Vers. 11-21. Interpretation of the riddle. — Ver. 11. And the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, Ver. 12. Say to the refractory race: Do ye not know what this is? Say, Behold, the king of Babel came to Jerusalem, and took its king and its princes, and brought them to himself to Babel. Ver. 13. And he took of the royal seed, and made a covenant with him, and caused him to enter into an oath; and he took the strong ones of the land: Ver. 14. That it might be a lowly kingdom, not to lift itself up, that he might keep his covenant, that it might stand. Ver. 15. But he rebelled against him by sending his messengers to Egypt, that it might give him liorses and much people. Will lie prosper? will he that hath done this escape? He has broken the covenant, and should he escape? Ver. 16. As I live, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah, surely in the placi of the king, who made him king, whose oath he despised, and whose covenant he broke with him, in Babel he will die. Ver. 17. And not with great army and much people will Pliaraoh act with him in the war, when they cast up a rampart and build siege-towers, to cut off many souls. Ver. 18. He has despised an oath to break the covenant, and, behold, he has given his hand and done all this; he will not escape. Ver. 19. Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah, As I live, surely my oath which he has despised, and my covenant which lie has broken, I ivill give upon his" head. Ver. 20. / will spread out my net over him, so that he will be taken in my snare, and will bring him to Babel, and contend with him there on account of his treachery which he has been guilty of towards me. Ver. 21. And all his fugitives in all his regiments, by the sword will they fall, and those who remain will be scattered to all winds; and ye shall see that I Jehovah have spoken it.
In vers. 12-17 the parable in vers. 2-10 is interpreted; and in vers. 19—21 the threat contained in the parable is confirmed and still further expanded. We have an account of the carrying away of the king, i.e. Jehoiachin, and his princes to Babel in 2 Kings xxiv. 11 sqq., Jer. xxiv. 1, and xxix. 2. The king's seed (ro&sn JHT, ver. 13, as in Jer. xli. 1 = ^sn jnr, 1 Kings xi. 14) is Jehoiachin' s uncle Mattaniah, whom Nebuchadnezzar made king under the name of Zedekiah (2 Kings xxiv. 17), and from whom he took an oath of fealty (2 Chron. xxxvi. 13). The strong of the land (v^ = vW, 2 Kings xxiv. 15), whom Nebuchadnezzar took (rip!?), i.e. took away to Babel, are not the heads of tribes and families (2 Kings xxiv. 15); but the expression is used in a wide sense for the several classes of men of wealth, who are grouped together in 2 Kings xxiv. 14 under the one term 5*n ntar!>3 frn ^OX, 2 Kings xxiv. 16), including masons, smiths, and carpenters (2 Kings xxiv. 14 and 16), whereas the heads of tribes and families are classed with the court officials (D*D'HDJ 2 Kings xxiv. 15) under the title iT"}b> (princes) in ver. 12. The design of these measures was to make a lowly kingdom, which could not raise itself, i.e. could not revolt, and to deprive the vassal king of the means of breaking the covenant. The suffix attached to niDV7 is probably to be taken as referring to '"13700 rather than VV"12? although both are admissible, and would yield precisely the same sense, inasmuch as the stability of the kingdom was dependent upon the stability of the covenant. But Zedekiah rebelled (2 Kings xxiv. 20). The Egyptian king who was to give Zedekiah horses and much people, in other words, to come to his assistance with a powerful army of cavalry and fighting men, was Hophrah, the Apries of the Greeks, according to Jer. xliv. 30 (see the comm. on 2 Kings xxiv. 19, 20). rwn points back to npyn in ver. 9; but here it is applied to the rebellious king, and is explained in the clause *W DTBJrt. The answer is given in ver. 16 as a word of God confirmed by a solemn oath: he shall die in Babel, the capital of the king, who placed him on the throne, and Pharaoh will not render him any effectual help (ver. 17). Wfl nry, as in ch. xv. 59, to act with him, that is to say, assist him, come to his help. iniK refers to Zedekiah, not to Pharaoh, as Ewald assumes in an inexplicable manner. For *W TOD TJB5P, compare ch. iv. 2; and for the fact itself, Jer. xxxiv. 21, 22, and xxxvii. 5, according to which, although an Egyptian army came to the rescue of Jerusalem at the time when it was besieged by the Chaldeans, it was repulsed by the Chaldeans who marched to meet it, without having rendered any permanent assistance to the besieged. — In ver. 18, the main thought that breach of faith can bring no deliverance is repeated for the sake of appending the further expansion contained in vers. 19-21. IT jnj, he gave his hand, i.e. as a pledge of fidelity. The oath which Zedekiah swore to the king of Babel is designated in ver. 19 as Jehovah's oath (T1??)) and the covenant made with him as Jehovah's covenant, because the oath had been sworn by Jehovah, and the covenant of fidelity towards Nebuchadnezzar had thereby been made implicite with Jehovah Himself; so that the breaking of the oath and covenant became a breach of faith towards Jehovah. Consequently the very same expressions are used in vers. 16, 18, and 19, to designate this breach of oath, which are applied in ch. xvi. 59 to the treacherous apostasy of Jerusalem (Israel) from Jehovah, the covenant God. And the same expressions are used to describe the punishment as in ch. xii. 13, 14. inx B3C0 is construed with the accusative of the thing respecting which he was to be judged, as in 1 Sam. xii. 7. Jehovah regards the treacherous revolt from Nebuchadnezzar as treachery against Himself (*3 7VD); not only because Zedekiah had sworn the oath of fidelity by Jehovah, but also from the fact that Jehovah had delivered up His people and kingdom into the power of Nebuchadnezzar, so that revolt from him really became rebellion against God. rix before irn20~?3 is nota accus., and is used in the sense of quod adtinet ad, as, for example, in 2 Kings vi. 5. lrnrnp^ his fugitives, is rendered both by the Chaldee and Syriac " his brave men," or " heroes," and is therefore identified with Vjrop (his chosen ones), which is the reading in some manuscripts. But neither these renderings nor the parallel passage in ch. xii. 14, where I'TiiTZlD apparently corresponds to it, will warrant our adopting this explanation, or making any alteration in the text. The Greek versions have iraa-as cj>vya8eia<; avrov; Theodoret: ev it derail rats <f>vya$)eicu<; avrov; the Yulgate: omnes profugi ejus; and therefore they all had the reading irrQD, which also yields a very suitable meaning. The mention of some who remain, and who are to be scattered toward all the winds, is not at variance with the statement that all the fugitives in the wings of the army are to fall by the sword.
The latter threat simply declares that no one will escape death by flight. But there is no necessity to take those who remain as being simply fighting men; and the word " all n must not be taken too literally.
Vers. 22-24. The planting of the true twig of the stem of David. — Ver. 22. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, And I will take from the top of the high cedar, and will set it; from the topmost of its shoots will I 'pluck off a tender one, and will plant it upon a high and exalted mountain. Ver. 23. On the high mountain of Israel will I plant it, and it will put forth branches, and bear fruit, and become a splendid cedar, so that all the birds of every plumage will dwell under it. In the shade of its branches will they dwell. Ver. 24. And all the trees of the field will learn that I Jehovah have lowered the lofty tree, lifted up the low tree, made the green tree wither, and the withered tree become green. I Jehovah have said it, and have done it. — Although the sprout of David, whom Nebuchadnezzar had made king, would lose the sovereignty because of his breach of faith, and bring about the destruction of the kingdom of Judah, the Lord would not let His kingdom be destroyed, but would fulfil the promise which He had given to the seed of David. The announcement of this fulfilment takes its form from the preceding parable. As Nebuchadnezzar broke off a twig from the top of the cedar and brought it to Babel (ver. 13), so will Jehovah Himself also pluck off a shoot from the top of the high cedar, and plant it upon a high mountain- The Vav before ^npj is the Vav consec, and *?K is appended to the verb for the sake of emphasis; but in antithesis to the acting of the eagle, as described in ver. 3, it is placed after it. The cedar, which it designated by the epithet rdmdh, as rising above the other trees, is the royal house of David, and the tender shoot which Jehovah breaks off and plants is not the Messianic kingdom or sovereignty, so that Zerubbabel could be included, but the Messiah Himself as " a distinct historical personage" (Havernick). The predicate *Hj tender, refers to
Him; also the word Pjrt*, a sprout (Isa. liii. 2), which indicates not so much the youthful age of the Messiah (Hitzig) as the lowliness of His origin (compare Isa. xi. 1, liii. 2); and even when applied to David and Solomon, in 2 Sam. iii. 39, 1 Chron. xxii. 5, xxix. 1, expresses not their youthfulness, but their want of strength for the proper administration of such a government. The high mountain, described in ver. 23 as the high mountain of Israel, is Zion, regarded as the seat and centre of the kingdom of God, which is to be exalted by the Messiah above all the mountains of the earth (Isa. ii. 2, etc.). The twig planted by the Lord will grow there into a glorious cedar, under which all birds will dwell. The Messiah grows into a cedar in the kingdom founded by Him, in which all the inhabitants of the earth will find both food (from the fruits of the tree) and protection (under its shadow). For this figure, compare Dan. iv. 8, 9. ^IJ?"^ ""^V, birds of every kind of plumage (cf. ch. xxxix. 4, 17), is derived from Gen. vii. 14, where birds of every kind find shelter in Noah's ark. The allusion is to men from every kind of people and tribe. By this will all the trees of the field learn that God lowers the lofty and lifts up the lowly. As the cedar represents the royal house of David, the trees of the field can only be the other kings or royal families of the earth, not the nations outside the limits of the covenant. At the same time, the nations are not to be entirely excluded because the figure of the cedars embraces the idea of the kingdom, so that the trees of the field denote the kingdoms of the earth together with their kings. The clauses, " I bring down the high tree," contain a purelygeneral thought, as in 1 Sam. ii. 7, 8, and the perfects are not to be taken as preterites, but as statements of practical truths. It is true that the thought of the royal house of David in its previous greatness naturally suggests itself in connection with the high and green tree, and that of Jehoiachin in connection with the dry tree (compare Jer. xxii. 30); and these are not to be absolutely set aside. At the same time, the omission of the article from H33 }%V and the objects which follow, is sufficient to show that the words are not to be restricted to these particular persons, but are applicable to every high and green, or withered and lowly tree; i.e. not merely to kings alone, but to all men in common, and furnish a parallel to 1 Sam. ii. 4-9, u The bows of the mighty men are broken; and they that stumbled are girded with strength," etc.
