以西结书

Meditative Reflection
God Can Resurrect the Driest Bones

“O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel.” (Ezek. 37:12)

The vision of the resurrection of the dry bones is perhaps the most famous passage in the Book of Ezekiel, and for good reason. The Lord makes it very clear that these dry bones “are the whole house of Israel” (37:11), and prophesies that as dry as these bones are (and Israel had certainly ceased to be a nation historically since 586 B.C.), they will be resurrected as a nation and the people will return to their land. This part of the prophecy has come to pass before our very eyes in 1948. Over a total of some 2,500 years, a nation which has totally ceased to exist has come back to life. If it is not a miracle, what is?

Of course, the separation of this process into 2 parts is of significance in that while the tendons will be attached to the dead and dry bones, the flesh will be made to come upon them and skin will also cover the skeletons, the breathing of life into them will come at a separate time. As a result, today’s Israel, as miraculous as their return to their land is, is still not alive spiritually. We can look forward to a future time when God will put His Spirit in them and the whole house of Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26).

However, for us Gentile believers, this prophecy serves to remind us not to write anyone off. “Nothing is impossible with God if God can put muscle and flesh on dry bones and build a body out of them, surely He can renew someone you might think is all washed up and finished in God’s sight”. (Charles Swindoll, The Living Insights Study Bible, 826)

Meditative Reflection
The Prophetic Heritage

“Indeed, to them you are nothing more than one, who sings love songs with a beautiful voice and plays an instrument well, for they hear your words but do not put into practice.” (Ezek. 33:32)

Today, I wish to share with you a poem on Ezekiel that I have recently come across. I have found it very encouraging to me in that it uses the seemingly futile ministry of Ezekiel (especially referring to 33:32) to liken to the equally frustrating experience of Christ to remind us not to shrink from our God-given purpose because we are certainly in the great company of prophets, angels and Christ Himself.

And thus, 0 Prophet-bard of old,

Hast thou thy tale of sorrow told!

The same which earth’s unwelcome seers

Have felt in all succeeding years.

Sport of the changeful multitude,

Nor calmly heard nor understood,

Their song has seemed a trick of art,

Their warnings but the acto’s part.

With bonds, and scorn, and evil will,

The world requites its prophets still.

So was it when the Holy One

The garments of the flesh put on!

Men followed where the Highest led

For common gifts of daily bread,

And gross of ear, of vision dim,

Owned not the Godlike power of Him.

Vain as a dreamer’s words to them

His wail above Jerusalem,

And meaningless the watch He kept

Through which His weak disciples slept.

Yet shrink not thou, whoe’er thou art,

For God’s great purpose set apart,

Before whose far-discerning eyes,

The Future as the Present lies!

Beyond a narrow-bounded age

Stretches thy prophet-heritage,

Through Heaven’s vast spaces angel-trod.

And through the eternal years of God!

Thy audience, worlds!-all things to be

The witness of the Truth in thee!

JOHN GREENLEAF WHITTIER (1807-1892)

Meditative Reflection
The Rise of Gog against Israel — Not an unexpected Event

“This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Are you not the one I spoke of in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel? At that time they prophesied for years that I would bring you against them.” (Ezek. 38:17)

Although the Lord refers to Gog as the one He has already spoken of in former days by His servants, the prophets of Israel, we have a hard time trying to pinpoint which prophecies is the Lord referring to. However, this rhetorical question suggests an affirmative reply and Keil has this understanding to offer concerning this rhetorical question:

“The statement, that Gog is he of whom God had already spoken by the earlier prophets, does not mean that those prophets had actually mentioned Gog, but simply that Gog was the enemy of whose rising up against the people of God the prophets of the former time had prophesied, as well as of his destruction by a wrathful judgment of the Lord…The design of this remark is not to accredit the prophecy by referring to the utterances of earlier prophets, but to show that the attack of the peoples gathered together by Gog, upon the land and people of the Lord, is not an unexpected event, or one at variance with the promise of the restoration of Israel as a kingdom of peace. To what utterances of the older prophets these words refer is a question difficult to answer. Zechariah (12:2, 3; 14:2, 3) is of course not to be thought of, as Zechariah himself did not prophesy till after the captivity, and therefore not till after Ezekiel. But we may recall Joel 4:2 and 11ff; Isa. 25:5, 10ff, 26:21; Jer. 30:23 and 25; and, in fact, all the earlier prophets who prophesied of Jehovah’s Day of Judgment upon all the heathen.” (K&D, Ezekiel, 335)

Meditative Reflection
The Double Fulfillment of the Battle of Gog

“Son of Man, prophesy against Gog....” (Ezek. 39:1)

The timing of this end-time’s event concerning the defeat of Gog has lent itself to numerous speculations. I find it most interesting that most modern-day scholar simply approach the two chapters of Ezekiel, i.e. chapters 38 & 39 with tons of background materials and detailed grammatical and word analyses, but invariably would shy away from linking them to any passages in Revelation, and especially any discussion of their relationship with the “millennium” as if any hint of their belief in the millennium will render their works unscholarly.

But we are not scholars and are free from such hypocrisy, and yet we do need to take the advice of Alexander to seek a correct understanding of the chapters and “(1) follow a normal grammatical-historical hermeneutic, (2) fit the details of Ezekiel 38 and 39, not glossing over anything, (3) allow the primary time element to come from the Ezekiel passage and (4) keep hypothesis to a minimum” (Alexander, 123). Based on these principles, Alexander inclines to accept more of the following solutions:

“A final solution is put forth for the problem of the time of the events in Ezekiel 38 and 39; these events-occur after the Millennium. The strong basis for this position is the explicit reference to Gog and Magog in Revelation 20:8. Such an explicit reference cannot be dismissed lightly, as is often the case. The terms employed in Revelation 20:8 are the same as those in Ezekiel 38 and 39. Normal hermeneutics would require the identification of the two passages (since the terms Gog and Magog are used nowhere else in the Scriptures) unless strong reasons can be brought forth to deny such an equation. The phrase “dwell safely” is certainly satisfied by this position since Ezekiel’s normal use of the phrase is millennial in nature and this event of Revelation 20 is at the end of the Millennium. Nations from among those in the Millennium would be present to observe the destruction of Gog in fulfillment of Ezekiel 38:16, 21-23; 39:7, 21. There would be sufficient time for the burning of weapons and burial of bodies to cleanse the land; nothing argues against the cleansing of the land at this time. Certainly prosperity would be Israel’s part in the millennial Kingdom (cf. Is.11, 35).” (Alexander 127)

However, he also sees that

“Ezekiel 38 and 39 have a double fulfillment in Revelation19:17-21 and 20:8. Revelation 19 finds the fulfillment in the demise of the beast, the chief instrument of Satan (similar to Ezek. 28:1-10). Revelation 20 finds the fulfillment in Satan, the Gig (similar to Ezek. 28:11-19) the enemy of Israel who makes the final attempt to regain the land of Israel from God’s chosen people. The double fulfillment is found in two similar events with last and greatest enemies of the people of Gog. The former, in one sense, prefigures the latter.” (Alexander, 128)

Meditative Reflection
The Millennial Temple or New Jerusalem?

“In visions of God He took me to the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain, on whose south side were some building that looked like a city.” (Ezek. 40:2)

Concerning the many interpretations of the new temple in the vision of Ezekiel, Alexander has these words of wisdom to share with us:

“On the contrary, if one is willing (1) to lay his preconceived ideas aside, (2) to believe that the biblical text is accurately revealed…and (3) to approach the text in a normal grammatical-historical-cultural way, he will discover that this passage is not nearly as difficult as he may have thought” (Alexander, 129).

He then goes on to offer his own opinion:

“A normal grammatical-historical-cultural method of interpretation does not eliminate all problems of interpretation, but the questions remaining are minimal: (1) the relation of Ezekiel 40-48 to Revelation 21-22, (2) the question of sacrifices in the Millennium, and (3) the apocalyptic nature of the text of Ezekiel 40-48.

