The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel
Commentary by A.R. Faussett
The name Ezekiel means “(whom) God will strengthen” [Gesenius]; or, “God will prevail” [Rosenmuller]. His father was Buzi (Ezekiel 1:3), a priest, and he probably exercised the priestly office himself at Jerusalem, previous to his captivity, as appears from the matured priestly character to be seen in his prophecies, a circumstance which much increased his influence with his captive fellow countrymen at Babylon. Tradition represents Sarera as the land of his nativity. His call to prophesy was in the fifth year from the date of his being carried away with Jehoiachin (see 2 Kings 24:11-15) by Nebuchadnezzar, 599 b.c. The best portions of the people seem to have been among the first carried away (Ezekiel 11:16; Jeremiah 24:2-7, Jeremiah 24:8, Jeremiah 24:10). The ungodly were willing to do anything to remain in their native land; whereas the godly believed the prophets and obeyed the first summons to surrender, as the only path of safety. These latter, as adhering to the theocratic principle, were among the earliest to be removed by the Chaldeans, who believed that, if they were out of the way, the nation would fall to pieces of itself. They were despised by their brethren in the Holy Land not yet captives, as having no share in the temple sacrifices. Thus Ezekiel‘s sphere of labor was one happier and less impeded by his countrymen than that of Jeremiah at home. The vicinity of the river Chebar, which flows into the Euphrates near Circeslum, was the first scene of his prophecies (Ezekiel 1:1). Tel-Abib there (now Thallaba) was his place of residence (Ezekiel 3:15), whither the elders used to come to inquire as to God‘s messages through him. They were eager to return to Jerusalem, but he taught them that they must first return to their God. He continued to prophesy for at least twenty-two years, that is, to the twenty-seventh year of the captivity (Ezekiel 29:17), and probably remained with the captives by the Chebar the rest of his life. A treatise, falsely attributed to Epiphanius, states a tradition that he was killed at Babylon by a prince of his people whom he had reproved for idolatry.
He was contemporary with Jeremiah and Daniel. The former had prophesied for thirty-four years before Ezekiel, and continued to do so for six or seven years after him. The call of Ezekiel followed the very next year after the communication of Jeremiah‘s predictions to Babylon (Jeremiah 51:59), and was divinely intended as a sequel to them. Daniel‘s predictions are mostly later than Ezekiel‘s but his piety and wisdom had become proverbial in the early part of Ezekiel‘s ministry (Ezekiel 14:14, Ezekiel 14:16; Ezekiel 28:3). They much resemble one another, especially in the visions and grotesque images. It is a remarkable proof of genuineness that in Ezekiel no prophecies against Babylon occur among those directed against the enemies of the covenant-people. Probably he desired not to give needless offence to the government under which he lived. The effect of his labors is to be seen in the improved character of the people towards the close of the captivity, and their general cessation from idolatry and a return to the law. It was little more than thirty years after the close of his labors when the decree of the Jews‘ restoration was issued. His leading characteristic is realizing, determined energy; this admirably adapted him for opposing the “rebellious house” “of stubborn front and hard heart,” and for maintaining the cause of God‘s Church among his countrymen in a foreign land, when the external framework had fallen to pieces. His style is plain and simple. His conceptions are definite, and the details even of the symbolical and enigmatical parts are given with lifelike minuteness. The obscurity lies in the substance, not in the form, of his communications. The priestly element predominates in his prophecies, arising from his previous training as a priest. He delights to linger about the temple and to find in its symbolical forms the imagery for conveying his instructions. This was divinely ordered to satisfy the spiritual want felt by the people in the absence of the outward temple and its sacrifices. In his images he is magnificent, though austere and somewhat harsh. He abounds in repetitions, not for ornament, but for force and weight. Poetical parallelism is not found except in a few portions, as in the seventh, twenty-first, twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth through thirty-first chapters. His great aim was to stimulate the dormant minds of the Jews. For this end nothing was better suited than the use of mysterious symbols expressed in the plainest words. The superficial, volatile, and willfully unbelieving would thereby be left to judicial blindness (Isaiah 6:10; Matthew 13:11-13, etc.); whereas the better-disposed would be awakened to a deeper search into the things of God by the very obscurity of the symbols. Inattention to this divine purpose has led the modern Jews so to magnify this obscurity as to ordain that no one shall read this book till he has passed his thirtieth year.
