would have been familiar to Ezekiel’s audience. First, A great eagle with powerful wings, long feathers and full plumage of varied colors (v. 3) snatches the topmost shoot from a cedar of Lebanon, carrying this plant off to a land of merchants, where he planted it in a city of traders (v. 4). The eagle also takes some of the seed of your land and plants it by abundant water, where it flourishes like a vine, growing toward the eagle that had planted it. But then the vine begins to stretch itself toward another great eagle with powerful wings and full plumage (v. 7). This disloyalty, the Lord says, will bring the vine to destruction (v. 9). Even if it is transplanted, will it thrive? Will it not wither completely when the east wind strikes it—wither away in the plot where it grew? (v. 10).
Even before reading the interpretation that follows, we can readily identify the referents for many of these images. As we saw in Ezekiel 15, the vine is a common symbol for Israel in the Hebrew Bible. Similarly trees, particularly cedars, often symbolize nations (e.g., Num. 24:6; Judg. 9:7–15; 2 Kgs. 14:8–10//2 Chr. 25:17–19; Ezek. 31:1–9; Amos 2:9) and hence could represent both strength and security (Pss. 1:3; 92:12) and overweening arrogance (Ps. 37:5; Isa. 2:13; 14:8). If the cedar is a nation, then the shoot the eagle plucked from the cedar’s top must be a deposed king—evidently Jehoiachin, by whose years of exile Ezekiel dates his oracles.
But who are the eagles? Sometimes the eagle is a comforting image describing God—especially the mother eagle, who bears her young up on her wings, teaching them to fly (Exod. 19:4; Deut. 32:11; and possibly Isa. 40:31; indeed, see Ezek. 17:22.). Usually, however, the eagle is a warlike image (see 2 Sam. 1:23) that often refers to conquering enemies (Hos. 8:1, of Assyria; Deut. 28:49; Jer. 4:13; 48:40; 49:22; Hab. 1:8; and Lam. 4:19, of Babylon). As the interpretation of the allegory makes evident, it is in this last sense that Ezekiel uses the image of the eagle here. The first eagle, which planted the vine by the river, is Babylon (v. 12). The second eagle, toward which the vine vainly struggles to grow, is Egypt (v. 15).
In his fourth year (594/3 B.C.), Zedekiah made an alliance with Pharaoh Psammeticus II (594–588 B.C.). Jeremiah 27:3 mentions the kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Tyre as participants in a conference in Jerusalem, at which they discussed an alliance in rebellion against Babylon (Ezek. 25–32 condemns these same nations, though the relationship between those oracles and Zedekiah’s alliance is uncertain). Jeremiah, like Ezekiel, condemns these alliances (Jer. 27:6), which may seem strange to us: why should the prophets condemn Zedekiah for seeking allies against Babylon? After all, isn’t Babylon the enemy of Judah, threatening Jerusalem with destruction? It is important to remember, however, that in the vision of destruction in Ezekiel 9, it is not the Babylonians who lay Jerusalem waste and slaughter its inhabitants, but the Lord. God has determined Judah for destruction and exile; Babylon is only the appointed means to God’s end. Similarly, Jeremiah called for Zedekiah to submit to the yoke of Babylon, which God had ordained for Judah (Jer. 27:1–22). Indeed, a century earlier, Isaiah had described Assyria as a club in God’s hand, to punish Judah (Isa. 10:5), and likewise condemned the formation of a rebellious alliance with Egypt (Isa. 30:1–18; see also the contemptuous description of Egypt as a worthless ally in 2 Kgs. 18:21// Isa. 36:6).