The initial issue concerns the place of Ezekiel 40-48 in the prophetic program. Many competent expositors have concluded that these chapters describe the eternal state of Revelation 21-22, while other equally qualified students of the Scriptures argue that Ezekiel’s vision belongs to the millennial Kingdom. The author agrees with the latter position (the Millennium), basing this conclusion upon an examination and comparison of the details of Ezekiel 40-48 with Revelation 21-22.

Though there are similarities between the two — such as the twelve gates of the city of Jerusalem with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, the recipient of the vision being on a high mountain, the messenger in the vision possessing a measuring rod to measure structures, and the stream flowing to the east for the healing of the land - the disparity between the two texts is greater and demands their disassociation.

For example, both segments describe a river (47:1-12; Rev. 22:1-2), yet the stream issues from the Temple in Ezekiel (which is not in Jerusalem…) and from the city of Jerusalem and the throne of God in Revelation. In Ezekiel the throne of God is in the Temple (43:7), while in Revelation it is in Jerusalem (Rev. 22:3). Though in both Revelation and Ezekiel there is no temple in the city (Ezek. 48:8-22; Rev. 21:22), in Ezekiel the Temple and Jerusalem are two separate identities. In Revelation there is no temple structure at all.

The measurements of the two cities are not the same, regardless of how one seeks to understand the shape of the city of Jerusalem in Revelation (Ezek. 48:30-35; Rev. 21:15-17). In the Ezekiel context, the tribes of Israel are apportioned land with the sea as the western boundary, whereas in Revelation the sea is declared to no longer exist (Ezek. 7:15-20; Rev. 21:1b). These discrepancies are sufficient to divorce the meaning of the two passages” (Alexander, 130-131).

Meditative Reflection
How Best to Interpret Ezekiel 40-48?

“Son of man, look with your eyes and hear with your ears and pay attention to everything I am going to show you, for that is why you have been brought here. Tell the house of Israel everything you see.” (Ezek. 40:4)

“Alexander (“Ezekiel” pp. 945-46) sees in Ezekiel a portrait of the millennium and in Revelation the eternal state, the former representing a kind of “firstfruits”, a microcosm, a beginning, of the latter. Ezekiel’s sacrifices provide the basis for dispensationalist insistence on a role for sacrifices in the millennium. In response to the NT rejection of any and all sacrifices after the final sacrifice of Christ, the function of sacrifices is redefined. Rather than perceiving them as efficacious, since only Christ’s sacrifice actually atones for sin, the Mosaic offerings represent “picture lessons” looking forward to the Messiah’s work. Since Ezekiel’s millennial sacrifices look back on the same event, they are regarded as memorial “picture lessons…”

Nevertheless…it seems best to interpret chs. 40-48 ideationally. The issue for the prophet is not physical geography but spiritual realities. As in his earlier vision, historical events are described from a theological plane, and the interpreter’s focus must remain on the ideational value of that which is envisioned. At the time of Ezekiel’s prophetic inauguration, the sight of Yahweh enthroned above the cherubim had reassured him of his presence even in Babylon among the exiles (l:1-28a). His visionary ingestion of the scroll spoke of the importance of accepting the divine message and its incorporation into his own experience (l:28b-3:15). The observation of the abominations in the temple and the consequent departure of the divine kabod provide theological justification and rationalization for Nebuchadnezzar’s razing of Jerusalem (8:1-11:25). The vision of the revivified dry bones is not a prophecy of literal individual resurrection, but a declaration of the certainty of the eventual resuscitation of Israel by a new infusion of breath from Yahweh.