In the word of God contained in this chapter, the delusion that God visits the sins of fathers upon innocent children is overthrown, and the truth is clearly set forth that every man bears the guilt and punishment of his own sins (vers. 1-4). The righteous lives through his righteousness (vers. 5-9), but cannot save his wicked son thereby (vers. 10-13); whilst the son who avoids the sins and wickedness of his father, will live through his own righteousness (vers. 14-20). The man who repents and avoids sin is not even charged with his own sin; and, on the other hand, the man who forsakes the way of righteousness, and gives himself up to unrighteousness, will not be protected from death even by his own former righteousness (vers. 21-29). Thus will God judge every man according to his way; and it is only by repentance that Israel itself can live (vers. 30-32). The exposition of these truths is closely connected with the substance and design of the preceding and following prophecies. In the earlier words of God, Ezekiel had taken from rebellious Israel every support of false confidence in the preservation of the kingdom from destruction. But as an impenitent sinner, even when he can no longer evade the punishment of his sins, endeavours as much as possible to transfer the guilt from himself to others, and comforts himself with the thought that he has to suffer for sins that others have committed, and hardens himself aiiainst the chastisement of God through such false consolation as this; so even among the people of Israel, when the divine judgments burst upon them, the delusion arose that the existing generation had to suffer for the fathers' sins. If, then, the judgment were ever to bear the fruit of Israel's conversion and renovation, which God designed, the impenitent generation must be deprived even of this pretext for covering over its sins and quieting its conscience, by the demonstration of the justice which characterized the government of God in His kingdom.
Vers. 1-4. The proverb and the word of God. — Ver. 1. And the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, Ver. 2. Why do you use this proverb in the land of Israel, saying, Fathers eat sour grapes, and the sons' teeth are set on edge. Ver. 3. As I live, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah, this proverb shall not be used any more in Israel. Ver. 4. Behold, all souls are mine; as the fathers soul, so also the soul of the son, — they are mine; the soul which sinneth, it shall die. — On ver. 2a compare ch. xii. 22. D^Htt, what is to you, what are you thinking of, that...? is a question of amazement. n*?*]**"*^, in the land of Israel (ch. xii. 22), not " concerning the land of Israel," as Havernick assumes. The proverb was not, " The fathers have eaten sour grapes," for we have not v^N, as in Jer. xxxi. 29, but &3N*, they eat, are accustomed to eat, and rri2X has no article, because it applies to all who eat sour grapes. Boser, unripe, sour grapes, like besgr in Job xvi. 33 (see the comm. in he). The meaning of the proverb is self-evident. The sour grapes which the fathers eat are the sins which they commit; the setting of the children's teeth on edge is the consequence thereof, i.e. the suffering which the children have to endure. The same proverb is quoted in Jer. xxxi. 29, 30, and there also it is condemned as an error. The origin of such a proverb is easily to be accounted for from the inclination of the natural man to transfer to others the guilt which has brought suffering upon himself, more especially as the law teaches that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children (Ex. xx. 5), and the prophets announce that the Lord would put away
Judah from before His face on account of the sins of Manasseh (2 Kings xxiv. 3; Jer. xv. 4), while Jeremiah complains in Lam. v. 7 that the people are bearing the fathers' sins. Nevertheless the proverb contained a most dangerous and fatal error, for which the teaching of the law concerning the visitation of the sins of the fathers, etc., was not accountable, and which Jeremiah, who expressly mentions the doctrine of the law (Jer. xxxii. 18), condemns as strongly as Ezekiel. God will visit the sins of the fathers upon the children who hate Him, and who also walk in the footsteps of their fathers' sins; but to those who love Him, and keep His commandments, He will show mercy to the thousandth generation. The proverb, on the other hand, teaches that the children would have to atone for their fathers' sins without any culpability of their own. How remote such a perversion of the truth as to the transmission of sins and their consequences, viz. their punishment, was from the law of Moses, is evident from the express command in Dent. xxiv. 16, that the children were not to be put to death with the fathers for the sins which the latter had committed, but that every one was to die for his own sin. What God here enjoins upon the judicial authorities must apply to the infliction of His own judgments. Consequently what Ezekiel says in the following verses in opposition to the delusion, which this proverb helped to spread abroad, is simply a commentary upon the words, " every one shall die for his own sin," and not a correction of the law, which is the interpretation that many have put upon these prophetic utterances of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In ver. 3, the Lord declares with an oath that this proverb shall not be used any more. The apodosis to 'W HVIJ DK, which is not expressed, would be an imprecation, so that the oath contains a solemn prohibition. God will take care that this proverb shall not be used any more in Israel, not so much by the fact that He will not give them any further occasion to make use of it, as by the way in which He will convince them, through the judgments which He sends, of the justice of His ways. The following is Calvin's admirable paraphrase: " I will soon deprive you of this boasting of yours; for your iniquity shall be made manifest, so that all the world may see that you are but enduring just punishment, which you yourselves have deserved, and that you cannot cast it upon your fathers, as you have hitherto attempted to do." At the same time, this only gives one side; we must also add the other, which is brought out so prominently in Jer. xxxi. 29 sqq., namely, that after the judgment God will manifest His grace so gloriously in the forgiveness of sins, that those who are forgiven will fully recognise the justice of the judgments inflicted. Experience of the love and compassion of the Lord, manifesting itself in the forgiveness of sin, bows down the heart so deeply that the pardoned sinner has no longer any doubt of the justice of the judgments of God. "In Israel" is added, to show that such a proverb is opposed to the dignity of Israel. In ver. 4, the reason assigned for the declaration thus solemnly confirmed by an oath commences with a general thought which contains the thesis for further discussion. All souls are mine, the soul of the father as well as that of the son, saith the Lord. In these words, as Calvin has well said, " God does not merely vindicate His government or His authority, but shows that He is moved with paternal affection toward the whole of the human race which He created and formed." There is no necessity for God to punish the one for the other, the son for the father, say because of the possibility that the guilty person might evade Him; and as the Father of all, He cannot treat the one in a different manner from the other, but can only punish the one by whom punishment has been deserved. The soul that sinneth shall die. ^S2n is used here, as in many other passages, for u man," and 1TO is equivalent to suffering death as a punishment. " Death " is used to denote the complete destruction with which transgressors are threatened by the law, as in Deut. xxx. 15 (compare Jer. xxi. 8; Prov. xi. 10). This sentence is explained in the verses which follow (vers. 5-20).
Vers. 5-9. The righteous man shall not die. — Ver. 5. If a man is righteous, and doeth right and righteousness, Ver. 6. And doth not eat upon the mountains, and doth not lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, and doth not defile his neighbours wife, and doth not approach his wife in her uncleanness, Ver. 7. Oppresseth no one, restoreth his security (lit. debtpledge), committeth no robbery, giveth his bread to the hungry, and cover eth the naked with clothes, Ver. 8. Doth not give upon usury, and taketh not interest, withholdeth his hand from wrong, executeth judgment of truth between one and another, Ver. 9. Walketh in my statutes, and keepeth my rights to execute truth; he is righteous, he shall live, is the saying of the Lord "Jehovah." — The exposition of the assertion, that God only punishes the sinner, not the innocent, commences with a picture of the righteousness which has the promise of life. The righteousness consists in the fulfilment of the commandments of the law: viz. (1) those relating to religious duties, such as the avoidance of idolatry, whether of the grosser kind, such as eating upon the mountains, i.e. observing sacrificial festivals, and therefore sacrificing to idols (cf. Deut. xii. 2 sqq.), or of a more refined description, e.g. lifting up the eyes to idols, to look to them, or make them the object of trust, and offer supplication to them (cf. Ps. cxxi. 1; Deut. iv. 19), as Israel had done, and was doing still (cf. ch. vi. 13); and (2) those relating to moral obligations, such as the avoidance of adultery (compare Ex. xx. 14; Lev. xx. 10; Deut. xxii. 22; and for #®V, Gen. xxxiv. 5), and of conjugal intercourse with a wife during menstruation, which was a defilement of the marriage relation (cf. Lev. xviii. 19, xx. 18). All these sins were forbidden in the law on pain of death. To these there are appended duties to a neighbour (vers. 7 sqq.), viz. to abstain from oppressing any one (Ex. xxii. 28; Lev. xxv. 14, 17), to restore the pledge to a debtor (Ex. xxii. 25; Deut. xxiv. 6, 10 sqq.). 2)n is hardly to be taken in any other sense than as in apposition to in^hn, " his pledge, which is debt," equivalent to his debt-pledge or security, like HftT!]3"n in ch. xvi. 27. The supposition of Hirzig, that nin is a participle, like Dip in 2 Kings xvi. 7, in the sense of debtor, is a far less natural one, and has no valid support in the free rendering of the LXX., kveyvpacrpov 6(f)ei\ovTo<;, The further duties are to avoid taking unlawful possession of the property of another (cf. Lev. v. 23); to feed the hungry, clothe the naked (cf. Isa. lviii. 5; Matt. xxv. 26; Jas. ii. 15, 16); to abstain from practising usury (Deut. xxiii. 20; cf. Ex. xxii. 24) and taking interest (Lev. xxv. 36, 37); in judicial sentences, to draw back the hand from wrong, and promote judgment of truth, — a sentence in accordance with the true nature of the case (see the comm. on Zech. vii. 9); and, lastly, to walk in the statutes and rights of the Lord, — an expression which embraces, in conclusion, all that is essential to the righteousness required by the law. — This definition of the idea of true righteousness, which preserves from death and destruction, and ensures life to the possessor, is followed in vers. 10 sqq. by a discussion of the attitude which God sustains towards the sons.
Vers. 10-13. The righteousness of the father does not protect the wicked, unrighteous son from death. — Ver. 10. If however, he begetteth a violent son, who sheddeth blood, and doeth only one of these things, Ver. 11. Bat he himself hath not done all this, — if he even eateth upon the mountains, and defileth his neighbour's wife, Ver. 12. Oppresseth the suffering and poor, committeth robbery, doth not restore a pledge, lifteth up his eyes to idols, committeth abomination, Ver. 13. Giveth upon usury, and taketh interest: should he live? He shall not live! He hath done all these abominations; he shall be put to death; his blood shall be- upon him, — The subject to TWI^ m ver« 10, is the righteous man described in the preceding verses. T1?, violent, literally, breaking in or through, is rendered more emphatic by the words u shedding blood " (cf. Hos. iv. 2). We regard nx in the next clause as simply a dialectically different form of writing and pronouncing, for l\$f " only," and he doeth only one of these, the sins previously mentioned (vers. 6 sqq.). ^n^D, with a partitive |E, as in Lev. iv. 2, where it is used in a similar connection; the form "in^D is also met with in Deut. xv. 7. The explanation given by the Targum, u and doeth one of these to his brother," is neither warranted by the language nor commended by the sense, nfc'y is never construed with the accusative of the person to whom anything is done; and the limitation of the words to sins against a brother is unsuitable in this connection. The next clause, nb'y K?... IWfl, which has also been variously rendered, we regard as an adversative circumstantial clause, and agree with Kliefoth in referring it to the begetter (father): u and he (the father) has not committed any of these sins." For it yields no intelligible sense to refer this clause also to the son, since •"1?&w3 cannot possibly refer to different things from the preceding n?8B, and a man cannot at the same time both do and not do the same thing. The *3 which follows signifies " if," as is frequently the case in the enumeration of particular precepts or cases; compare, for example, Ex. xxi. 1, 7, 17, etc., where it is construed with the imperfect, because the allusion is to things that may occur. Here, on the contrary, it is followed by the perfect, because the sins enumerated are regarded as committed. The emphatic D3 (even) forms an antithesis to "inxp nx (1JK), or rather an epanort7iosis of it, inasmuch as E3 *3 resumes and carries out still further the description of the conduct of the wicked son, which was interrupted by the circumstantial clause; and that not only in a different form, but with a gradation in the thought. The thought, for instance, is as follows: the violent son of a righteous father, even if he has committed only one of the sins which the father has not committed, shall die. And if he has committed even the gross sins named, viz. idolatry, adultery, violent oppression of the poor, robbery, etc., should he then continue to live? The i in *H) introduces the apodosis, which contains a question, that is simply indicated by the tone, and is immediately denied. The antique form *n for HNJ, 3d pers.
perf., is taken from the Pentateuch (cf. Gen. iii. 22 and Num. xxi. 8). The formulae riDV nio and 13 VOT are also derived from the language of the law (cf. Lev. xx. 9, 11, 13, etc.).
