Ezekiel’s Commissioning. 

        Ezekiel is addressed as Son of man (2:1, and often else­where). This cannot be equated with the title “The Son of Man,” which our Lord used for Himself; it means no more than “man.”

        In 2:3-7 Ezekiel is introduced to those to whom he is to prophesy, “nations that are rebellious” (ver. 3, so R.Y.), i.e. both Judah and Israel. As the term “Judah” is very seldom used in Ezekiel, it is clear that “the House of Israel” and “the Children of Israel” refer in the first place to the Southern Kingdom, unless the context clearly shows otherwise. It is therefore far from clear how far Ezekiel’s message was con­sciously addressed to the Northern exiles at all. Since Ezekiel was of the tribe of Levi, the term Israel was the more natural one for him: cf. the very similar use in Jeremiah. At first Ezekiel is given no clear indication of the result of his mes­sage, though the language is certainly not optimistic.

        There follows a symbolic description of the source of his message and inspiration (2:8-3:3). His great prophetic predecessors felt themselves too much in the confidence of God to have used such a picture, but there is none that more clearly and forcefully shows the union of divine and human in the prophetic message. It is clearly divine, from God — this is symbolized by the already written roll. But the prophet does not merely deliver it to his hearers; he must first digest and assimilate it, making it a living part of himself. This is the human part of his message. The roll contained only “lamen­tations, mourning and woe” because there was a virtual re-commissioning (33:1-20) before Ezekiel began his work of upbuilding and comfort.

        It is then (3:4-11) made clear that the rebellious nations are the House of Israel, and that he will not be listened to. The Holy Spirit by returning him to his home (3:12-15) shows him that his message is to be addressed particularly to the exiles there.

        As he sits mute among his old surroundings for a week (3:15) the word of the Lord comes to him again (3:16-21) and makes it clear to him that his task is first and foremost that of watchman over the souls of the exiles. This is reinforced by the repetition and expansion of this commission just before the news of the destruction of Jerusalem reached the exiles (33:1-20, 21) with the resultant change in the content of his pro­phecies. Ezekiel is above all the pastoral prophet, the priest watching over the souls entrusted to him. To Whom Did Ezekiel Prophesy?

        The interpretation given above would seem to be the obvious one, but in recent years it has been vigorously chal­lenged, even by conservatives (A survey of modern views on Ezek. may be found in Bentzen: Intro­to the Old Testament II. p. 122 seq.). It is said that chs. 4-24 are addressed exclusively to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and that it is unprecedented for such prophecies to be spoken at a distance rather than face to face. There is not even a sug­gestion that they were sent in writing to distant Judaea. It is further claimed that certain passages presuppose Ezekiel’s presence in Jerusalem (e.g. 5:2; 11:4-9, 13; 12:2; 20:30f). Ezekiel’s message is to the House of Israel and the Children of Israel (2:3), and it is said that these terms are in fact consistently used of those still in Jerusalem (but cf. 11:15; 37:16). Pfeifier goes so far as to say that the view that Ezekiel remained in Tel-Abib “turns Ezekiel into a Jonah who failed to obey the divine command, ‘Go, get thee unto the house of Israel’ ” (Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 536.).

        The great objections to this view are that it does not ex­plain how Ezekiel came to express himself so badly that men have misinterpreted his prophecy for centuries; that it is im­possible to reconstruct the prophet’s movements with any certainty; that a certain amount of re-arrangement of the text seems to be demanded. It should be noted that many of the references to the House of Israel suit the exiles just as well and sometimes better than those still living in Jerusalem.

        Though we have rejected this view as unfounded, we be­lieve it does furnish a clue to the understanding of chs. 4-24. We entirely agree with Pfeiffer’s inability to accept Cooke’s judgment, “No doubt we find it difficult to adjust ourselves to the position of a prophet in Babylonia hurling his denunci­ations at the inhabitants of Jerusalem across 700 miles of desert” (Ibid. p. 536 quoting Cooke: Ezekiel (I.C.C.), p.). Such a picture seems to us mildly ridiculous. But we do not believe that these prophecies were either spoken to or intended for Jerusalem.

        Ezekiel is the pastoral prophet; his task is the building up of God’s new community. Jer. 24 gives both God’s purpose for those taken into captivity with Jehoiachin and the popular explanation of their exile, a view that will have been shared by the exiles themselves. Before the prophet could begin his building up (chs. 33-48), he had to bring the exiles to a proper understanding of the principles that were leading God to hand over Jerusalem to destruction. How well he succeeded in making some of the exiles realize their high calling may be dis­covered by the attentive student of Ezra and Nehemiah.

        The phrases taken to imply Ezekiel’s presence in Jerusalem can be adequately explained by the extraordinary vividness of his visions, and by the symbolism that colours his whole message.

        Our interpretation also explains why there is nothing in Ezekiel that would even hint at Jeremiah’s contemporary activities. We may well suppose that one so imbued with the priestly outlook as Ezekiel must have found Jeremiah’s root and branch condemnation of ritual and ceremonial rather pain­ful at times. But it seems impossible to believe that had Ezekiel actually prophesied in Jerusalem or even sent his messages there, he would not have sought to strengthen the hands of the older prophet, so hated and so lonely.