The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel 9780567678843, 9780567678867, 9780567678850

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction
1. Research Topic
2. Current State of Research
3. Research Questions
4. Thesis Statement
5. Methodological Approach
6. Structure of the Book
Chapter I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel
1. The Theological Context of Ezekiel’s Prophecy concerning the Land
1.1. The Questioned Status of the Land of Israel
1.2. The Crisis of the Zion Theology
1.3. The End of David’s Dynasty
2. The Semantic Field of the Book of Ezekiel
2.1. Land as a Geomorphological Entity
2.2. Land as an Anthropo-Geographical Entity
2.3. Land as a Metaphor
2.3.1. The Metaphoric Substitution of the Land
2.3.2. Land as an Element of a Simile
2.3.3. Land in Metaphoric Interaction
3. The Structural Position of the Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel
3.1. The Synchronic Perspective on the Structure of the Book of Ezekiel
3.2. The Motif of the Land as an Element of Resumptive Exposition in the Book of Ezekiel
Chapter II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel
1. The Subjecthood of the Land of Israel
1.1. The Land as the Addressee of the Oracles
1.2. The Relationality of the Land of Israel
1.2.1. The Relationship with Yahweh
1.2.2. The Relationship with Yahweh’s People
1.2.3. The Relationship with the Nations
1.3. The Land of Israel and the Knowledge of Yahweh
2. The Land’s Solidarity with Israel’s Sin
2.1. The Sin of the Land of Israel
2.2. The Land of Israel as a Victim of Human Sins
2.2.1. Social Sins
2.2.2. Cultic Sins
2.3. The Lost Purity of the Land of Israel
3. The Punished Land
3.1. The Land of Israel on the Day of Yahweh
3.2. The Devastated Land of Israel
3.3. The Question of the Land’s Future
Chapter III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land
1. The Salvific History and the Land of Israel
1.1. The Theology of History in Ezekiel 20
1.2. Exodus as the Key to Understanding the History of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 20
1.3. The Character of Ezekiel’s Vision of Exodus in the Context of the Land of Israel
2. God’s Promise of the Land in Ezekiel 20
2.1. The Promised Land as an Element of the Covenant
2.2. The Obstacles to the Fulfilment of the Promise of the Land
2.3. The Soteriological Gift of the Land
3. Problematic Ownership of the Promised Land during the Babylonian Exile
3.1. The Dispute over the Land in Ezekiel 11:14–21
3.1.1. The Historical Context of the Dispute
3.1.2. Problematic Claims to the Land
3.1.3. The Status of the Land of Israel
3.2. The Dispute over the Land in Ezekiel 33:23–29
3.2.1. The Historical Context of the Dispute
3.2.2. Problematic Claims to the Land
3.2.3. The Status of the Land of Israel
3.3. The Nations’ Claims to the Land of Israel
3.3.1. The Historical Context of the Dispute
3.3.2. Problematic Claims to the Land
3.3.3. The Status of the Land of Israel
Chapter IV. The Land of the New Covenant
1. The Position of the Land of Israel in Salvation Oracles
1.1. The Rhetoric of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 34–39
1.2. The Recovered Subjecthood of the Mountains of Israel (Ezekiel 36:1–15)
1.3. The Dynamics of the Restoration of the Land of Israel
1.3.1. The Demographic Dimension
1.3.2. The Material Dimension
1.3.3. The Political Dimension
1.3.4. The Religious Dimension
2. The Role of the Land in the New Covenant
2.1. The Position of the Land in the Structure of the New Covenant
2.1.1. The Continuity of the Covenant and the New Land of Israel
2.1.2. The New Covenant and the Land’s Repopulation
2.1.3. The Novelty of the Covenant of Peace
2.2. The New People in the Renewed Land
2.3. The Land of the Covenant of Peace
2.3.1. Ezekiel’s Predictions of the Covenant of Peace vis-à-vis Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions
2.3.2. Yahweh’s Presence as the Essence of the Covenant of Peace
3. The Eschatological Perspectives of the Restoration of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 38–39
3.1. Ezekiel 38–39 against the Backdrop of Ezekiel’s Salvation Oracles for Israel
3.1.1. Ezekiel’s Authorship of the Gog Oracle
3.1.2. The Theological Aim of the Gog Oracle
3.2. The Temporal Dimension of the Revival of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 38–39
3.3. The Spatial Dimension of the Revival of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 38–39
Chapter V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48
1. Yahweh’s Presence in the Land of Israel
1.1. The Structure of Ezekiel’s Vision in Ezekiel 40–48
1.1.1. The Diachronic Perspective
1.1.2. The Synchronic Perspective
1.2. The Return of Yahweh’s Glory to the Land of Israel (Ezekiel 43:1–12)
1.2.1. Yahweh’s Freedom towards the Land of Israel
1.2.2. Yahweh’s Reign over the Land
1.2.3. Yahweh as the Source of the Sanctity of the Land of Israel
1.3. Yahweh’s Presence Transforming the Land (Ezekiel 47:1–12)
1.3.1. The Territorial Dimension of the Land’s Transformation
1.3.2. The Theological Dimension of the Land’s Transformation
2. The Theological Geography of the Land of Israel
2.1. The External Borders of the Land of Israel
2.1.1. The Identification of the Toponyms in Ezekiel 47:15–20
2.1.2. The Rhetorical Dimension of the New Borders of the Land of Israel
2.2. The Intertribal Borders within the Land of Israel
2.2.1. The Distribution of Israel’s Tribes in the Restored Land
2.2.2. The Rhetoric of the New Intertribal Borders
2.3. The Sacral Concept of the Borders of the Land of Israel
3. The Land as the Inheritance of the People of the Covenant
3.1. The Inheriting of the Land by Israel’s Tribes
3.2. The Inheriting of the Land by גור
3.2.1. The Status of גור in the Hebrew Bible
3.2.1. The Status of גור in the Ezekiel 47:12–23
Conclusion
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Authors