More to the point for Ezekiel is that, by his rebellion and treasonous alliance, Zedekiah has broken the oath of fealty that he had sworn to Nebuchadnezzar (17:13, 15–16, 18). Parallels from Hittite treaties, as well as from the eighth-century Sefiré inscription, strongly suggest that this oath would have been sworn in the name of the Lord (Darr, “Ezekiel,” p. 1250). Therefore, the Lord declares, “As surely as I live, I will bring down on his head my oath that he despised and my covenant that he broke” (v. 19, emphasis mine). The covenant Zedekiah has broken is not only with Nebuchadnezzar, but also with God. 1 Chronicles 36:13 also condemns Zedekiah for breaking his oath, and thus swearing falsely in God’s name. The condemnation of Jerusalem’s alliance with Egypt, then, is on religious, rather than political, grounds. For Ezekiel, foreign alliances are acts of faithlessness to the Lord, nearly as bad as idolatry (see Ezek. 16; for this same view in the postexilic priestly circles of the Chronicler, see, e.g., 2 Chr. 18:3–34; 20:37; Tuell, First and Second Chronicles, pp. 177, 184). Zedekiah’s revolt is doomed; he will fall “because he was unfaithful to me” (v. 20). Once more, judgment comes because of maʿal (“unfaithfulness,” see the discussion of 14:13).
17:22–24 This short unit relates closely to the allegory preceding it; indeed, it interprets the image of the sprig plucked from the top of the cedar in verses 3–4 (though note that the identity of the eagle that plucked the sprig is not Babylon here, but the Lord!). Nonetheless, old scribal traditions marked these verses as a separate unit with a paragraph break at the end of verse 21 and another following verse 24. The messenger formula at its beginning (v. 22), and a modified version of the oracular formula at its end, I the LORD have spoken, and I will do it (v. 24), further mark it as separate.
Many interpreters see these three verses as a later expansion (e.g., Darr says, “We cannot know whether Ezekiel, in proclaiming this fable and its interpretation to his audience, included the optimistic prophecy in vv. 22–24,” “Ezekiel,” p. 1252). Certainly, the message of restoration here is very optimistic, with none of the shame and blame found, for example, in 16:59–63. However, without this unit, the differentiation between the vine and the sprig in the allegory of verses 1–21 is left unexplained. Further, the language and imagery found here do occur elsewhere in Ezekiel: the expression dry tree in verse 24 appears also in 21:3 (and elsewhere, only in Isa. 56:3), the high and lofty mountain of verse 22 recalls that same image in 40:2, and the mythological image of the cosmic tree joining heaven, earth, and the underworld (see the discussion in Block, Ezekiel 1–24, p. 551) also occurs in Ezekiel’s oracles against Egypt (31:1–18).
Politically as well, this passage fits Ezekiel’s circumstances. Recall that Ezekiel dates his prophecies by the years of Jehoiachin’s exile, not by the years of Zedekiah’s reign. The contrast between the vine in verses 1–21, which is destined to be uprooted and left to die, and the sprig in verses 22–24, which the Lord plants and nurtures (see v. 24) shows that “the promise of the new beginning was emphatically not seen as applying to the family of those ruling in the land after 597 bce, but through the family of those deported in 597 bce” (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, p. 368). Although Ezekiel seems not to evidence that much interest in kings or politics (recall his avoidance of the word melek, which means “king”), his vision of Israel’s restoration does provide a place for David’s descendant (see 34:23–25; 37:24–25). Even here in verses 22–24, however, Ezekiel’s point is scarcely political. He gives no moral or legal justification for the Lord’s choice. The Lord’s choice is simply the Lord’s choice, made in spite of either defects or assets observable by humans: “I the LORD bring down the tall tree and make the low tree grow tall. I dry up the green tree and make the dry tree flourish” (v. 24).
This portrayal of God as the “Great Reverser” (Hals, Ezekiel, p. 117, see also Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, p. 367) is a familiar one to any reader of Scripture. It figures prominently in the songs of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:1–10) and Mary (Luke 1:46–55). Further, the notion of dramatic and unexpected reversal is a common image in the parables of Jesus (e.g., Matt. 20:1–16; Mark 9:33–37; Luke 13:20–30). Indeed, Jesus plays off verses 22–24 when he describes the kingdom of God as a mustard plant: a common weed which “is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches” (Matt. 13:31–32//Mark 4:30–32//Luke 13:18–19). Jesus and Ezekiel both emphasize that God’s grace is not restricted to the best and the brightest. Blessedly, unexpectedly, God welcomes the lost and the least.
