LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Theological Bridge to Application

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

      Focus of Application

The temptation in teaching this passage is to over emphasize analogies between the call-experience of Ezekiel the priestly-prophet (cf. Ezek 1:3) and that of ordinary believers today, who in a qualified sense are priests (mediators between God and the non-believing world; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6) as well as “prophets.” The report of the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17–18) indicates that all believers function “prophetically” in a less technical sense, as ambassadors of the New Covenant who proclaim the gospel to the world (2 Cor 3:6; 5:18–20).29 However, while it is true that there is a limited analogy between Ezekiel and us, that is not the primary thrust of this passage.

      God directly addressed the prophet, commissioning him and speaking to his personal condition. However, when Ezekiel records in his prophetic book the experience of his encounter with God, he is not doing so to instruct his original audience about how they might receive divine callings or act prophetically. Rather, this section of Ezekiel does two things. First, it validates the authority of the prophet. That is the function of call narratives in the Old Testament, to show that the prophet is invested with divine authority (see discussion under Context at Ezek 1:1–28). Call narratives also function to teach us about God and prepare us to read further in the prophetic book something about the nature of its message. In Ezek 3, the call narrative warns the audience about the stubbornness of their heart. So, in answer to the question, What is God doing in this passage?, it is not setting forth a template for a prophetic call to be applied to us today. But it warns us all of the universal human inclination to resist God’s truth and the necessity to receive the divine word for the truth that it proclaims. Neither the messenger nor the audience is at liberty to ignore the truth of God’s word.

      Today, as in the case of Ezekiel’s generation, the message of the gospel is not one that the world naturally receives (John 15:18–25; Rom 1:18; 1 Cor 2:8; 2 Cor 4:1–4). Even for those who believe, it is a sweet and bitter message. We sincerely embrace the gospel with joyful hearts, yet know that for those who resist, it is a tragic message of death (2 Cor 2:14–17). The gospel contains both sweet and bitter news of the righteousness of God.

      This passage might raise the topic about Christians and social engagement; what should be the expectations of believers when God’s truth conflicts with society at a moral level. Caution is in order. The New Testament calls upon Christians to live mindfully of the poor and powerless (e.g., Luke 18:22; 19:8; Gal 2:10; Jas 1:27); but focusing on the moral transformation of a post-Christian society is difficult to find biblical texts to support (in fact, contra-indicated in 1 Cor 5:12). On the other hand, accountability within the Christian community is encouraged (Gal 6:1; 2 Tim 3:16; 1 5:14), and at times bold confrontation is appropriate, because even the regenerate heart of a believer can harden to the word of truth (1 Cor 5:9–11; Gal 2:14; 1 Tim 5:20; 2 Tim 4:2).

19. Taylor, Ezekiel, 60.

20. See Bock, “Son of Man,” 894–900.

21. Cf. Ezek 35:10. Further, see Alexander, “Ezekiel,”

Скачать книгу