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

667 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Alan Cooper, Susan Gillingham, John Goldingay, Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, James W. Watts

THE LAND OF ISRAEL IN THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL

Wojciech Pikor

T&T Clark Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published in Great Britain 2018 This paperback edition published 2020 Copyright © Wojciech Pikor, 2018 Wojciech Pikor has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7884-3 PB: 978-0-5676-9266-5 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7885-0 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com)

To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters

C on t en t s

Preface ix Abbreviations xi Introduction 1. Research Topic 2. Current State of Research 3. Research Questions 4. Thesis Statement 5. Methodological Approach 6. Structure of the Book Chapter I The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel 1. The Theological Context of Ezekiel’s Prophecy concerning the Land 1.1. The Questioned Status of the Land of Israel 1.2. The Crisis of the Zion Theology 1.3. The End of David’s Dynasty 2. The Semantic Field of the Book of Ezekiel 2.1. Land as a Geomorphological Entity 2.2. Land as an Anthropo-Geographical Entity 2.3. Land as a Metaphor 2.3.1. The Metaphoric Substitution of the Land 2.3.2. Land as an Element of a Simile 2.3.3. Land in Metaphoric Interaction 3. The Structural Position of the Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel 3.1. The Synchronic Perspective on the Structure of the Book of Ezekiel 3.2. The Motif of the Land as an Element of Resumptive Exposition in the Book of Ezekiel

xv xv xvi xviii xix xix xxi 1 1 2 3 5 7 9 13 20 20 21 22 24 25 28

vi Contents

Chapter II The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel 1. The Subjecthood of the Land of Israel 1.1. The Land as the Addressee of the Oracles 1.2. The Relationality of the Land of Israel 1.2.1. The Relationship with Yahweh 1.2.2. The Relationship with Yahweh’s People 1.2.3. The Relationship with the Nations 1.3. The Land of Israel and the Knowledge of Yahweh 2. The Land’s Solidarity with Israel’s Sin 2.1. The Sin of the Land of Israel 2.2. The Land of Israel as a Victim of Human Sins 2.2.1. Social Sins 2.2.2. Cultic Sins 2.3. The Lost Purity of the Land of Israel 3. The Punished Land 3.1. The Land of Israel on the Day of Yahweh 3.2. The Devastated Land of Israel 3.3. The Question of the Land’s Future Chapter III The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land 1. The Salvific History and the Land of Israel 1.1. The Theology of History in Ezekiel 20 1.2. Exodus as the Key to Understanding the History of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 20 1.3. The Character of Ezekiel’s Vision of Exodus in the Context of the Land of Israel 2. God’s Promise of the Land in Ezekiel 20 2.1. The Promised Land as an Element of the Covenant 2.2. The Obstacles to the Fulfilment of the Promise of the Land 2.3. The Soteriological Gift of the Land 3. Problematic Ownership of the Promised Land during the Babylonian Exile 3.1. The Dispute over the Land in Ezekiel 11:14–21 3.1.1. The Historical Context of the Dispute 3.1.2. Problematic Claims to the Land 3.1.3. The Status of the Land of Israel 3.2. The Dispute over the Land in Ezekiel 33:23–29 3.2.1. The Historical Context of the Dispute 3.2.2. Problematic Claims to the Land 3.2.3. The Status of the Land of Israel

33 33 33 39 39 42 44 44 46 46 51 51 53 55 57 57 61 64 68 68 68 70 74 78 78 84 88 92 92 92 94 96 100 100 101 103