Additional Notes
16:1–63 The relationship among the different sections of this chapter has been a matter of considerable debate in the history of the interpretation of Ezekiel. Many scholars claim that only the accusatory section of ch. 16 derives from Ezekiel, while the latter portions, particularly those dealing with salvation and restoration, must come from later hands (e.g., Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, p. 334; and R. E. Clements, “The Chronology of Redaction in Ezekiel 1–24,” in Lust, Ezekiel, pp. 289–90). While Clements acknowledges the interconnections that bind the material in this chapter into a unity, he observes, “such intricate, and often very lengthy, structural patterns are a decisively literary stage in the book’s development.” In particular, “sudden and unexpected transitions from bitter invective to assurance and hope of ultimate salvation” would have been confusing in Ezekiel’s immediate, oral context: “how could the hearers have taken to heart the utter indictment of the mashal of the Foundling Child in vv. 1–34, if the hearer carried away in his, or her, mind the mellow and forgiving words” of 16:59–63 (Clements, “Chronology,” p. 289)? Two responses must be made. First, it is not altogether clear that the original context of this parable was oral. As we have seen, Ezekiel is an author: this book bears a decidedly literary stamp throughout, which we have no reason to think did not derive from the prophet himself. Quite probably, Ezek. 16 was written rather than spoken, composed for the eye rather than the ear. Indeed, even if this story was originally delivered orally, it is highly likely that its written form, with its literary flourishes and embellishments, derives from Ezekiel himself. This is particularly likely to be the case when we recognize that we can scarcely describe 16:59–63 as “mellow and forgiving words.” As we have seen, even when he is speaking of Jerusalem’s restoration, Ezekiel’s emphasis falls on the city’s corruption and unworthiness, to the point that the restoration will result not in the people’s celebration, but in their shame. This “dim view of Israel’s restoration” (see Schwartz, “Ezekiel’s Dim View,” pp. 43–67) is typical of Ezekiel’s prophecy throughout the book (see, e.g., 6:8–10; 11:17–21). Further, as Greenberg in particular has shown, the final form of the text shows a careful literary structure, with deliberate interconnections among its parts (Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, pp. 292–306; note that Greenberg divides the text into three parts: vv. 1–43, 44–58, and 59–63). Either, then, Ezekiel’s priestly editors have thoroughly reworked this longest unit in Ezekiel’s prophecy in order to produce this structure or, more likely, Ezekiel so shaped the text himself and is responsible for the final form of ch. 16.
The HB sometimes symbolically describes cities and lands as women. This image can be positive, as an affirmation of God’s love and care for the city (e.g., Isa. 62:1–5; compare the image of the church as the bride of Christ in Eph. 5:22–32; Rev. 21:9–27). But it can also be negative. So, e.g., Hosea depicts Israel’s unfaithfulness in the sign-act of the prophet’s marriage to a prostitute (Hos. 1:2), and Jeremiah describes Judah’s estrangement from the Lord as a divorce (Jer. 3:1–4). Further, and particularly disturbing to modern readers, are descriptions of the siege and fall of a city as a rape (so, e.g., Nineveh in Nah. 3:4–7; and possibly also Jerusalem in Jer. 13:18–21; see M. E. Biddle, “The Figure of Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification, and Personification of Cities in the Ancient Near East,” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective: Scripture in Context IV [ed. K. L. Younger Jr., W. W. Hallo, and B. F. Batto; ANETS 11; Lewiston: Mellen, 1991], p. 184). No other text, however, takes this image to such hideously extravagant lengths as Ezek. 16 (and its close parallel, Ezek. 23).
16:5 You were thrown out into the open field. Hideous as this scene appears to us, it was not at all uncommon in the ancient world where “the exposure or killing of abnormal, deformed, or otherwise unwanted children”—particularly girls—”was both tolerated and practiced” (S. Ricks, “Abortion in Antiquity,” in ABD 1, p. 31).
16:6 “Live!” It would be incorrect to describe what happens here as an adoption (suggested, e.g., by J. Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: City as Yahweh’s Wife [SBLDS 130; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992], p. 94 n. 16); after all, there is no mention of the child being reared, or taught, or cared for in any way.