Vers. 14-20. The son who avoids his father's sin will live; but the father will die for his own sins. — Ver. 14. And behold j he begetteth a son, who seeth all his father's sins which he doeth; he seeth them, and doeth not such things. Ver. 15. He eateth not upon the mountains, and Ufteth not up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; he dejileth not his neighbours wife, Ver. 16. And oppresseth no one; he doth not withhold a pledge, and committeth not robbery; giveth his bread to the hungry, and covereth the naked with clothes. Ver. 17. He holdeth back his hand from the distressed one, taheth not usury and interest, doeth my rights, walketh in my statutes; he will not die for the sin of his father; he shall live. Ver. 18. His father, because he hath practised oppression, committed robbery upon his brother, and hath done that which is not good in the midst of his people; behold, he shall die for his sin. Ver. 19. And do ye say, Why doth the son not help to bear the fathers sin? But the son hath done right and righteousness, hath kept all my statutes, and done them; he shall live. Ver. 20. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. A son shall not help to bear the father s sin, and a father shall not help to bear the sin of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. — The case supposed in these verses forms the antithesis to the preceding one; the father is the transgressor in this instance, and the son a keeper of the law. The subject to Tpin in ver. 14 is not the righteous man described in ver. 15, but a man who is described immediately afterwards as a transgressor of the commandments of God. The Chetib nti in the last clause of ver* 14 is not to be read fcO^, fcal (pofivOyy et timuerit, as it has been by the translators of the Septuagint and Vulgate; nor is it to be altered into ntrw, as it has been by the Masoretes, to make it accord with ver. 28; but it is the apocopated form N"W, as in the preceding clause, and the object is to be repeated from what precedes, as in the similar case which we find in Ex. xx. 15 (18). Ewald and Hitzig propose to alter ^VO in ver. 17 into TWO after ver. 8, but without the slightest necessity. The LXX. are not to be taken as an authority for this, since the Chaldee and Syriac have both read and rendered ^V; and Ezekiel, when repeating the same sentences, is accustomed to make variations in particular words. Holding back the hand from the distressed, is equivalent to abstaining from seizing upon him for the purpose of crushing him (compare ver. 12); VDJJ ^ir)3? in the midst of his countrymen = tey ^n?, is adopted from the language of the Pentateuch, np after H3H is a participle. The question, " Why does the son not help to bear? " is not a direct objection on the part of the people, but is to be taken as a pretext, which the people might offer on the ground of the law, that God would visit the sin of the fathers- upon the sons in justification of their proverb. Ezekiel cites this pretext for the purpose of meeting it by stating the reason why this does not occur. 3 NSW, to carry, near or with, to join in carrying, or help to carry (cf. Num. xi. 17). This proved the proverb to be false, and confirmed the assertion made in ver. 46, to which the address therefore returns (ver. 20). The righteousness of the righteous man will come Upon him, i.e. upon the righteous man, namely, in its consequences. The righteous man will receive the blessing of righteousness, but the unrighteous man the curse of his wickedness. There is* no necessity for the article, which the Keri proposes to insert before V'^J.
Vers. 21-26. Turning to good leads to life; turning to evil is followed by death. — Ver. 21. But if the wicked man turneth from all his sins which he hath committed, and keepeth all my statutes, and doeth right and righteousness, he shall live, and not die. Ver. 22. All his transgressions which he hath committed, shall not be remembered to him: for the sake of the righteousness which he hath done he will live. Ver. 23. Have I then pleasure in the death of the wicked? is the saying of Jehovah: and not rather thai he turn from h •, and live? Xw. 24. Blii if l and act (A according to all the abominations which the ungodly man hath done, should he I All the righteoueneee that ihall die. Vet, 2.r>..1// / ye >■<///, ik The way of Hu I. d it not right" Hear nowt 0 houee of Israel: It my way not rightt It it not your wayt that are not right f \ er. 26. If a right
— The proof that every one must bear his sin did not contain an exhaustive reply to the question, in what relation the righteousness of God stood to the sin of men I For the c iup- posed in vers. 5—20 took for granted that there was a constant persistence in the course once taken, and overlooked the instances, which are by no means rare, when a man's course of life is entirely changed. It still remained, therefore, to take notice of such cases as these, and they are handled in vers. 21-20. The ungodly man, who repents and turns, shall live; and the righteous man, who turns to the way of sin, shall die. " As the righteous man, who was formerly a sinner, is not crushed down by his past sins; so the sinner, who was once a righteous man, is not supported by his early righteousness. Every one will be judged in that state in which he is found" (Jerome). The motive for the pardon of the repenting sinner is given in ver. 23, in the declaration that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but desires his conversion, that he may live. God is therefore not only just, but merciful and gracious, and punishes none with death but those who either will not desist from evil, or will not persevere in the way of His commandments. Consequently the complaint, that the wav of the Lord, i.e. His conduct toward men, is not weighed (|3^, see comm. on 1 Sam. ii. 3), i.e. not just and right, is altogether unfounded, and recoils upon those who make it. It is not God's ways, but the sinner's, that are wrong (ver. 25). The proof of this, which Hitzig overlooks, is contained in the declarations made in vers. 23 and 26, — viz. in the fact that God does not desire the death of the sinner, and in His mercy forgives the penitent all his former sins, and does not lay them to his charge; and also in the fact that He punishes the man who turns from the way of righteousness and gives himself up to wickedness, on account of the sin which he commits; so that He simply judges him according to his deeds. — In ver. 24, n^JTl is the continuation of the infinitive 33$, and '•nj is interrogatory, as in ver. 13.
Vers. 27-32. The vindication of the ways of God might have formed a fitting close to this divine oracle. But as the prophet was not merely concerned with the correction of the error contained in the proverb which was current among the people, but still more with the rescue of the people themselves from destruction, he follows up the refutation with another earnest call to repentance. — Ver. 27. If a wicked man turneth from his wickedness which he hath done, and doeth right and righteousness, he will keep his soid alive. Ver. 28. If he seeth and turneth from all his transgressions which he hath committed, he shall live and not die, Ver. 29. And the house of Israel saith, The way oj the Lord is not right. Are my ways not right, 0 house of Israel? Is it not rather your ways that are not right? Ver. 30. Therefore, every one according to his ways, will I judge you, 0 house of Israel, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah. Tarn and repent of all your transgressions, that it may not become to you a stumbling-block to guilt. Ver. 31. Cast from you all your transgressions which ye have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! And why will ye die, 0 house of Israel? Ver. 32. For 1 have no pleasure in the death of the dying, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah. Therefore repent, that ye may live. — For the purpose of securing an entrance into their hearts for the call to repentance, the prophet not only repeats, in vers. 27 and 28, the truth declared in vers. 21 and 22, that he who turns from his sin finds life, but refutes once more in ver. 29, as he has already done in ver. 25, the charge that God's ways are not right. The fact that the singular pn* is connected with the plural DMTHj does not warrant our altering the plural into MSTW, but may be explained in a very simple manner, by assuming that the ways of the people are all summed up in one, and that the meaning is this: what you say of my way applies to your own ways, — namely, " it is not right; there is just measure therein." \fi, " therefore,etc.; " because my way, and not yours, is right, I will judge you, every one according to his way. Repent, therefore, if ye would escape from death and destruction. \2W is rendered more emphatic by W^J, sc. uypB as in ch. xiv. 6. In the last clause of ver. 30, pjf is not to be taken as the subject of the sentence according to the accents, but is a genitive dependent upon MsfaD, as in ch. vii. 19 and xiv. 3; and the subject is to be found in the preceding clause: that it (the sinning) may not become to you a stumbling-block of iniquity, i.e. a stumbling-block through which ye fall into guilt and punishment. — The appeal in ver. 31 points back to the promise in ch. xi. 18, 19. T?^"?, to cast away. The application of this word to transgressions may be explained from the fact that they consisted for the most part of idols and idolatrous images, which they had made. — " Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit:" a man cannot, indeed, create either of these by his own power; God alone can give them (ch. xi. 19). But a man both can and should come to God to receive them: in other words, he can turn to God, and let both heart and spirit be renewed by the Spirit of God. And this God is willing to do; for He has no pleasure npn niD3} in the death of the dying one. In the repetition of the assurance given in ver. 23, nsn is very appropriately substituted for Vf~\, to indicate to the people that while in sin they are lying in death, and that it is only by conversion and renewal that they can recover life again.
Israel, the lioness, brought up young lions in the midst of lions. But when they showed their leonine nature, they were taken captive by the nations and led away, one to Egypt, the other to Babylon (vers. 1-9). The mother herself, once a vine planted by the water with vigorous branches, is torn from the soil, so that her strong tendrils wither, and is transplanted into a dry land. Fire, emanating from a rod of the branches, has devoured the fruit of the vine, so that not a cane is left to form a ruler's sceptre (vers. 10-14). — This lamentation, which bewails the overthrow of the royal house and the banishment of Israel into exile, forms a finale to the preceding prophecies of the overthrow of Judah, and was well adapted to annihilate every hope that things might not come to the worst after all.
Vers. 1-9. Capture and Exile of the Princes. —
Ver. 1. And do thou raise a lamentation for the princes of Israel, Ver. 2. And say. Why did thy mother, a lioness, lie down among lionesses; bring up her whelps among young lions? Ver. 3. And she brought up one of her whelps: it became a young lion, and he learned to take prey; he devoured man. Ver. 4. And nations heard of him; he was caught in their pit, and they brought him with nose-rings into the land of Egypt. Ver. 5. And when she saw that her hope was exhausted, overthrown, she took one of her whelps, made it a young lion. Ver. 6. And he walked among lionesses, he became a young lion, and learned to take prey. He devoured man. Ver. 7. He knew its widows, and laid waste their cities; and the land and its fulness became waste, at the voice of his roaring. Ver. 8. Then nations round about from the provinces set up against him, and spread over him their net: he was caught in their pit. Ver. 9. And they put him in the cage with nose-rings, and brought him to the king of Babylon: brought him into a fortress, that his voice might not be heard any more on the mountains of Israel.