Contents

3.3. The Nations’ Claims to the Land of Israel 3.3.1. The Historical Context of the Dispute 3.3.2. Problematic Claims to the Land 3.3.3. The Status of the Land of Israel Chapter IV The Land of the New Covenant 1. The Position of the Land of Israel in Salvation Oracles 1.1. The Rhetoric of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 34–39 1.2. The Recovered Subjecthood of the Mountains of Israel (Ezekiel 36:1–15) 1.3. The Dynamics of the Restoration of the Land of Israel 1.3.1. The Demographic Dimension 1.3.2. The Material Dimension 1.3.3. The Political Dimension 1.3.4. The Religious Dimension 2. The Role of the Land in the New Covenant 2.1. The Position of the Land in the Structure of the New Covenant 2.1.1. The Continuity of the Covenant and the New Land of Israel 2.1.2. The New Covenant and the Land’s Repopulation 2.1.3. The Novelty of the Covenant of Peace 2.2. The New People in the Renewed Land 2.3. The Land of the Covenant of Peace 2.3.1. Ezekiel’s Predictions of the Covenant of Peace vis-à-vis Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions 2.3.2. Yahweh’s Presence as the Essence of the Covenant of Peace 3. The Eschatological Perspectives of the Restoration of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 38–39 3.1. Ezekiel 38–39 against the Backdrop of Ezekiel’s Salvation Oracles for Israel 3.1.1. Ezekiel’s Authorship of the Gog Oracle 3.1.2. The Theological Aim of the Gog Oracle 3.2. The Temporal Dimension of the Revival of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 38–39 3.3. The Spatial Dimension of the Revival of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 38–39

vii

105 105 108 109 115 115 116 119 121 122 124 127 129 131 132 132 134 136 138 142 143 146 150 151 151 154 157 161

viii Contents

Chapter V The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48 168 1. Yahweh’s Presence in the Land of Israel 168 1.1. The Structure of Ezekiel’s Vision in Ezekiel 40–48 169 1.1.1. The Diachronic Perspective 170 1.1.2. The Synchronic Perspective 171 1.2. The Return of Yahweh’s Glory to the Land of Israel (Ezekiel 43:1–12) 175 1.2.1. Yahweh’s Freedom towards the Land of Israel 176 1.2.2. Yahweh’s Reign over the Land 179 1.2.3. Yahweh as the Source of the Sanctity of the Land of Israel 183 1.3. Yahweh’s Presence Transforming the Land (Ezekiel 47:1–12) 184 1.3.1. The Territorial Dimension of the Land’s Transformation 184 1.3.2. The Theological Dimension of the Land’s Transformation 187 2. The Theological Geography of the Land of Israel 192 2.1. The External Borders of the Land of Israel 193 2.1.1. The Identification of the Toponyms in Ezekiel 47:15–20 193 2.1.2. The Rhetorical Dimension of the New Borders of the Land of Israel 196 2.2. The Intertribal Borders within the Land of Israel 201 2.2.1. The Distribution of Israel’s Tribes in the Restored Land 202 2.2.2. The Rhetoric of the New Intertribal Borders 206 2.3. The Sacral Concept of the Borders of the Land of Israel 210 3. The Land as the Inheritance of the People of the Covenant 214 3.1. The Inheriting of the Land by Israel’s Tribes 214 3.2. The Inheriting of the Land by ‫ גור‬217 3.2.1. The Status of ‫ גור‬in the Hebrew Bible 217 3.2.1. The Status of ‫ גור‬in the Ezekiel 47:12–23 220 Conclusion

226

Bibliography 234 Index of References 245 Index of Authors 262

P refa ce

This book was first published in Polish. I am indebted to the Polish National Science Centre as the grant that I received from the institution made it possible for me to work on this book in the libraries of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and École Biblique et Archéologique Française in Jerusalem. The decision to translate it into English enabled me to rethink and review certain fragments of the book. Bloomsbury’s review proved of great help in this matter. The suggestions of the reviewer inspired me to reconsider some methodological aspects related to the diachronic and synchronic approach and to revise the structure of the book, whose first three chapters have been significantly shortened and modified when compared to the Polish version. The editors of the LHBOTS series, Andrew Mein and Claudia V. Camp, assisted me in the process and I am extremely grateful for all their suggestions, not only those concerning editorial issues. My words of appreciation go also to Dr. Izabella Kimak, who translated the book into English. The questions she posed during the translation process prompted me to clarify a few formulations crucial for my arguments. Last but not least, I express my gratitude to Komandoria Orderu Świętego Stanisława Biskupa i Męczennika Przeoratu Pomorskiego in Starogard Gdański, with its Chaplain, Msgr. Dr. Józef Pick, for financing the translation of the book.