16:8 You became mine. The personification of a city as a goddess, the divine consort of the city’s patron god, was common in the ancient Near East, particularly in old Canaan and Phoenicia (see A. Fitzgerald, “The Mythological Background for the Presentation of Jerusalem as a Queen and False Worship as Adultery in the OT,” CBQ 34 [1972], pp. 406–15). Even in Mesopotamia, where cities were uniformly regarded as masculine, many would identify the patron goddess of a city with the city itself (see the examples cited by Biddle, “Lady Jerusalem,” pp. 175–79). The HB recognizes the Lord as Israel’s sole God and so can metaphorically describe the city or the people as wedded to God. Idolatry or foreign alliances, then, the HB can describe as adultery, since in these ways Israel was being unfaithful to her husband, the Lord (Fitzgerald, “Mythological Background,” pp. 404–5). Perhaps the earliest use of this image in the HB is in Hosea, esp. Hos. 2:4–14. Ezekiel’s contemporary Jeremiah also uses this idea (see Jer. 3:1–10, a text that has intriguing parallels to Ezek. 16 and, esp., 23). It is in Ezek. 16 and 23 that the personification of Jerusalem as a woman, and the portrayal of the peoples’ unfaithfulness as adultery, finds its most complex expression.
16:15 Your beauty became his. Lit., “to him let it be,” or “let it be his.” The NRSV simply does not translate this clause, relegating it to a footnote. The LXX translators evidently read loʾ (“not” in Heb.) instead of lo (“to him” or “his” in Heb.), and hence rendered this phrase as “which should not be” (see 16:16, and the footnote in the NIV). The reading of Block (Ezekiel 1–24, p. 486) and the NIV seems best here—Jerusalem gives her beauty away to every passer-by. This stands in poignant contrast to the statement of marriage between the Lord and Jerusalem in 16:8 (“you became mine”).
16:30 How weak-willed you are. A better reading is “How furious I am with you!” (see Block, Ezekiel 1–24, pp. 492, 496–97).The KJV reads, more lit., “How weak is thine heart.” However, as the heart was the seat of the will in ancient Israel, the meaning of the NIV is essentially the same. A look at the ancient versions reveals problems with the text. Symmachus and the Vulg. both apparently understood the text as having to do with the purification of Jerusalem’s heart, while the LXX reads, incomprehensibly, “How can I circumcise your daughter?”.
Two problems confront the reader here. The first is the Heb. verb ʾamulah, apparently a passive form of ʾamal, “be weak, languish.” However, ʾamal appears nowhere else in this form; hence, the LXX derives this form instead from the Heb. verb malal, meaning “circumcise” (evidently both Symmachus and the Vulg. also follow this reading but understand circumcision as a symbol for purification; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, p. 328). The NRSV and NJPS also derive this odd form from a conjectured mll; however, by analogy with an Arabic word meaning “be fevered,” they suggest that the Heb. verb meant “be sick,” and read, “How sick is your heart” (see the discussion in Block, Ezekiel 1–24, p. 496). The second problem is the Heb. word libbatek—apparently, “your heart,” assuming a feminine form of the Heb. word leb (heart). However, this form, too, is found nowhere else: leb is nearly always masculine (note that in Prov. 12:25, the only place in the HB which treats leb as feminine, the word remains masculine in form). The LXX reading “your daughter” is an attempt to make sense of this word. Greenberg proposes a reading that, like the NRSV and the NJPS, relates the verb to Arabic mll (“be fevered”). However, drawing upon medieval sectarian Jewish poetry, he suggests that libbatek means “your ardor” (relating to both the Heb. words for “heart” [leb] and “flame” [labbah]), so that the phrase means “How hot your ardor is” (Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, p. 283). Similarly, Galambush reads, “How hot is your lust” (Jerusalem, p. 68).
Most probably, ʾamulah derives from maleʾ, meaning “be full,” while libbatek relates to Aram. labbah and Akkadian libbatu, meaning “anger” (P. V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew [HSS 47; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000], pp. 77–80). Both Aramaic and Babylonian texts yield a phrase very like this one, meaning “be filled with anger.” Hence, many scholars have proposed that the best reading for this phrase in Ezek. 16:30 is “How furious I am with you!” (e.g., BDB, p. 525; NJPS footnote to 16:30; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, pp. 492, 496–97; Cooke, Ezekiel, p. 172; and Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 99). Zimmerli argues against this reading, as “this reference to anger appears too soon” (Ezekiel 1, p. 328). To be sure, the flow of the text does seem to call for a reference to Jerusalem, not to the Lord. However, the clear parallel to Aramaic and Babylonian usage is a stronger argument than poetic consistency. “How furious I am with you!” is the best translation for ʾamula libbatek.