Tiie princes of Israel, to whom the lamentation applies, are the kings (^'J, as in ch. xii. 10), two of whom arc so clearly pointed out in vers. 4 and 9, that there is no mistaking Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin. This fact alone is sufficient to protect the plural WiW against the arbitrary alteration into the singular K*8M proposed by Houbigant and Hitzig, after the reading of the LXX. The lamentation is not addressed to one particular prince, either Zedekiah (Hitzig) or Jehoiachin (Ros., Maurer), but to Israel as a nation; and the mother (ver. 2) is fhe national community, the theocracy, out of which the kings were born, as is indisputably evident from ver. 10. The words from T2X no to nyzn form one sentence. It yields no good sense to separate l-K hd from nV?"J, whether we adopt the rendering, " what is thy mother?" or take HD with N?-? and render it, "how is thy mother a lioness?" unless, indeed, we supply the arbitrary clause " now, in comparison with what she was before," or change the interrogative into a preterite: " how has thy mother become a lioness?" The lionesses, among which Israel lay down, are the other kingdoms, the Gentile nations. The words have no connection with Gen. xlix. 9, where Judah is depicted as a warlike lion. The figure is a different one here. It is not so much the strength and courage of the lion as its wildness and ferocity that are the points of resemblance in the passage before us. The mother brings up her young ones among young lions, so that they learn to take prey and devour men. "Via is the lion's whelp, catulus; ">'—, the voun£ lion, which is old enough to £0 out in search of prey. >OT is a Iliphil, in the tropical sense, to cause to spring up, or grow up, i.e. to bring up. The thought is the following: Why has Israel entered into fellowship with the heathen nations? Why, then, has it put itself upon a level with the heathen nations, and adopted the rapacious and tyrannical nature of the powers of the world? The question " why then? " when taken with what follows, involves the reproof that Israel has struck out a course opposed to its divine calling, and will now have to taste the bitter fruits of this assumption of heathen ways. The heathen nations have taken captive its king, and led him away into heathen lands. V7K ty£>V\ they heard of him (V7K for TO). The fate of Jehoahaz, to wThich ver. 4 refers, is related in 2 Kings xxiii. 31 sqq. — Vers. 5-7 refer to Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, and not to Zedekiah, as Hitzig imagines. For the fact that Jehoiachin went out of his own accord to the king of Babylon (2 Kings xxiv. 12), is not at variance with the figure contained in ver. 8, according to which he was taken (as a lion) in a net. He simply gave himself up to the king of Babylon because he was unable to escape from the besieged city. Moreover, Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin are simply mentioned as examples, because they both fell into the hands of the world-powers, and their fate showed clearly enough " what the end must inevitably be, when Israelitish kings became ambitious of being lions, like the kings of the nations of the world" (Kliefoth). Jehoiakim was not so suitable an example as the others, because he died in Jerusalem. n;D^> which has been explained in different ways, we agree with Ewald in regarding as the Niphal of?rv = ^n, in the sense of feeling vexed, being exhausted or deceived, like the viii. 12,?nfo simply means to wait; and this is inapplicable here, as waiting is not equivalent to waiting in vain. The change from ^n to?nj is established by Judg. in. 25, where Tin or yn occurs in the sense of?n\ In ver. 7, the figurative language passes into a literal description of the ungodly course pursued by the king. He knew, i.e. dishonoured, its (Israel's, the nation's) widows. The Targum reads ]n*i here instead of in1!, and renders it accordingly, u he destroyed its palaces; " and Ewald has adopted the same rendering. But J?jn, to break, or smash in pieces, e.g. a vessel (Ps. ii. 9), is never used for the destruction of buildings; and AfaopK does not mean palaces (rri;cns); but windows. There is nothing in the use of the word in Isa. xlii. 22 to support the meaning " palaces," because the palaces are simply called \ilmdnoth (widows) there, with a sarcastic side glance at their desolate and widowed condition. Other conjectures are still more inadmissible. The thought is as follows: Jehoiachin went much further than Jehoahaz. He not only devoured men, but laid hands on defenceless widows, and laid the cities waste to such an extent that the land with its inhabitants became perfectly desolate through his rapacity. The description is no doubt equally applicable to his father Jehoiakim, in whose footsteps Jehoiachin walked, since Jehoiakim is described in Jer. xxii. 13 sqq. as a grievous despot and tyrant. In ver. 8 the object Efi'^n also belongs to WP: they set up and spread out their net. The plural nmo is used in a general and indefinite manner: in lofty castles, mountain-fortresses, i.e. in one of them (cf. Judg. xii. 7).
Vers. 10-14. Destruction of the Kingdom, and Banishment OF THE People. — Ver. 10. Thy mother was like a vine, planted by the water in thy repose; it became fruitful and rich in tendrils from many waters. Ver. 11. And it had strong shoots for rulers sceptres; and its growth ascended among the clouds, and was visible in its height in the multitude of its branches. Ver. 12. Then it was torn up in fury, catt to the ground, and the east wind, dried up its fruit; its strong shoots were broken off, and withered; fire devoured them. Ver. 13. And now it is planted in the desert, in a dry and thirsty land. Ver. 14. There goeth out fire from the shoot of its branches, devoureth its fruit, so that there is no more a strong shoot upon it, a sceptre for ruling. — A lamentation it is, and it will be for lamentation. — From the lamentable fate of the princes transported to Egypt and Babylon, the ode passes to a description of the fate, which the lion-like rapacity of the princes is preparing for the kingdom and people. Israel resembled a vine planted by the water. The difficult word *|0^3 we agree with Havernick and Kliefoth in tracing to the verb riOT, to rest (Jer. xiv. 17), and regard it as synonymous with W3 in Isa. xxxviii. 10: "in thy repose," i.e. in the time of peaceful, undisturbed prosperity. For neither of the other renderings, " in thy blood" and "in thy likeness," yields a suitable meaning. The latter explanation, which originated with Raschi and Kimchi, is precluded by the fact that Ezekiel always uses the word rWl to express the idea of resemblance. — For the figure of the vine, compare Ps. Ixxx. 9 sqq. Tin's vine sent out strong shoots for rulers' sceptres; that is to say, it brought forth powerful kings, and grew up to a great height, even into the clouds. DVlhy signifies " clouds," lit. thicket of clouds, not only here, but in ch. xxxi. 3, 10, 14. The rendering " branches " or u thicket of foliage" is not suitable in any of these passages. The form of the word is not to be taken as that of a new plural of ^^, the plural of 2y, which occurs in 2 Sam. xxiii. 4 and Ps. lxxvii. 18; but is the plural of nty, an interlacing or thicket of foliage, and is simply transferred to the interlacing or piling up of the clouds. The clause*'^ &W, and it appeared, was seen, or became visible, simply serves to depict still further the glorious and vigorous growth, and needs no such alteration as Hitzig proposes. This picture is followed in ver. 12 sqq., without any particle of transition, by a description of the destruction of this vine. It was torn up in fury by the wrath of God, cast down to the ground, so that its fruit withered (compare the similar figures in ch. xvii. 10). TO HBO is used collectively, as equivalent to T'y rritSB (ver. 11); and the suffix in *>trte- *s written iQ the singular on account of this collective use of HtSD. The uprooting ends in the transplanting of the vine into a waste, dry, unwatered land, — in other words, in the transplanting of the people, Israel, into exile. The dry land is Babvlon, so described as bein£ a barren soil in which the kingdom of God could not flourish. According to ver. 14, this catastrophe is occasioned by the princes. The fire, which devours the fruit of the vine so that it cannot send out any more branches, emanates n^.3 HlSDO, from the shoot of its branches, i.e. from its branches, which are so prolific in shoots. HDD is the shoot which grew into rulers' sceptres, i.e. the royal family of the nation. The reference is to Zedekiah, whose treacherous breach of covenant (eh. xvii. 15) led to the overthrow of the kingdom and of the earthly monarchy. The picture from ver. 12 onwards is prophetic. The tearing up of the vine, and its transplantation into a dry land, had already commenced with the carrying away of Jeconiah; but it was not completed till the destruction of Jerusalem and the carrying away of Zedekiah, which were still in the future at the time when these words were uttered. — The clause tfl K*n nrp does not contain a concluding historical notice, as Havernick supposes, but simply the finale of the lamentation, indicating the credibility of the prediction which it contains. *nw is prophetic, like the perfects from 80PIH1 in ver. 12 onwards; and the meaning is this: A lamentation forms the substance of the whole chapter; and it will lead to lamentation, when it is fulfilled.
The date given in ch. xx. 1 applies not only to ch. xx., but group of connected words of God, both by their contents and by the threefold repetition of the expression, u wilt thou judge V which is only omitted from the threat of punishment contained in ch. xxi., indicates at the same time both the nature and design of these words of God. The prophet is to judge, i.e. to hold up before the people once more their sinful abominations, and to predict the consequent punishment. The circumstance which occasioned this is narrated in ch. xx. 1-3. Men of the elders of Israel came to the prophet to inquire of the Lord.
The occasion is therefore a similar one to that described in the previous group; for we have already been informed, in ch. xiv. 1, that elders had come to the prophet to hear God's word from him; but they had not gone so far as to inquire. Here, however (ch. xx.), they evidently address a question to the prophet, and through him to the Lord; though the nature of their inquiry is not given, and can only be gathered from the answer, which was given to them by the Lord through the prophet. The ground for the following words of God is therefore essentially the same as for those contained in ch. xiv.— xix.; and this serves to explain the relation in which the two groups stand to each other, namely, that ch. xx.-xxiv. simply contain a further expansion of the reproachful and threatening addresses of ch. xiv.— xix.
In ch. xx. the prophet points out to the elders, in the form of a historical survey, how rebellions Israel had been towards the Lord from the very first, even in Egypt (vers. 5-9) and the desert (vers. 10-17 and 18-26), both th'e older and later generations, how they had sinned against the Lord their God through their idolatry, and how it was only for His own name's sake that the Lord had not destroyed them in His anger (vers. 27-31). And as Israel hath not given up idolatry even in Canaan, the Lord wTould not suffer Himself to be inquired of by the idolatrous generation, but would refine it by severe judgments among the nations (vers. 32-38), and sanctify it thereby into a people well-pleasing to Him, and would then gather it again out of the dispersion, and bring it into the land promised to the fathers, where it would serve Him with sacrifices and gifts upon His holy mountain (vers. 39-44). This word of God is therefore a more literal repetition of the allegorical description contained in ch. xvi.