A b b rev i at i ons

AB ABD AnBib ATD BA BBB BDB

BEATAJ BETL BHS BHT BibAn BiBi[B] BInterpS BJPES BJS BZ BZAR BZAW CAD

CahRB CBQ CBQMS CC ConBOT DCH

The Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 Analecta Biblica Das Alte Testament Deutsch Biblical Archaeologist Bonner biblische Beiträge Brown, F., S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs. The New BrownDriver-Briggs- Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1979 Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgeselschaft, 1997 Beiträge zur historischen Theologie The Biblical Annals Bibliotheca Biblica (Brescia) Biblical Interpretation Series Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society Brown Judaic Studies Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Edited by I. J. Gelb et al. 21 vols. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956–2010 Cahiers de la Revue Biblique Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series A Continental Commentary Coniectanea Biblica: OT Series The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2011

xii Abbreviations EThSMS FAT FB FRLANT

Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910 GTA Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten HALAT Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Edited by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner. 2 vols. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1995 HAR Hebrew Annual Review HAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HTKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HUB The Hebrew University Bible. The Book of Ezekiel. Edited by M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, S. Talmon and G. Marquis. The Hebrew University Bible Project. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 2004 ICC The International Critical Commentary Int Interpretation JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies Joüon Joüon, P., and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Subsidia biblica 27. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2006 JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies KTU Dietrich, M., O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places: KTU. 2nd ed. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens 8. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995 LD Lectio Divina LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies NBL Neues Bibel-Lexikon. Edited by M. Görg and B. Lang. 3 vols. Düsseldorf: Benziger, 1991-2001 NCBC The New Century Bible Commentary Niccacci Niccacci, A. Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Analecta 23. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1986 NICOT The New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997 NSKAT Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar. Altes Testament

Abbreviations OBO OBT OtSt PEQ RB RHPR RSB SBLDS SBLSP SBLSymS SBS SBT ScrHie SHR StBibLub StMor TB TGST THAT ThWAT

VT VTSup VV Waltke – O’Connor WBC WMANT WUNT ZAW ZDPV ZTK

xiii

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology Oudtestamentische Studiën Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue biblique Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Rozprawy i Studia Biblijne Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature. Seminar Papers Series Society of Biblical Literature. Symposium Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Scripta Hierosolymitana Studies in the History of Religions Studia Biblica Lublinensia Studia moralia Theologische Bücherei Tesi Gregoriana. Serie Teologia Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by E. Jenni and C. Westermann. 2 vols. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971 Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973–2016 Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Verbum Vitae Waltke, B. K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns 1990 World Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästinavereins Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

I n t rod uct i on

1. Research Topic The land of Israel is one of the crucial elements of the prophecies of Ezekiel. If the motif of Yahweh’s Glory, which is connected with God’s presence in the Jerusalem temple, is understood as the driving force behind the structure of the book of Ezekiel, then the land of Israel motif signals a spatial framework for Ezekiel’s prophecies. The book starts with the vision of the divine Glory in Babylonia (chs. 1–3) and ends with the vision of the restored land of Israel, to which Yahweh’s Glory returns (43:1–12), bringing about the repopulation of the land by the twelve tribes of Israel (47:13–48:29). The city’s twelve gates bear the names of the tribes (48:30–35), thereby symbolizing the community of covenant inhabiting the Promised Land. With reference to the covenant, the prophet mentions various anthropogeographical aspects of the land of Israel. Materially speaking, the land constitutes the foundation of the nation’s existence, which is destroyed as a result of the events leading to the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian exile (cf. 35:12; 36:13). The deportation to Babylonia entails breaching ties with the land, which was the basis for the people’s autonomy and political independence (cf. 35:10). Deportation affects the religious situation of the exiles as well: being far away from their land, they are viewed by the Jerusalemites as rejected by Yahweh (cf. 11:15; 33:24). For the nations, the depopulation of the land of Israel is a sign of Yahweh’s weakness, for despite being the land’s patron, he could not take care of his people (cf. 36:20). The loss of the land generates questions about the causes of the Babylonian exile as well as prospects of return. Both of these issues recur in Ezekiel’s prophecies, where they have a unique rhetorical and theological articulation when compared to the rest of the Hebrew Bible. For example, the land or the mountains of Israel function as the addressees of the oracles in 6:1–14; 7:1–27; 21:1–12; 22:23–31 and 36:1–15.

xvi Introduction

Ezekiel’s special interest in the land of Israel is confirmed by the theological rendering in ch. 20 of Israel’s history as exodus. The purpose of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel in Egypt was the nation’s entrance into the Promised Land (cf. 20:6), which in Ezekiel’s times still seems a future prospect to be realized during the new exodus. The promise of the land’s restoration and repopulation after Israel’s return from exile recurs in virtually all of the oracles of salvation starting from ch. 33. Among them, there is an oracle unique in the whole Hebrew Bible, namely one against Gog, who attacks Israel after the land’s restoration (chs. 38–39). This oracle situates the land in the eschatological context transcending the temporal framework of previous oracles of salvation. The concluding vision of the new Israel centres on the final transformation of the land thanks to Yahweh’s renewed presence there (chs. 40–48). 2. Current State of Research In light of the wealth of references to the land in the book of Ezekiel, the scarce exegetical interest paid to the matter seems somewhat surprising. Comprehensive studies of the representation of the Promised Land in the Old Testament tend to give little attention to the book of Ezekiel or overlook it altogether.1 Granted, there are quite a few articles devoted to Ezekiel’s presentation of the land of Israel, yet these either concentrate on a very narrow aspect of the issue or a single text, or, alternatively, present a reductive understanding of the issue due to their contextual approach.