16:33 Jerusalem squanders the Lord’s gifts—that is, her allowance, given for her own welfare (Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords, p. 100).
16:35–41 Many interpreters have gone so far as to condemn this passage and others like it (particularly Hos. 2 and Ezek. 23) as pornography that implicitly condones violence against women (T. Drorah Setel, “Prophets and Pornography: Female Sexual Imagery in Hosea,” in Feminist Interpretation of the Bible [ed. L. M. Russell; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985], pp. 86–88; see also F. Van Dijk-Hemmes, “The Metaphorization of Woman in Prophetic Speech: An Analysis of Ezekiel 23,” in On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible [ed. A. Brenner and F. van Dijk-Hemmes; Biblical Interpretation Series 1; New York: Brill, 1993], pp. 169–70; and Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, p. 76). On the other hand, as Daniel Smith-Christopher notes, we have no reason to think that Ezekiel’s audience was predominately or exclusively male (“Ezekiel in Abu Ghraib: Rereading Ezekiel 16:37–39 in the Context of Imperial Conquest,” in Cook and Patton, eds., Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World, p. 146). Moreover, “the images of violence, bloodshed, vengeance, and terror are not concoctions of Ezekiel’s normative theological reflection, but the realities within which he is living!” (Smith-Christopher, “Ezekiel,” p. 149).
16:36 Because you poured out your wealth. The Heb. word rendered “your wealth” in the NIV is spelled the same as the word for “bronze” (nekhoshet), and is so rendered in the LXX. Evidently in an attempt to make sense of this image, the Vulg. reads “your wealth,” while the NJPS understands the term figuratively: “your brazen effrontery.” Targum, however, has “your genitals.” The KJV (“your filthiness”) perhaps assumes this reading. Once more, a likely parallel comes from Akkadian, the language of Babylon, in which a term very similar to nekhoshet refers to a vaginal discharge (see the discussion in Block, Ezekiel 1–24, p. 500). Just as in 16:26 Ezekiel refers to the Egyptians as “your large-membered neighbors” (the NIV reads, more decorously, your lustful neighbors), so here the prophet crudely describes Jerusalem’s moist vagina. The language is graphic, and deliberately offensive. Therefore “Because your lust was poured out” (NIV footnote and the NRSV) adequately expresses the point.
16:37 Strip. Daniel Smith-Christopher wonders if golah might have come to be used as a term for an exile “because of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian practice of stripping and humiliating captive males” (“Ezekiel,” p. 154). As a war crime, rape is part and parcel of what Daniel Smith-Christopher calls the “engendering” of warfare, with the masculine conquerors triumphant over a submissive, feminized enemy (“Ezekiel,” pp. 152–53).
16:37, 39 Nakedness. The Heb. term ʿerwah means, lit., “genitals.” It appears twice in a figurative sense: in Gen. 42:9, 12, where Joseph accuses his brothers of coming as spies to find out “where our land is unprotected” (lit., “the nakedness of the land”), and in Deut. 23:14; 24:1, where the NIV reads “anything [or something] indecent” (lit., the “nakedness of a thing”). Elsewhere, though, the term carries its literal meaning. So Exod. 20:26 directs that Israel is not to build elevated altars with steps, since they would expose the priests’ nakedness—that is, the people below would be able to see up the priests’ robes (for this same reason Exod. 28:42, a later priestly text, directs the priests to wear linen breeches)! More darkly, as we noted above, Isa. 20:4 describes how the Assyrians forcibly stripped and exposed prisoners of war.