Vers. 1-4. Date, occasion, and theme of the discourse which follows. — Ver. 1. And it came to pass in the seventh yea?*, in the ffth (moon), on the tenth of the moon, there came men of the elders of Israel, to inquire of Jehovah, and sat down before me. Ver. 2. Then the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, Ver. 3. Son of man, speak to the elders of Israel, and say to them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Have ye come to inquire of me? As I live, if I suffer myself to be inquired of by you, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah. Ver. 4. Wilt thou judge them f Wilt thou judge, 0 son of man f Make known the abominations of their fathers to them. — If we compare the date given in ver. 1 with ch. viii. 1, we shall find that this word of God was uttered only eleven months and five days after the one in chap. viii.; two years, one month, and five days after the call of Ezekiel to be a prophet (ch. i. 2); and two years and five months before the blockading of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans (ch. xxiv. 1). Consequently it falls almost in the middle of the first section of Ezekiel's prophetic work, njn^ riK BTO, to seek Jehovah, i.e. to ask a revelation from Him. The Lord's answer in ver. 3 is similar to that in ch. xiv. 3. Instead of giving a revelation concerning the future, especially with regard to the speedy termination of the penal sufferings, which the elders had, no doubt, come to solicit, the prophet is to judge them, i.e. as the following clause explains, not only in the passage before us, but also in ch. xxii. 3 and xxiii. 36, to hold up before them the sins and abominations of Israel. It is in anticipation of the following picture of the apostasy of the nation from time immemorial that the sins of the fathers are mentioned here. a No reply is given to the sinners, but chiding for their sins; and He adds the oath, ' as I live/ that the sentence of refusal may be all the stronger" (Jerome). The question BiBBTin, which is repeated with emotion, " gives expression to an impatient wish, that the thing could have been done already" (Hitzig). The interrogative form of address is therefore adopted simply as a more earnest mode of giving expression to the command to go and do the thing. Hence the literal explanation of the word DiSKTO is also appended in the form of an imperative (DjJHin). — The prophet is to revert to the sins of the fathers, not merely for the purpose of exhibiting the magnitude of the people's guilt, but also to hold up before the sinners themselves, the patience and long-suffering which have hitherto been displayed by the Lord.
Vers. 5-9. Election of Israel in Egypt. Its resistance to the commandments of God. — Ver. 5. And say to them, Tlius saith the Lord Jehovah, In the day that I chose Israel, and lifted my hand to the seed of Jacob, and made myself known to them in the land of Egypt,, and lifted my hand to them, saying, I am Jehovah, your God: Ver. 6. In that day I lifted my hand to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt into the land which I sought out for them, which floweth with milk and honey — it is an ornament of all lands: Ver. 7. And said to them, Cast away every man the abominations of his eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am Jehovah, your God. Ver. 8. But they were rebellious against me, and would not hearken to me. Not one of them threw away the abominations of his eyes, and they did not forsake the idols of Egypt. Then 1 thought to pour out my wrath upon them, to accomplish my anger upon them in the midst of the land of Egypt. Ver. 9. But I did it for my name's sake, that it might not be profaned bejore the eyes of the nations, in the midst of which they were, before whose eyes I had made myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt. — Vers. 5 and 6 form one period, ^n^ Dis3 (ver. 5) is resumed in KVin Dis3 (ver. 6), and the sentence continued. With NEW the construction with the infinitive passes over into the finite verb. Lifting the hand, sc. to heaven, is a gesture employed in taking an oath (see the comm. on Ex. vi. 8). The substance of the oath is introduced by the word "Ven? at the close of ver. 5; but the clause 'W1 injNJ (and made myself known) is previously inserted, and then the lifting of the hand mentioned a<rain to indicate the importance of this act of divine grace. The contents of vers. 5 and 6 rest upon Ex. vi. 2 sqq., where the Lord makes Himself known to Moses, and through him to the children of Israel, according to the nature involved in the name Jehovah, in which lie had not yet revealed Himself to the patriarchs (Ex. vi. 3). Both *1J 'nxsfj (I lifted my hand) and njn; ♦aa are taken from Ex. vi. 8. The word Wfi, from "Wi, to seek out, explore, also belongs to the Pentateuch (compare Deut. i. 33); and the same may be said of the description given of Canaan as u a land flowing with milk and honey" (vid. Ex. iii. 8, etc.). But ^Vj ornament, as an epithet applied to the land of Israel, is first employed by the prophets of the time of the captivity — namely, in vers. 6 and 15 of this chapter, in Jer. iii. 19, and in Dan. viii. 9, xi. 16, 41. The election of the Israelites to be the people of Jehovah, contained eo ipso the command to give up the idols of Egypt, although it was at Sinai that the worship of other gods was for the first time expressly prohibited (Ex. xx. 3), and Egyptian idolatry is only mentioned in Lev. xvii. 7 (cf. Josh. xxiv. 14). Ezekiel calls the idols u abominations of their eyes," because, u although they were abominable and execrable things, they were looked upon with delight by them " (Rosenmiiller). It is true that there is nothing expressly stated in the Pentateuch as to the refusal of the Israelites to obey the command of God, or their unwillingness to give up idolatry in Egypt; but it may be inferred from the statements contained in Ex. vi. 9 and 12, to the effect that the Israelites did not hearken to Moses when he communicated to them the determination of God to lead them out of Egypt, and still more plainly from their relapse into Egyptian idolatry, from the worship of the golden calf at Sinai (Ex. xxxii.), and from their repeated desire to return to Egypt while wandering in the desert.1 Nor is there anything said in the Pentateuch concerning the determination of God to pour out His wrath
1 The remarks of Calvin upon this point are very good. " We do not
learn directly from Moses," he says, " that they had been rebels against God, because they would not throw away their idols and superstitions; but the conjecture is a very probable one, that they had always been so firmly fixed in their abominations as to prevent in a certain way the hand of God from bringing them relief. And assuredly, if they had embraced what Moses promised them in the name of God with promptness of mind, the
upon the idolatrous people in Egypt. We need not indeed assume on this account that Ezekiel derived his information from some special traditional source, as Vitringa has done Observv. ss. I. 263), or regard the statement as a revelation made by God to Ezekiel, and through him to us. The words do not disclose to us either a particular fact or a definite decree of God; they simply contain a description of the attitude which God, from His inmost nature, assumes towards sinners who rebel against His holy commandments, and which He displayed both in the declaration made concerning Himself as a zealous, or jealous God, who visits iniquities (Ex. xx. 5), and also in the words addressed to Moses when the people fell into idolatry at Sinai, u Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them" (Ex. xxxii. 10). All that God expresses herej^'His heart must have felt in Egypt towards the people who would not desist from idolatry. For the words themselves, compare ch. vii. 8, vi. 12, v. 13. BWKJ (ver. 9), u but I did it for my name's sake." The missing object explaining what He did, namely, abstain from pouring out His wrath, is to be gathered from what follows: " that I might not profane my name." This would have taken place if God had destroyed Israel by pouring out His wrath; in other words, have allowed them to be destroyed by the Egyptians. The heath eh might then have said that Jehovah had been unable to liberate His people from their hand, and power (cf. Num. xiv. 16 and Ex. xxxii. 12).?nn is an infin, Niplial of <vH for ^nn (cf. Lev. xxi. 4).
Vers. 10-17. Behaviour of Israel in the desert. — Ver. 10. And I led them out of the land of Egypt, and brought them
execution of the prdmise would have been more prompt and swift. Bnt we may learn that it was their own obtuseness which hindered God from stretching out His hand forthwith and actually fulfilling all that He had promised It was necessary, indeed, that God should contend with Pharaoh, that His power might be more conspicuously displayed; but the people would not have been so tyrannically afflicted if they had not closed the door of divine mercy."
info the desert; Ver. 11. And gave them my statutes, and my right* I made known to them, which man is to do that he may live through them. Ver. 12. I also gave them my Sabbaths, that they might be for a sign between me and them, that they might know that I Jehovah sanctify them. Ver. 13. But the house of Israel was rebellious against me in the desert: they did not walk in my statutes, and my rights they rejected, which man is to do, that he may live through them, and my Sabbaths they greatly profaned: Then 1 thought to pour out my wrath upon them in the desert to desfroy them. Ver. 14. Bat I did it for my names sake, that it might not be profaned before the eyes of the nations, before whose eyes I had led them out. Ver. 15. / also lifted my hand to them in the desert, not to bring them into the land which I had given (them), which flow eth with milk and honey; it is an ornament of all lands, Ver. 16. Because they rejected my rights, did not walk in my statutes, and profaned my Sabbaths, for their heart went after their idols. Ver. 17. But my eye looked with pity upon them, so that I did not destroy them, and make an end of them in the desert. — God gave laws at Sinai to the people whom He had brought out of Egypt, through which they were to be sanctified as His own people, that they might live before God. On ver. 11 compare Deut. xxx. 16 and 19. Ver. 12 is taken almost word for word from Ex. xxxi. 13, where God concludes the directions for His worship by urging upon the people in the most solemn manner the observance of His Sabbaths, and thereby pronounces the keeping of the Sabbath the kernel of all divine worship. And as in that passage we are to understand by the Sabbaths the actual weekly Sabbaths, and not the institutions of worship as a whole, so here we must retain the literal signification of the word. It is only of the Sabbath recurring every week, and not of all the fasts, that it could be said it was a sign between Jehovah and Israel. It was a sign, not as a token, that they who observed it were Israelites, as Hitzig supposes, but to know (that they might know) that Jehovah was sanctifying them, namely, by the
Sabbath rest — as a refreshing and elevation of the mind, in which Israel was to have a foretaste of that blessed resting from all works to which the people of God was ultimately to attain (see the comm. on Ex. xx. 11). It is from this deeper signification of the Sabbath that the prominence given to the Sabbaths here is to be explained, and not from the outward circumstance that in exile, when the sacrificial worship was necessarily suspended, the keeping of the Sabbath was the only bond which united the Israelites, so far as the worship of God was concerned (Hitzig). Historical examples of the rebellion of Israel against the commandments of God in the desert are given in Ex. xxxii. 1-6 and Num. xxv. 1-3; and of the desecration of the Sabbath, in Ex. xvi. 27 and Num. xv. 32. For the threat referred to in ver. 136, compare Ex. xxxii. 10; Num. xiv. 11, 12. — Vers. 15 and 16 are not a repetition of ver. 13 (Hitzig); nor do they introduce a limitation of ver. 14 (Kliefoth). They simply relate what else God did to put bounds to the rebellion after He had revoked the decree to cut Israel off, at the intercession of Moses (Num. xiv. 11—19). He lifted His hand to the oath (Num. xiv. 21 sqq.), that the generation which had come out of Egypt should not come into the land of Canaan, but should die in the wilderness. Therewith He looked with pity upon the people, so that He did not make an end of them by following up the threat with a promise that the children should enter the land. n?D ntry as in ch. xi. 13.