1.  These include at least three books considered major analyses of the issue: (1) W. Brueggemann, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith, OBT, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002), which analyses the book of Ezekiel in the context of Jeremiah’s and Deutero-Isaiah’s questions about the future of the land of Israel after the Babylonian exile (see pp. 129–35); (2) N. C. Habel, The Land Is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies, OBT (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995), in which the author discusses six “ideologies” of the land present in the Hebrew Bible but omits the book of Ezekiel; and (3) G. Strecker, ed., Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 der Hebräischen Universität und das Georg-August-Universität, GTA 25 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), which is a collection of fourteen post-symposium studies, out of which only one – W. Zimmerli’s “Das ‘Land’ bei den vorexilischen und frühexilischen Propheten” (pp. 33–45) – mentions the book of Ezekiel, though only in passing, with the discussion being limited to the causes of the land’s destruction during the Babylonian exile and the prospects of return (cf. pp. 39–42).

Introduction

xvii

The former group includes, for example, Keller’s2 semantic analysis of two expressions: ‫ ארץ יׂשראל‬and ‫אדמת יׂשראל‬. This is, however, debatable as the second of the syntagmas is questionably interpreted as denoting the land deserted by Yahweh. Another important study is Gosse’s3 analysis of the relationship between oracles addressed to the mountains of Israel (Ezek 6:1–14; 36:1–15) and to Mount Seir (35:1–15), yet this study is restricted only to formal analysis. Hutchens, in turn, devoted his doctoral research to the analysis of the land of Israel in the book of Ezekiel, but only one part of the dissertation – that focusing on the borders of Israel in Ezek 47:15–20 – has so far been published.4 There have been some interesting monographs devoted to Ezek 40–48 that acknowledge the presence of the motif of the land in the closing vision of the book of Ezekiel. Notable among these is Stevenson’s study,5 which focuses on the territorial rhetoric employed therein. It seems that Stevenson’s argument that Ezek 40–48 testifies to the transformation of the society – from one based on earthly monarchy to a community centred around the temple but lacking a human ruler – overlooks the role Ezekiel assigns to the ‫נׂשיא‬ as the person responsible for the proper division of the land of Israel. Other book-length studies of Ezek 40–48 which address the question of the land focus solely on one specific aspect of the problem: for example, Levenson offers a tradition-critical analysis of the texts foretelling the restoration of the land, linking them to the tradition of Zion and Eden,6 while Tuell’s view that these chapters show the religious politics of Judah during Persian times is based on the analysis of the new borders of the land of Israel, which the scholar discusses vis-à-vis the borders of the Persian satrapy of Abar-Nahara.7 All of these monographs, however,

2.  B. Keller, “La terre dans le Livre d’Ezéchiel,” RHPR 55 (1975): 481–90. 3.  B. Gosse, “Ézéchiel 35–36:1–15 et Ézéchiel 6: La desolation de la montagne de Séir et le renouveau de montagnes d’Israël,” RB 96 (1989): 511–17. 4.  K. D. Hutchens, “Defining the Boundaries: A Cultic Interpretation of Numbers 34:1–12 and Ezekiel 47:13–48:1, 28,” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes, ed. M. P. Graham, W. P. Browne and J. K. Kuan, JSOTSup 173 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 215–30 = “Although Yahweh Was There: The Land in the Book of Ezekiel” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1998), 589–629. 5.  K. R. Stevenson, Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40–48, SBLDS 154 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996). 6.  Cf. J. D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, HSM 10 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), 5–53. 7.  Cf. S. S. Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48, HSM 49 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992), 152–74.

xviii Introduction

discuss only chs. 40–48, without paying attention to the rest of the book, which precludes the possibility of a comprehensive view on Ezekiel’s theology of land. On the other hand, there are texts evincing a contextual approach that propose a feminist (Carley)8 or ecological (Habel)9 reading of Ezekiel’s motif of the land. Both scholars argue that God is responsible for the violence levied against the land, which is either an innocent victim of a masculine worldview or is seen as a scapegoat by the community unwilling to admit its own fault.10 These texts, however, are more essayistic than exegetical, especially in the case of the stenographic record of an imaginary court case against Yahweh in Carley’s “Ezekiel’s Formula of Desolation.” 3. Research Questions The foregoing brief overview of the existing scholarship on the land of Israel in Ezekiel’s prophecies makes it clear that there are still some areas that need to be explored in a more detailed way. First, the analysis of the land’s semantic field would enable a thorough characterization of Ezekiel’s concept of the land. A comprehensive view on the land of Israel requires an analysis of the book’s structure that would encompass all the texts mentioning the motif of the land. Rhetorical relations among these texts would provide a proper context in which to analyse individual prophecies and would capture a possible evolution in Ezekiel’s attitude to the land of Israel. Another matter is a proper historical-salvific context that needs to be found to interpret the history of the land of Israel. Chapter 20 8.  K. Carley, “Ezekiel’s Formula of Desolation: Harsh Justice for the Land/ Earth,” in The Earth Story in the Psalms and the Prophets, ed. N. C. Habel, The Earth Bible 4 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 143–57; idem, “From Harshness to Hope: The Implications for Earth Hierarchy in Ezekiel,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, ed. S. L. Cook and C. L. Patton, SBLSymS 31 (Leiden: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 109–26. 9.  N. Habel, “The Silence of the Lands: The Ecojustice Implications of Ezekiel’s Judgment Oracles,” in Cook and Patton, eds., Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World, 127–40. 10.  J. Galambush’s essay “God’s Land and Mine: Creation as Property in the Book of Ezekiel,” published in the same volume as the texts of Carley and Habel (Cook and Patton, eds., Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World, 91–108), can be treated as a votum separatum. The author points out that the land is not a victim but a co-agent in the activities of its inhabitants and as such deserves punishment. Galambush, however, does not explore this argument any further as she considers the land merely a metonymy for its inhabitants (cf. pp. 99–102).