While more complex and extensive than any of these, Ezek. 40-48should be interpreted along similar lines. The prophet is hereby introduced to the theological realities awaiting his own people. Whereas 37:26-27 had spoken of the establishment of Yahweh’s permanent residence among his people, following their homecoming, the present vision picks up the theological theme and describes the spiritual reality in concrete terms…In presenting this theological constitution for this new Israel, Yahweh announces the righting of all the old wrongs, and the establishment of permanent, healthy deity-nation-land relationships. Ezekiel’s final vision presents a lofty spiritual ideal: Where God is, there is Zion…Ezekiel hereby lays the foundation for the Pauline spiritualization of the temple. Under the new covenant, even Gentiles’ communities may be transformed into the living temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16-17). Moreover, through the indwelling presence of the Spirit of God, individual Christians become temples, residence of deity (1 Cor. 6:19).” (NICOT, Ezekiel, 503, 505-6)

Meditative Reflection
Why Such Details about the New Temple?

“Then the man brought me to the outer sanctuary and measured the jambs; the width of the jambs was six cubits on each side.” (Ezek. 41: 1)

“Arriving at Ezekiel 41, many modern readers come to believe they are facing a portion of Scripture that is nearly pointless and certainly tedious. In addition, we may be confused by the fact that the description of the temple and its rituals here is unlike anything we have seen in the law or elsewhere. A famous text from the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, illustrates just how significant the issues of temple and ritual were to ancient Jews. It also shows that the Jews were open to the possibility of a new vision of the ritual of the temple. This critical text is known as the Temple Scroll.

With 66 columns preserved, the Temple Scroll (officially designated 11QTemple) is the longest of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Its authorship is unknown, and proposed dates of composition range from the fifth century B.C. to the first century A.D.; there are good reasons, however, for dating it at some point within the first century B.C.

This text is a reworking of various legal passages from Exodus 34 through Deuteronomy. The rewritten texts include instructions concerning the construction of a temple in Jerusalem, regulations for sacrifice and purity and Deuteronomic laws (laws relating to, or in the style of, the book of Deuteronomy). The scroll uses a distinctive type of rabbinical exegesis often called “midrashic” to reconcile difficulties in the Pentateuch and to create a new, unified law.

This rewritten Torah does not merely paraphrase or restate the canonical texts. On the contrary, the author made several notable omissions and additions, conforming these more ancient laws to the ideas of his own community. The scroll radically revised the festival calendar by including several festivals that were not part of the earlier Biblical cycle of holy days. The instructions for the building of the temple, although containing similarities to Ezekiel’s temple, differ from those found elsewhere in the Bible. Also intriguing is that the author changed Moses’ words to the people from the third person to the first person. The result is that the revised instructions are placed on the lips of God himself!

This style of Biblical interpretation has caused some scholars to suggest that the Qumran community members believed that the Temple Scroll had the same authority as the Old Testament canon itself. The Temple Scroll could in some sense be regarded as a new iteration or version of the law. It appears to envision a new temple and temple worship that would replace the current temple and serve as a kind of interim worship before the beginning of the Messianic Age. The Temple Scroll illustrates the fact that a great variety of failed religious viewpoints, some of which might rightly be called eccentric, had developed in Judaism during the intertestamental period. The Temple Scroll probably represents the viewpoint of an extremist minority.

On the other hand, it is important to realize that the layout, rituals and holy days of the temple were of vital concern to ancient Jews. These issues may seem tedious to modern readers, but this only serves to illustrate the difference between our world and theirs. Ritual laws of the day were a kind of code that served to communicate religious ideals among the ancient Jews. In this sense the existence of texts such as the Temple Scroll is helpful when considering a passage such as Ezekiel 41-48. A new vision of the temple and its ritual signaled for Ezekiel’s early readers a new era. The Qumran Temple Scroll communicated an eccentric and failed vision for the future of the people of God. Ezekiel, on the other hand, communicated the orthodox, canonical vision, but he did so within the same cultural world and using the same code as the Temple Scroll. Any credible interpretation of Ezekiel 41-48 must take into account the theological message ancient Israelites would have drawn from this (to us, mystifying) temple description.” (Archaeological Study Bible, 1371)