Vers. 18-26. The generation that grew up in the desert. — Ver. 18. And I spake to their sons in the desert. Walk not in the statutes of your fathers, and keep not their rights, and do not de fie yourselves ivith their idols. Ver. 19. / am Jehovah your God; walk in my statutes, and keep my rights, and do them, Ver. 20. And sanctify my Sabbaths, that they may be for a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am Jehovah your God. Ver. 21. But the sons were rebellious against me; tfiey walked not in my statutes, and did not keep my rights, to do them, which mail should do that he may live through them; they profaned my Sabbaths, TJien I thought to pour out my wrath upon them, to accomplish my anger upon them in the desert, Ver. 22. But I turned back my hand and did it for my names sake, that it might not be profaned before the eyes of the nations, before whose eyes I had them out. Ver. 23. / also lifted my Jtand to them in the desert, to scatter them among the nations, and to disperse them in the lands; Ver. 24. Because they did not my lights, and despised my statutes, profaned my Sabbaths, and their eyes were after the idols of their fathers. Ver. 25. And I also gave them statutes, which were not good, and rights, through which they did not live / Ver. 26. And defiled them in their sacrificial gifts, in that they caused all that openeth the womb to pass through, that Lmight fill them with horror, that they might know that I am Jehovah. — The sons acted like their fathers in the wilderness. Historical proofs of this are furnished by the accounts of the Sabbathbreaker (Num xv. 32 sqq.), of the rebellion of the company of Korah, and of the murmuring of the whole congregation against Moses and Aaron after the destruction of Korah's company (Num. xvi. and xvii.). In the last two cases God threatened that He would destroy the whole congregation (cf. Num. xvi. 21 and xvii. 9, 10); and on both occasions the Lord drew back His hand at the intercession of Moses, and his actual intervention (Num. xvi. 22 and xvii. 11 sqq.), and did not destroy the whole nation for His name's sake. The statements in vers. 216 and 22 rest upon these facts. The words of ver. 23 concerning the oath of God, that He would scatter the transgressors among the heathen, are also founded upon the Pentateuch, and not upon an independent tradition, or any special revelation from God. Dispersion among the heathen is threatened in Lev. xxvi. 33 and Deut. xxviii. 64, and there is no force in Kliefoth's argument that " these threats do not refer to the generation in the wilderness, but to a later age." For in both chapters the blessings and curses of the law are set before the people who were then in the desert; and there is not a single word to intimate that either blessing or curse would only be fulfilled upon the generations of later times. On the contrary, when Moses addressed to the people assembled before him his last discourse concerning the renewal of the covenant (Deut. xxix. and xxx.), he called upon them to enter into the covenant, u which Jehovah maketh with thee this day " (Deut. xxix. 12), and to keep all the words of this covenant and do them. It is upon this same discourse, in which Moses calls the threatenings of the law H7S, an oath (Deut. xxix. 13), that a the lifting of the hand of God to swear," mentioned in ver. 23 of this chapter, is also founded. Moreover, it is not stated in this verse that God lifted His hand to scatter among the heathen the generation which had grown up in the wilderness, and to disperse them in the lands before their entrance into the land promised to the fathers; but simply that He had lifted His hand in the wilderness to threaten the people with dispersion among the heathen, without in any way defining the period of dispersion. In the blessings and threatenings of the law contained in Lev. xxvi. and Deut. xxviii.-xxx., the nation is regarded as a united whole; so that no distinction is made between the successive generations, for the purpose of announcing this particular blessing or punishment to either one or the other. And Ezekiel acts in precisely the same way. It is true that he distinguishes the generation which came out of Egypt and was sentenced by God to die in the wilderness from the sons, i.e. the generation which grew up in the wilderness; but the latter, or the sons of those who had fallen, the generation which was brought into the land of Canaan, he regards as one with all the successive generations, and embraces the whole under the common name of u fathers " to the generation living in his day (u your fathers" ver. 27), as we may clearly see from the turn given to the sentence which describes the apostasy of those who came into the land of Canaan ('ui riNT Ity). In thus embracing the generation which grew up in the wilderness and was led into Canaan, along with the generations which followed and lived in
Canaan, Ezekiel adheres very closely to the view prevailing in the Pentateuch, where the nation in all its successive generations is regarded as one united whole. The threat of dispersion amon£ the heathen, which the Lord uttered in the wilderness to the sons of those who were not to see the land, is also not mentioned by Ezekiel as one which God designed to execute upon the people who were wandering in the desert at the time. For if he had understood it in this sense, he would have mentioned its non-fulfilment also, and would have added a 'ui "ftp ]VD7 try^), as he has done in the case of the previous threats (cf. vers. 22, 14, and 9). But we do not find this either in ver. 24 or ver. 26. The omission of this turn clearly shows that ver. 23 does not refer to a punishment which God designed to inflict, but did not execute for His name's sake; but that the dispersion among the heathen, with which the transgressors of His commandments were threatened by God when in the wilderness, is simply mentioned as a proof that even in the wilderness the people, whom God had determined to lead into Canaan, were threatened with that very punishment which had now actually commenced, because rebellious Israel had obstinately resisted the commandments and rights of its God.
These remarks are equally applicable to vers. 25 and 26. These verses are not to be restricted to the generation which was born in the wilderness and gathered to its fathers not long after its entrance into Canaan, but refer to their descendants also, that is to say, to the fathers of our prophet's contemporaries, who were born and had died in Canaan. God gave them statutes which were not good, and rights which did not bring them life. It is perfectly self-evident that we are not to understand by these statutes and rights, which were not good, either the Mosaic commandments of the ceremonial law, as some of the Fathers and earlier Protestant commentators supposed, or the threatenings contained in the law; so that this needs no elaborate proof. The ceremonial commandments given by God were good, and had the promise attached to them, that obedience to them would give life; whilst the threats of punishment contained in the law are never called D^n and D^tps^'p. Those statutes only are called " not good " the fulfilment of which did not bring life or blessing and salvation. The second clause serves as an explanation of the first. The examples quoted in ver. 26 show what the words really mean. The defiling in their sacrificial gifts (ver. 26), for example, consisted in their causing that which opened the womb to pass through, i.e. in the sacrifice of the first-born. Drn "ID3"?3 Tsyn points back to Ex. xiii. 12; only njjTO, which occurs in that passage, is omitted, because the allusion is not to the commandment given there, but to its perversion into idolatry. This formula is used in the book of Exodus (I.e.) to denote the dedication of the first-born to Jehovah; but in ver. 13 this limitation is introduced, that the first-born of man is to be redeemed. "V3yn signifies a dedication through fire (=T3Vn BW3, ver. 31), and is adopted in the book of Exodus, where it is joined to njnv, in marked opposition to the Canaanitish custom of dedicating children to Moloch by februation in fire (see the comm. on Ex. xiii. 12). The prophet refers to this Canaanitish custom, and cites it as a striking example of the defilement of the Israelites in their sacrificial gifts (M?9, to make unclean, not to declare unclean, or treat as unclean). That this custom also made its way among the Israelites, is evident from the repeated prohibition against offering children through the fire to Moloch (Lev. xviii. 21 and Deut. xviii. 10). When, therefore, it is affirmed with regard to a statute so sternly prohibited in the law of God, that Jehovah gave it to the Israelites in the wilderness, the word fro (give) can only be used in the sense of a judicial sentence, and must not be taken merely as indicating divine permission; in other words, it is to be understood, like 2 Thess. ii. 11 (" God. sends them strong delusion ") and Acts vii. 42 (" God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven"), in the sense of hardening, whereby whoever will not renounce idolatry is so given up to its power, that it draws him deeper and deeper in. This is in perfect keeping with the statement in ver. 26 as the design oF God in doing this: " that I might fill them with horror; " i.e. might excite such horror and amazement in their minds, that if possible they might be brought to reflect and to return to Jehovah their God. Vers. 27-31. Israel committed these sins in Canaan also, and to this day has not given them up; therefore God will not allow the idolatrous generation to inquire of Him. — Ver. 27. Therefore speak to the house of Israel, 0 son of man, and say to them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Still further have your fathers blasphemed me in this, with the faithlessness which they have shown toicard me. Ver. 28. When I had brought them into the land, which I had lifted my hand to give them, then they looked out every high hill and every thickly covered tree, and offered their sacrifices there, and gave their irritating gifts there, and presented the fragrance of their pleasant odour there, and poured out their drink-offerings there. Ver. 29. And I said to them, What height is that to which ye go? And its name is called Height to this day. Ver. 30. Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, What? Do ye defile yourselves in the way of your fathers; and go whoring after their abominations; Ver. 31. And defile yourselves in all your idols to this day, by lifting up your gifts, and causing your sons to pass through the fire; and should I let myself be inquired of by you? As I live, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah, I will not let myself be inquired of by you. — The t5J in ver. 27 is resumed in ver. 30; and there the answer given by God to the elders, who had come to inquire of Him, is first communicated, after an express declaration of the fact that Israel had continued its idolatry in the most daring manner, even after its entrance into Canaan. But the form in which this is done — riNT Ity, " still further in this " — is to be understood as intimating that the conduct of the fathers of the existing generation, and therefore not merely of those who grew up in the wilderness, but also of those who had lived in Canaan, has already been described in general terms in the preceding verses, and that what follows simply adds another novel feature. But this can only be the case if vers. 23-26 are taken in the sense given above. HNT is an accusative; and *)1I3 is construed with the accusative both of the person and thing. The more precise definition of nsT is not given in sn D?yft2 at the end of the verse, but in the idolatry depicted in ver. 28. 'V® refers to the faithlessness involved in the breach of the covenant and in idolatry. This is the general description; whilst the idolatry mentioned in ver. 286 constituted one particular feature, in which the faithlessness appeared in the form of blasphemy. For the fact itself, namely, the worship on high places, which was practised on every hand, see ch. vi. 13, xvi. 24, 25; 1 Kings xiv. 23; 2 Kings xvii. 10. In the enumeration of the offerings, there is something striking in the position in which Bjsnjj DJD stands, namely, between the slaughtered sacrifices (Q,,n3T) and the increase- and drinkofferings; and this is no doubt the reason why the clause '\S\ DE> OF!*! is omitted from the Cod. Vat. and Alex, of the LXX.; and even Hitzig proposes to strike it out. But Theodoret found this reading in the Alex. Version; and Hitzig is wronor in affirming that ]^p is used in connection with sacrifices, meat-offerings, and drink-offerings. The meat-offerings are not expressly named, for rtJW w~) does not signify meatofferings, but is used in the law for the odour of all the offerings, both slaughtered sacrifices and meat-offerings, even though in Ezek. xvi. 19 it is applied to the odour of the bloodless offerings alone. And in the same way does J3"ij5 embrace all the offerings, even the slain offerings, in Ezek. xl. 43, in harmony with Lev. i. 2, ii. 1, and other passages. That it is used in this general signification here, is evident from the introduction of the word DJJ3, irritation or provocation of their gifts, i.e. their gifts which provoked irritation on the part of God, because they were offered to idols. As this sentence applies to all the sacrifices (bloody and bloodless), so also does the clause which follows, 'til DC* WJPl, refer to all the offerings which were burned upon the altar, without regard to the material employed. Consequently Ezekiel mentions only slain offerings and drink-offerings, and, by the two clauses inserted between, describes the offering of the slaughtered sacriflees as a gift of irritation to God, and of pleasant fragrance to the idolatrous worshippers who presented them. He does not mention the meat-offerings separately, because they generally formed an accompaniment to the slain offerings, and therefore were included in these. But although God had called the people to account for this worship on high places, they had not relinquished it even " to this day." This is no doubt the meaning of ver. 29, which has been interpreted in very different ways. The context shows, in the most conclusive manner, that n»3H is to be taken collectively, and that the use of the singular is to be explained from the antithesis to the one divinely appointed Holy Place in the temple, and not, as Kimchi and Hiivernick suppose, from any allusion to one particular hdmdh of peculiar distinction, viz. u the great high place at Gibeon." The question HDZin no is not expressive of contempt (Hitzig), but " is founded upon the assumption that they would have to give an account of their doings; and merely asks, What kind of heights are those to which you are going? Who has directed you to go thither with your worship? " (Kliefoth). There is no need to refute the trivial fancy of J. D. Michaelis, which has been repeated by Hitzig, namely, that Ezekiel has taken noa as a derivative from fcO and no. A^ain, the question does not presuppose a word addressed by God to Israel, which Ezekiel only has handed down to us; but is simply a rhetorical mode of presenting the condemnation by God of the worship of the high places, to which both the law and the earlier prophets had given utterance. The next clause, " and their name was called Height" (high place), is not to be regarded as containing merely a historical notice of the name given to these idolatrous places of worship; but the giving of the name is a proof of the continued existence of the thing; so that the words affirm, that notwithstanding the condemnation on the part of God, Israel had retained these high places, — had not abolished them to this day. — Vers. 30 and 31 facilitate the transition from the first part of this word of God to the second. What has already been said in vers. 5-29 concerning the idolatry of the people, from the time of its election onwards, is here expressly applied to the existing generation, and carries with it the declaration to them, that inasmuch as they are defiling themselves by idolatry, as their fathers did, Jehovah cannot permit Himself to be inquired of by them. The thought is couched in the form of a question, to express astonishment that those who denied the Lord, and dishonoured Him by their idolatry, should nevertheless imagine that they could obtain revelations from Him. The lifting up (ns;^, from NBO) of gifts signifies the offering of sacrifices upon the altars of the high places. For ver. 31&, compare ver. 3. — With this declaration God assigns the reason for the refusal to listen to idolaters, which had already been given in ver. 3. But it does not rest with this refusal. God now proceeds to disclose to them the thoughts of their own hearts, and announces to them that He will refine them by severe judgments, and bring them thereby to repentance of their sins, that He may then gather them out of the dispersion, and make them partakers of the promised salvation as a people willingly serving Him. — In this way do vers. 32-44 cast a prophetic glance over the whole of the future history of Israel.