Introduction

xix

indicates that Yahweh’s covenant with Israel is precisely such a context, hence several questions about the role of the land in the covenant need to be posed, such as: What is the purpose of God’s promise of the land for Israel? Is the land only a sign of the covenant or is it also the co-creator of the covenant? How can the promise of the land be understood in the context of the Babylonian exile? In what way will the future restoration of the land be a sign of the new covenant? Who has the right to possess and inhabit the land? In the context of the new covenant a completely new aspect of the land of Israel in the book of Ezekiel comes to the fore, namely its sacral character. Zimmerli posits the sacramental value of the land of Israel.11 To what extent is his argument acceptable? What would constitute the basis for the land’s sacral character? 4. Thesis Statement As a starting point, one may formulate a few hypotheses to be verified throughout the study. The land of Israel is a unifying principle of the book of Ezekiel. As the narrative progresses, the new concept of the land of Israel gradually emerges. Far from being a passive object, the land is presented as the protagonist of Israel’s unfolding history. The land which God wishes his people to inhabit becomes the place of God’s theophany in history. However, the role of the land is not that of a mere sign of the covenant or a guarantee of the covenant’s continuity; the land constitutes the aim of the covenant as the space in which Yahweh’s communion with Israel is to be realized. The land’s revitalization will happen thanks to Yahweh, who will restore its lost subjecthood and will make it again the material, political and religious basis of the new Israel. This way, God’s original idea of this land as the land of the covenant will be fulfilled. The book of Ezekiel’s concluding vision of the new temple, new cult and new land (chs. 40–48) indicates the soteriological value of the land of Israel, which is an outcome of the sanctifying presence of God in the land. 5. Methodological Approach Currently two stances prevail as far as the exegesis of the book of Ezekiel is concerned. According to the first one, the final version of the book of Ezekiel is an outcome of a long redactional process, during which the 11.  W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Chapters 1–24, trans. R. E. Clements, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979), 261.

xx Introduction

prophet’s words were theologically reinterpreted several times to account for the life conditions of the redactors of a given layer. The opposite view holds Ezekiel to be the author and redactor of his prophecies, and even if these were later subjected to redactional interventions, they still give one an insight into Ezekiel’s prophesying. There also seems to exist a way in between the two approaches, as suggested by Leslie C. Allen. He argues that three layers are discernible in Ezekiel’s text:12 (1) the basic oracle, (2) its continuation or updating that stays relatively close to the basic material, (3) and the closing oracle that stands apart from the earlier two parts. The first two of these should be attributed to Ezekiel, while the third one belongs to his followers, who adapted Ezekiel’s words to the needs of the second generation of exiles in Babylonia. Such a claim is corroborated by the fact that there is no evidence in the book of the return from exile as a historical fact nor of the succession of the Babylonian Empire by the Persian one. On the basis of chronological data, Allen dates the redaction of the book of Ezekiel to the 550s BCE. “The twenty-fifth year of our exile,” mentioned in the final vision (40:1), might refer to the year of the jubilee in 548/547 BCE. This date is also confirmed by the fact that the fortieth year of exile (cf. 4:6) for the Judeans deported to Babylonia with King Jehoiachin would be the year 457/456 BCE. Even if the book shows signs of Ezekiel’s and his successors’ redaction, its final version remains connected with the person of Ezekiel due to the book’s stylistic, compositional and theological coherence.13 On account of the literary coherence of the book of Ezekiel, the following study will privilege the synchronic approach. This does not mean, however, that the question of the prophecies’ redaction will be ignored. Rather, instead of assuming – in the manner characteristic of the diachronic approach – that a text is inauthentic until proved otherwise,14 this book will offer a different starting point: Ezekiel’s text will be treated as an authentic testimony to the prophet’s work unless elements contradicting this viewpoint are found in the book. Thus, the subsequent analysis will focus on the canonical version of the book of Ezekiel as a coherent 12.  Cf. L. C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, WBC 28 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1994), xxv–xxvi. 13.  A detailed study of literary elements – such as structure, dating, autobiographical elements, typical prophetic formulas, idiosyncratic diction and style – which contribute to the book’s coherence may be found in D. I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 23–41. 14.  Cf. the rule formulated by Otto Kaiser and cited by W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Chapters 25–48, trans. J. D. Martin, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983), xiii.