The use of ʿerwah in Lev. 18 and 20 in reference to incest evidently stands behind 1 Sam. 20:30, where Saul curses Jonathan by referring to the shame of his mother’s nakedness (NIV has “the shame of the mother who bore you”)—probably the equivalent of modern crude profanities referring to incest. This may also explain the odd scene in Gen. 9:22–23, where Ham sees the nakedness of his drunken father, Noah (compare Ezek. 16:37). In Lev. 18:7, where the NIV reads, “having sexual relations with your mother,” the Hb. is, lit., “uncovering the nakedness of your father.” The expression “see (someone’s) nakedness” also refers to incestuous relations (see Lev. 20:17, though here the condemnation is of relations with one’s sister rather than one’s mother). This raises the possibility that Ham’s condemnation was not for accidentally seeing his father naked, but for incestuous relations with his mother.
16:43 It is important to remember that Ezekiel was a victim here, too. Smith-Christopher observes that oppressed populations throughout history have often adopted self-blame as a survival strategy. By taking responsibility for the tragedy of Jerusalem’s fall, Ezekiel and his community “creatively reinterpret their defeat, and ‘dis-empower’ their conquerors” (Smith-Christopher, “Ezekiel,” p. 157).
16:57 Edom. As the NIV footnote observes, most Heb. manuscripts, as well as the Septuagint and the Vulg., read “Aram” instead. The two words are very similar in Heb., so that a scribe could easily have mistaken either one for the other. Edom perhaps fits best in Ezekiel’s historical context, as this neighboring kingdom did take advantage of the Babylonian conquest to loot Jerusalem (see Ps. 137:7; Obad. 11–14). On the other hand, Aram (also called Syria) was an ancient rival of Israel, sometimes an ally, more often an adversary. If Aram is intended, the text would describe powerful, ancient enemies surrounding Judah: Aram to the north, Philistia to the south. Either way, the point is the same: Jerusalem has taken the place of Sodom as an illustration of the fate wicked cities deserve.
16:63 When I make atonement for you. God is the subject of the verb kipper (“make atonement, purge”) only seven times in the HB, including here. The oldest text is Deut. 32:43, where the land, not the people, is the object of the verb. Jeremiah 18:23 negates the term: “do not purge” (NIV has “Do not forgive”). Three times the Psalms refer to God atoning for sin: in 65:3 (NIV “you forgave our transgressions,” though the footnote reads “made atonement for”); 78:38; and 79:9 (in both, NIV has “forgive”). Perhaps the closest parallel to this verse in Ezek. is the late text 2 Chr. 30:18–19, where Hezekiah prays for ritually unclean persons who have come to his Passover celebration: “May the LORD, who is good, pardon everyone who sets his heart on seeking God—the LORD, the God of his fathers—even if he is not clean according to the rules of the sanctuary.” There, as here, God graciously acts to purge offenses, although in Chronicles those God purifies are said to seek the Lord (which in the Chronicler’s History refers to worship at the temple; see Tuell, First and Second Chronicles, pp. 143, 220–21). In Ezekiel, God’s action precedes, prompts, and enables Israel’s response.
Because of your humiliation. Jerusalem’s silence likely relates to another dimension of shame in ancient Israel. Margaret Odell identifies in the Pss. a ritual of complaint, in which the psalmist bases his appeal to God for deliverance on God’s honor (Pss. 22:5–6, 10–11; 25:2, 20; 31:2; see M. Odell, “The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16.59–63,” JSOT 56 [1992], pp. 104–5). The psalmist has trusted in God; therefore, “[i]f the psalmist should experience distress, sickness, or the scorn of his community, then it is because God has failed him” (Odell, “Inversion,” p. 104). However, as we have seen, Ezekiel argues that the exiles have no such cause for complaint. God has been faithful to God’s covenant; it is Jerusalem’s own faithlessness that has led to its humiliation. Moshe Greenberg notes that the Heb. expression translated “open your mouth” in v. 63 appears in the HB only in Ezek. However, in the later writings of the rabbis, it refers to “an occasion for complaint” (Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, p. 121). According to Ezekiel, Odell concludes, Jerusalem has no grounds for a complaint against God—and they will not have an occasion for complaint. Rather, the people must examine their own failures and shamefully acknowledge their own guilt (Odell, “Inversion,” pp. 111–12).