Vers. 32-38. The judgment awaiting Israel of purification among the heathen. — Ver. 32. And that which riseth up in your mind shall not come to pass, in that ye say, We will be like the heathen, like the families of the lands, to serve wood and stone. Ver. 33. As I live, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah, with strong hand and with outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out, will I rule over you. Ver. 34. And I will bring you out of the iiations, and gather you out of the lands in which ye have been scattered, with strong hand and with outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out, Ver. 35. And will bring you into the desert of the nations, and contend with you there face to face, Ver. 36. As 1 contended with your fathers in the desert of the land of Egypt, so will I contend icith you, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah. Ver. 37. And I will cause you to pass through under the rod, and bring you into the bond of the covenant. Ver. 38. And I will separate from you the rebellious, and those who are apostates from me; out of the land of their sojourning will I lead them out, but into the land of Israel shall they not come; that ye may know that I am Jehovah, — Wl?V n?^T> ^at which rises up in the spirit, is the thought that springs up in the mind. What this thought was is shown in ver. 32b, viz. we will be like the heathen in the lauds of the earth, to serve wood and stone; that is to say, we will become idolaters like the heathen, pass into heathenism. This shall not take place; on the contrary, God will rule over them as King with strong arm and fury. The words, u with strong hand and stretchedout arm," are a standing expression in the Pentateuch for the mighty acts by which Jehovah liberated His people from the power of the Egyptians, and led them out of Egypt (cf. Ex. vi. 1, 6; Deut. iv. 34, v. 15, vii. 19, etc.), and are connected in Ex. vi. 6 with Dvi^a D^Si^pa}. Here, on the contrary, they are, connected with na^s^ n?fl2, and are used in ver. 33 with reference to the government of God over Israel, whilst in ver. 34 they are applied to the bringing out of Israel from the midst of the heathen. By the introduction of the clause " with fury poured out," the manifestation of the omnipotence of God which Israel experienced in its dispersion, and which it was still to experience among the heathen, is described as an emanation of the divine wrath, a severe and wrathful judgment. The leading and gathering of Israel out of the nations (ver. 34) is neither their restoration from the existing captivity in Babylon, nor their future restoration to Canaan on the conversion of the people who were still hardened, and therefore rejected by God. The former assumption would be decidedly at variance with both D^jin \o and rtivixn p since Israel was dispersed only throughout one land and among one people at the time of the Babylonian captivity. Moreover, neither of the assumptions is reconcilable with the context, more especially with ver. 35. According to the context, this leading out is an act of divine anger, which Israel is to feel in connection therewith; and this cannot be affirmed of either the redemption of the people out of the captivity in Babylon, or the future gathering of Israel from its dispersion. According to ver. 35, God will conduct those who are brought out from the nations and gathered together out of the lands into the desert of the nations, and contend with them there. The " desert of the nations" is not the desert lying between Babylonia and Palestine, on the coastlands of the Mediterranean, through which the Israelites would have to pass on their way home from Babylon (Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, and others). For there is no imaginable reason why this should be called the desert of the nations in distinction from the desert of Arabia, which also touched the borders of several nations. The expression is doubtless a typical one, the future guidance of Israel being depicted as a repetition of the earlier guidance of the people from Egypt to Canaan; as it also is in Hos. ii. 16. All the separate features in the description indicate this, more especially vers. 36 and 37, where it is impossible to overlook the allusion to the guidance of Israel in the time of Moses. The more precise explanation of the words must depend, however, upon the sense in which we are to understand the expression, " desert of the land of Egypt." Here also the supposition that the Arabian desert is referred to, because it touched the border of Egypt, does not furnish a sufficient explanation. It touched the border of Canaan as well. Why then did not Ezekiel name it after the land of Canaan? Evidently for no other reason than that the time spent by the Israelites in the Arabian desert resembled their sojourn in Egypt much more closely than their settlement in Canaan, because, while there, they were still receiving their training for their entrance into Canaan, and their possession and enjoyment of its benefits, just as much as in the land of Egypt. And in a manner corresponding to this, the u desert of the nations " is a figurative expression applied to the world of nations, from whom they were indeed spiritually distinct, whilst outwardly they were still in the midst of them, and had to suffer from their oppression. Consequently the leading of Israel out of the nations (ver. 34) is not a local and corporeal deliverance out of heathen lands, but a spiritual severance from the heathen world, in order that they might not be absorbed into it or become inseparably blended with the heathen. God will accomplish this by means of severe chastisements, by contending with them as He formerly contended with their fathers in the Arabian desert. God contends with His people when He charges them with their sin and guilt, not merely in words, but also with deeds, i.e. through chastening and punishments. The words " face to face" point back to Deut. v. 4: " Jehovah talked with you face to face in the mount, out of the midst of the fire." Just as at Sinai the Lord talked directly with Israel, and made known to it the devouring fire of His own holy nature, in so terrible a manner that all the people trembled and entreated Moses to act the part of a mediator between them, promising at the same time obedience to him (Ex. xx. 19); so will the Lord make Himself known to Israel in the desert of the world of nations with the burning zeal of His anf*er, that it may learn to fear Him. This contending is more precisely defined in vers. 37 and 38. I will cause you to pass through, under the (shepherd's) rod. A shepherd lets his sheep pass through under his rod for the purpose of counting them, and seeing whether they are in good condition or not (vid. Jer. xxxiii. 13). The figure is here applied to God. Like a shepherd, He will cause His flock, the Israelites, to pass through under His rod, i.e. take them into His special care, and bring them
" into the bond of the covenant " (n"jb»? not from 1DD [Raschi], but from "1DK, for 'HDIjp, a fetter); that is to say, not " I will bind myself to you and you to me by a new covenant " (Bochart, Ilieroz. I. p. 508), for this is opposed to the context, but, as the
Syriac version hus rendered it, "jZojjlQD (in disciplina), " the discipline of the covenant." By this we are not merely to understand the covenant punishments, with which transgressors of the law are threatened, as Havernick does, but the covenant promises must also be included. For not only the threats of the covenant, but the promises of the covenant, are bonds by which God trains His people; and ">DK is not only applied to burdensome and crushing fetters, but to the bonds of love as well (vid. Song of Sol. vii. 6). Kliefoth understands by the fetter of the covenant the Mosaic law, as being the means employed by God to preserve the Israelites from mixing with the nations while placed in the midst of them, and to keep them to Himself, and adds the following explanation, — " this law, through which they should have been able to live, they have now to wear as a fetter, and to feel the chastisement thereof."
But however correct the latter thought may be in itself, it is hardly contained in the words, u lead them into the fetter (band)
of the law." Moreover, although the law did indeed preserve
Israel from becoming absorbed into the world of nations, the fact that the Jews were bound to the law did not bring them to the knowledge of the truth, or bring to pass the purging of the rebellious from among the people, to which ver. 38 refers.
All that the law accomplished in this respect in the case of those who lived among the heathen was effected by its threatenings and its promises, and not by its statutes and their faithful observance. This discipline will secure the purification of the people, by severing from the nation the rebellious and apostate.
God will bring them forth out of the land of their pilgrimage, but will not bring them into the land of Israel. Dnup px is the standing epithet applied in the Pentateuch to the land of
Canaan, in which the patriarchs lived as pilgrims, without coming into actual possession of the land (cf. Gen. xvii. 8, xxviii. 4, xxxvi. 7; Ex. vi. 4). This epithet Ezekiel has transferred to the lands of Israel's exile, in which it was to lead a pilgrim-life until it was ripe for entering Canaan. N"Tnj to lead out, is used here for clearing out by extermination, as the following clause, M into the land of Israel shall they not come," plainly shows. The singular N^ is used distributively: not one of the rebels will enter.