Introduction

xxi

text, which requires the study of individual prophecies in the context of the whole book. Moments of tension, evincing a possible redactional intervention, will not be treated as the basis for the search of the “original” oracle, but will rather serve to capture the direction in which Ezekiel’s words were interpreted during the process of the book’s redaction. 6. Structure of the Book The present work consists of five chapters. Chapter I aims to provide a historical and literary context in which to situate Ezekiel’s theology of land. Chapter II will be devoted to the analysis of the oracles of punishment addressed to Israel, in which the land undergoes the process of anthropomorphization. Chapter III will situate the punishment experienced by Ezekiel and his listeners in a broader historical context suggested by the prophet in ch. 20. The theological view on the past, present and future of the land of Israel will serve as a starting point for the search of the model of history Ezekiel employs in his concept of the land. The model in question turns out to be the exodus, which will be applied to Yahweh’s covenant with Israel and his promise of the land for his people. Chapter IV will constitute the analysis of the oracles of salvation in Ezek 34–39, in which the restoration of the land of Israel remains intertwined with the promise of the new covenant. This part of the book will probe the role the renewed land plays in the new covenant. Chapter V will address the closing vision of the new Israel (Ezek 40–48), which is characterized by the territorial dimension of the future restoration. This feature will be shown via the analysis of the rhetoric of the land, the crucial element of which is the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple. God’s presence adds sacral value to the land in which his covenant with his people is to be realized. The Conclusion will try to pinpoint crucial elements of Ezekiel’s theology of land in the context of God’s covenant with Israel. In this way, the originality of Ezekiel’s attitude to the land of Israel – when compared to the rest of the Hebrew Bible – will be shown.

Chapter I T he C on t ex t of t h e M oti f of the L and i n t h e B ook of E ze ki e l

The first part of this book serves as an introduction whose aim is to situate Ezekiel’s concept of the land of Israel in a proper historicotheological, semantic and rhetorical context. The Babylonian exile has a tremendous impact on Ezekiel’s theological conceptions; faced with the crisis of faith befalling the people of the covenant, the prophet revises earlier religious traditions, including the one concerning the Promised Land. Ezekiel’s reflections on the function the promise of the land plays in Israel’s religion have a semantic dimension as well, which prompts one to try to pinpoint the specificity of the land’s semantics in the book of Ezekiel. The analysis of the book’s structure – both synchronic and diachronic – will make it possible to understand the rhetoric of the land in Ezekiel’s prophecies. 1. The Theological Context of Ezekiel’s Prophecy concerning the Land Ezekiel was called to prophesy in Babylonia in 593 BCE (cf. Ezek 1:2–3). Having conquered Jerusalem five years earlier, the Babylonians forced King Jehoiachin together with “all the officials and all the warriors…all the blacksmiths and all the metalworkers” (2 Kgs 24:14) to relocate to Babylonia. This event marked the beginning of Judah’s gradual loss of autonomy, which culminated in Jerusalem’s fall in 586 BCE and another deportation to Babylonia following it. The Babylonian exile is presented in the Hebrew Bible as the most serious religious and political crisis in the history of the Jewish nation.1 1.  Cf. R. Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Vol. 2, From the Exile to the Maccabees, trans. J. Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1994), 369.