Rabbi Hananias is said to have satisfactorily solved the difficulties (Mischna) which were alleged against its canonicity. Ecclesiasticus 49:8 refers to it, and Josephus [Antiquities, 10.5.1]. It is mentioned as part of the canon in Melito‘s catalogue [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.26]; also in Origen, Jerome, and the Talmud. The oneness of tone throughout and the repetition of favorite expressions exclude the suspicion that separate portions are not genuine. The earlier portion, the first through the thirty-second chapters, which mainly treats of sin and judgment, is a key to interpret the latter portion, which is more hopeful and joyous, but remote in date. Thus a unity and an orderly progressive character are imparted to the whole. The destruction of Jerusalem is the central point. Previous to this he calls to repentance and warns against blind confidence in Egypt (Ezekiel 17:15-17; compare Jeremiah 37:7) or other human stay. After it he consoles the captives by promising them future deliverance and restoration. His prophecies against foreign nations stand between these two great divisions, and were uttered in the interval between the intimation that Nebuchadnezzar was besieging Jerusalem and the arrival of the news that he had taken it (Ezekiel 33:21). Havernick marks out nine sections: -
(1)Ezekiel‘s call to prophesy (Ezekiel 1:1-3:15).
(2)Symbolical predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 3:16-7:27).
(3)A year and two months later a vision of the temple polluted by Tammuz or Adonis worship; God‘s consequent scattering of fire over the city and forsaking of the temple to reveal Himself to an inquiring people in exile; happier and purer times to follow (Ezekiel 8:1-11:25).
(4)Exposure of the particular sins prevalent in the several classes - priests, prophets, and princes (Ezekiel 12:1-19:14).
(5)A year later the warning of judgment for national guilt repeated with greater distinctness as the time drew nearer (Ezekiel 20:1-23:49).
(6)Two years and five months later - the very day on which Ezekiel speaks - is announced as the day of the beginning of the siege; Jerusalem shall be overthrown (Ezekiel 24:1-27).
(7)Predictions against foreign nations during the interval of his silence towards his own people; if judgment begins at the house of God, much more will it visit the ungodly world (Ezekiel 25:1-32:32). Some of these were uttered much later than others, but they all began to be given after the fall of Jerusalem.
(8)In the twelfth year of the captivity, when the fugitives from Jerusalem (Ezekiel 33:21) had appeared in Chaldea, he foretells better times and the re-establishment of Israel and the triumph of God‘s kingdom on earth over its enemies, Seir, the heathen, and Gog (Ezekiel 33:1-39:29).
(9)After an interval of thirteen years the closing vision of the order and beauty of the restored kingdom (Ezekiel 40:1-48:35).
The particularity of details as to the temple and its offerings rather discountenances the view of this vision being only symbolical, and not at all literal. The event alone can clear it up. At all events it has not yet been fulfilled; it must be future. Ezekiel was the only prophet (in the strict sense) among the Jews at Babylon. Daniel was rather a seer than a prophet, for the spirit of prophecy was given him to qualify him, not for a spiritual office, but for disclosing future events. His position in a heathen king‘s palace fitted him for revelations of the outward relations of God‘s kingdom to the kingdoms of the world, so that his book is ranked by the Jews among the Hagiographa or “Sacred Writings,” not among the prophetical Scriptures. On the other hand, Ezekiel was distinctively a prophet, and one who had to do with the inward concerns of the divine kingdom. As a priest, when sent into exile, his service was but transferred from the visible temple at Jerusalem to the spiritual temple in Chaldea.
These files are a derivative of an electronic edition prepared from text scanned by Woodside Bible Fellowship.
This expanded edition of the Jameison-Faussett-Brown Commentary is in the public domain and may be freely used and distributed.
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.; Fausset, A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on Ezekiel". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible". https://www.studylight.org/
the Second Week after Epiphany