Vers. 39-44. The ultimate gathering of Israel, and its conversion to the Lord. — Ver. 39. Ye then, 0 house of Israel, thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Go ye, serve every one his idols! but afterwards— truly ye will hearken to me, and no longer desecrate my holy name with your sacrificial gifts and your idols, Ver. 40. But upon my holy mountain, upon the high mountain of Israel, is the saying of the Lord Jehovah, there will all the house of Israel serve me, the whole of it in the land; there will I accept them gladly; there will I ask for your heave-offerings and the firstfruits of your gifts in all that ye make holy, Ver. 41. As a pleasant odour will I accept you gladly, when I bring you out from the nations, and gather you out of the lands, in which you have been scattered, and sanctify myself in you before the eyes of the heathen nations. Ver. 42. And ye shall know that I am Jehovah, when I bring you into the land of Israel, into the land which I lifted up my hand to give to your fathers; Ver. 43. And there ye will think of your ways and your deeds, with which ye have defiled yourselves, and will loathe yourselves (lit. experience loathing before yourselves) on account of all your evil deeds which ye have performed; Ver. 44. And ye will know that I am Jehovah, when I deal with you for my name's sake, not according to your evil ways and according to your corrupt deeds, O house of Israel, is the saying of Jehovah. — After the Lord has declared to the people that He will prevent its being absorbed into the heathen world, and will exterminate the ungodly by severe judgments, the address passes on, with the direction henceforth to serve idols only, to aprediction of theeventual conversion, and the restoration to Canaan of the purified nation. The direction, u Go ye, serve every one his idols," contains, after what precedes it, a powerful appeal to repent. God thereby gives up the impenitent to do whatever they will, having first of all told them that not one of them will come into the land of Canaan. Their opposition will not frustrate His plan of salvation. The words which follow from 1HH1 onwards have been interpreted in different ways. It is opposed to the usage of the language to connect inw with Vihy, serve ye hereafter also (De Wette, etc.), for 1 has not the force of the Latin et^etiam, and still less does it signify u afterwards just as before." Nor is it allowable to connect "IHW closely with what follows, in the sense of " and hereafter also, if ye will hearken to me, profane ye my name no more" (Rosenmiiller, Maurer). For if fenri were used as an imperative, either it would have to stand at the beginning of the sentence, or it would be preceded by?K instead of K7. Moreover, the antithesis between not being willing to hear and not profaning the name of God, is imported arbitrarily into the text. The name of the Lord is profaned not only by sacrifices offered in external form to Jehovah and in the heart to idols, but also by disobedience to the word and commandments of God. It is much better to take "inx") by itself, and to render the following particle, DX, as the ordinary sign of an oath: " but afterwards {i.e. in the future)... verily, ye will hearken to me; " that is to say, ye will have been converted from your idolatry through the severe judgments that have fallen upon you. The ground for this thought is introduced in ver. 40 by a reference to the fact that all Israel will then serve the Lord upon His holy mountain. *3 is not u used emphatically before a direct address" (Hitzig), buc has a causal signification. For 'fc* Ei">P in? see the comm. on ch. xvii. 23. In the expression u all Israel," which is rendered more emphatic by the addition of '"TO, there is an allusion to the eventual termination of the severance of the people of God (compare ch. xxxvii. 22). Then will the Lord accept with delight both them and their sacrificial gifts. rriOTfl, heave-offerings (see the comm. on Ex. xxv. 2 and Lev. ii. 9), used here in the broader sense of all the sacrificial gifts, along with which the gifts of first-fruits are specially named. rtfKfipDj as applied to holy offerings in the sense of avaOrjfMaTa, belongs to the later usage of the lano-uao-e. DD^Hp"?D3 consisting of all your consecrated gifts. BWj3, as in Lev. xxii. 15. This promise includes implicite the bringing back of Israel from its banishment. This is expressly mentioned in ver. 41; but even there it is only introduced as self-evident in the subordinate clause, whereas the cheerful acceptance of Israel on the part of God constitutes the leading thought, nrn rF13 as an odour of delight (3, the so-called Beth essentiae), will God accept His people. niT? IT">, odour of satisfaction, is the technical expression for the cheerful (well-pleased) acceptance of the sacrifice, or rather of the feelings of the worshipper presenting the sacrifice, which ascend to God in the sacrificial odour (see the comm. on Gen. viii. 21). The thought therefore is the following: When God shall eventually gather His people out of their dispersion, He will accept them as a sacrifice well-pleasing to Him, and direct all His good pleasure towards them. VV^np:'! D2Z1 does not mean, I shall be sanctified through you, and is not to be explained in the same sense as Lev. xxii. 32 (Rosenmu'ller), for 2 is not equivalent to Tjiria; but it signifies " I will sanctify myself on you," as in Num. xx. 13, Lev. x. 3, and other passages, where Knp3 is construed with 2 pers. (cf. Ezek. xxviii. 25, xxxvi. 23, xxxviii. 16, xxxix. 27), in the sense of proving oneself holy, mostly by judgment, but here through having made Israel into a holy nation by the refining judgment, and one to which He can therefore grant the promised inheritance. — Vers. 42 sqq. Then will Israel also recognise its God in His grace, and be ashamed of its former sins. For ver. 43, compare ch. vi. 9 and xvi. 61. — With regard to the fulfilment, as Kliefoth has correctly observed, " in the predic-
tion contained in vers. 32-38, the whole of the searching judgments, by which God would lead Israel to conversion, are summed up in one, which includes not only the Babylonian captivity, the nearest and the first, but the still more remote judgment, namely, the present dispersion; for it is only in the present dispersion of Israel that God has really taken it into the wilderness of the nations, just as it was only in the rejection of Christ that its rebellious attitude was fully manifested. And as the prophecy of the state of punishment combines in this way both the nearer and more remote; so are both the nearer and more distant combined in what vers. 40 to 44 affirm with regard to the ultimate fate of Israel." The gathering of Israel
from among the heathen will be fulfilled in its conversion to Christ, and hitherto it has only taken place in very small beginnings. The principal fulfilment is still to come, when Israel, as a nation, shall be converted to Christ. With regard to the bringing back of the people into il the land of Israel," see the comm. on ch. xxxvii., where this promise is more fully expanded.
CIIAP. XX. 45 TO CHAP. XXI. 32 (HEB. CHAP. XXI.1). PRO- PHECY OF THE BURNING FOREST AND THE SWORD OF THE LORD.
A fire kindled bv the Lord will burn the forest of the south (ch. xx. 45-48). This figurative announcement is explained in what follows, in order that the divine threat may make an impression upon the people (ver. 49). The Lord will draw His sword from its scabbard, and cut off from Jerusalem and the land of Israel both righteous and wicked (ch. xxi. 1-17); that is to say, the king of Babylon will draw his sword against
1 In the Hebrew Bible the previous chapter closes at ver. 44, and ch. xxi. commences there. Keil has adhered to this division of chapters; but for the sake of convenience we have followed the arrangement adopted in the English authorized version. — Tk.
Jerusalem and the sons of Ammon, and will, first of all, put an end to the kingdom of Judah, and then destroy the Ammonites (vers. 18-32). The prophecy divides itself accordingly into three parts: viz. (1) the prediction of the destruction of the kingdom of Judah; (2) the explanation of this prediction by the threat that the sword of the Lord will smite all the inhabitants of Judah, which threat is divisible into three sections, ch. xxi. 1—7, 8-13, and 14-17; (3) the application of what is said with regard to the sword to Nebuchadnezzar's expedition against Jerusalem and the Ammonites, which may also be divided into three sections, — viz. (a) the general announcement of Nebuchadnezzar's design (vers. 18-23) and its execution; (6) by his expedition against Jerusalem, to destroy the kingdom of Judah (vers. 24-27); and (c) by his expedition against the Ammonites (vers. 28-32). — The first four or five verses are taken by many in connection with chap. xx.; and Kliefoth still maintains that they should be separated from what follows, and attached to that chapter as a second word of God. But neither ch. xx. 49 nor the formula in ch. xxi. 1, u the word of Jehovah came to me," warrants our separating the parabolic prediction in ch. xx. 45-48 from the interpretation in vers. 1—17. And the third part is also connected with what precedes, so as to form one single discourse, by the allusion to the sword in vers. 19 and 28, and by the fact that the figure of the fire is resumed in vers. 31 and 32. And there is all the less ground for taking the formula, " and the word of Jehovah came to me," as determining the division of the several portions in this particular instance, from the circumstance that the section (vers. 1—17) in which it occurs both at the commencement and in the middle (vers. 1 and 8), is obviously divided into the minor sections or turns by the threefold occurrence of the verb N33ni (" and prophesy: vers. 2, 9, and 14).
Chap. xx. 45-49. The burning forest. — Yer. 45. And the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, Yer. 46. Son of man, direct thy face toward the south, and trickle down towards the south^ and prophesy concerning the forest of the field in the south land; Ver. 47. And say to the forest of the south land, Hear the word of Jehovah; Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Behold, I kindle a fire in thee, which will consume in thee every green tree, and every dry tree: the blazing flame will not be extinguished, and all faces from the south to the north will be burned thereby, Ver. 48. And all flesh shall see that I, Jehovah, have kindled it: it shall not be extinguished. Ver. 49. And I said, Ah, Ijord Jehovah! they say of me, Does he not speak in parables? — The prophet is to turn his face toward the south, and prophesy concerning the forest of the field there, ^n is used for prophesying, as in Amos vii. 16 and Mic. ii. 6, 11. The distinction between the three epithets applied to the south is the following: jO'fl is literally that which lies on the right hand, hence the south is a particular quarter of the heavens; D1"H, which only occurs in Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes, with the exception of Deut. xxxiii. 23 and Job xxxvii. 17, is derived from Tyj, to shine or emit streams of light, and probably signifies the brilliant quarter; 313, the dry, parched land, is a standing epithet for the southern district of Palestine and the land of Judah (see the comm. on Josh. xv. 21). — The forest of the field in the south is a figure denoting the kingdom of Judah (333 is in apposition to »"nfrn, and is appended to it as a more precise definition). Frtfc* is not used here for a field, as distinguished from a city or a garden; but for the fields in the sense of country or territory, as in Gen. xiv. 7 and xxxii. 3. In ver. 47, 3J3n 1JP? forest of the south land, is the expression applied to the same object (232?, with the article, is a geographical term for the southern portion of Palestine). The forest is a figure signifying the population, or the mass of people. Individual men are trees. The green tree is a figurative representation of the righteous man, and the dry tree of the ungodly (ver. 3, compare Luke xxiii. 31). The fire which Jehovah kindles is the fire of war. The combination of the synonyms J"Qrw ri3np7 flame of the flaming brightness, serves to strengthen the expression, and is equivalent to the strongest possible flame, the blazing fire. B^9"^3j all faces are not human faces or persons, in which case the prophet would have dropped the figure; but pdnim denotes generally the outside of things, which is the first to feel the force of the flame. " All the faces " of the forest are every single thing in the forest, which is caught at once by the flame. In ver. 4, kdl-pdnim (all faces) is interpreted by kdlbdsar (all flesh). From south to north, i.e. through the whole length of the land. From the terrible fierceness of the fire, which cannot be extinguished, every one will know that God has kindled it, that it has been sent in judgment. The words of the prophet himself, in ch. xx. 49, presuppose that he has uttered these parabolic words in the hearing of the people, and that thev have ridiculed them as obscure (mdshdl is used here in the sense of obscure language, words difficult to understand, as irapafidXr} also is in Matt. xiii. 10). At the same time, it contains within itself a request that they may be explained. This request is granted; and the simile is first of all interpreted in ch. xxi. 1-7, and then still further expanded in vers. 8 sqq.