2

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

For Ezekiel, the Babylonian exile did not begin with Jerusalem’s fall in July 586 BCE. He had been deported – together with a group of the Judeans led by King Jehoiachin – to the land of the Chaldeans in 597 BCE after Nebuchadnezzar conquered the capital of Judah. Called to prophesy five years later (cf. Ezek 1:1–2), Ezekiel could not remain indifferent to the exiles’ problems due to the mission assigned to him by God (cf. 2:3–5, 7; 3:1, 4, 10–11, 17, 27) and to the needs of the deportees expressed by the elders of Judah (cf. 8:1; 14:1; 20:1). His assessment of the situation, however, differed both from that of other deportees (cf., e.g., 12:21–28) and of those who remained in Judah (cf., e.g., 11:14–21). Both groups treated the continuity of the institutions safeguarding the chosen nation’s identity and security as a source of optimism. They believed in a better future on account of their possession of the Promised Land, which was viewed as a sign of God’s blessing – regardless of the fact that some Israelites were already in exile. Other signs of God’s favour included in their opinion the Jerusalem temple as a tangible sign of God’s presence among his people, and, finally, the Davidic dynasty as a guarantee of the covenant’s continuity – even though there were at the time two kings: Jehoiachin in the Babylonian captivity and Zedekiah in Judah. Fighting for his nation’s survival, Ezekiel did not hesitate to revise the axioms of faith mentioned above, which were treated as magical yet only seemingly promoted life. 1.1. The Questioned Status of the Land of Israel The biblical concept of the land of Israel is based on the premise that the land should be understood in historical terms. Not only does the land have an economic aspect (as a space to manage), a social aspect (as a space to inhabit), or a religious aspect (as a space of cult), but it also has a historical significance. The land is a space within which the history of Israel evolves, even when the chosen nation itself was yet to be formed. God’s gift of the land for Israel is situated in a historical space and time; thus, the land becomes the space of God’s activity in history. The land inhabited by Israel is always “a place with Yahweh, a place well filled with memories of life and promise from him and vows to him.”2 Israel did not find itself in the Promised Land by accident or as a result of some historical changes, nor was Israel there from the very beginning. Hence, Israel’s relation to the land is not mythic or preceding time. On the contrary, Israel’s stay in the Promised Land is an outcome of the historical event of covenant, through which Yahweh realizes his plan of saving the world. 2.  Brueggemann, The Land, 5.

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

3

The context of the covenant sheds light on the theophanic character of the land of Israel. The land is not merely an object to acquire and possess, but is a key element of Israel’s relation with Yahweh.3 The gift of the land is a consequence of Yahweh’s love sworn to the patriarchs (cf. Deut 7:8). Leading Israel to the Promised Land, Yahweh “confirms his covenant that he swore to [their] fathers” (Deut 8:18). In this way, the land becomes a sign of God’s love and his loyalty to the covenant with the patriarchs, which is extended to subsequent generations. The theophanic character of the land of Israel is questioned by the fact of the Babylonian exile. The deportation of some Judeans to Babylonia leads to a misinterpretation of the entitlement to the Promised Land. Ezekiel criticizes the belief that the entitlement to the land stems from the mere fact of the land’s inhabitancy (cf. Ezek 11:15) or from blood ties to Abraham, to whom (and to whose offspring) God gave the land (cf. Ezek 33:24). Such a viewpoint led to a misunderstanding of the role played by the land in Yahweh’s relationship with Israel. The fact of living in Judah was in itself insufficient proof of God’s blessing, for it would constitute a restriction of God’s freedom as regards the place and time of his activity in the world. God’s promise given to Abraham and his descendants was treated mechanically by the Israelites. God’s generosity towards the patriarch was not based on “Darwinian materialism,”4 but required a response in the form of “keep[ing] the way of Yahweh by doing righteousness and justice” (Gen 18:19), which would legitimize Israel’s claim to the Promised Land. 1.2. The Crisis of the Zion Theology A similar misunderstanding of God’s gift – fuelled by the Zion tradition – is visible in the Israelites’ attitude towards Jerusalem and its temple. In his 1956 doctoral dissertation, Edzard Rohland identifies the following elements that constitute the Zion tradition:5 (1) Zion as the highest mountain, as Mount Zaphon (Ps 48:3–4); (2) the river of paradise flowing from Zion (Ps 46:5); (3) it was on Zion that Yahweh subdued the waters of chaos (Ps 46:4); (4) Yahweh also defeated kings and their nations there (Pss 46:7; 48:5–7; 76:4, 6–7). Other studies on the Zion tradition posit 3.  Cf. Brueggemann, The Land, 45. 4.  D. I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 260. 5.  E. Rohland, “Die Bedeutung der Erwählungstraditionen Israels für die Eschatologie der alttestamentlichen Propheten” (Ph.D. diss., Universität Heidelberg, 1956). These motifs are discussed in detail in J. J. M. Roberts, “Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition,” JBL 92 (1973): 329–44 (337).

4

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Yahweh’s reign there as its constitutive element. Jimmy J.M. Roberts links Yahweh’s rule with his choice of David and his descendants (cf. Pss 2:6; 78:68–70; 132:11–17).6 On the basis of Yahweh Malak Psalms (Pss 47; 93–99), Ben Ollenberger posits in turn that the motif of Yahweh’s kingship is primary to and independent from the Davidic line tradition.7 Zion’s safety stems from the fact that Yahweh made it his royal residence. Since Yahweh is the king, there is no need for any human efforts to protect Zion that are not based on trust in God.8 This aspect will become more pronounced after a miraculous survival of Jerusalem during the siege of the city by the Assyrian troops of King Sennacherib in 701 BCE (cf. 2 Kgs 19:32–37 = Isa 37:33–38).9 As a witness to that event, the prophet Isaiah makes the Zion tradition an essential element of his prophecies. It was Yahweh who founded Zion as a shelter for his people (cf. Isa 14:32). God’s presence on Zion makes the city inviolable (cf. Isa 33:20–22), for Yahweh guards it as a lion watching over his prey or a bird protecting his nest (cf. Isa 31:4–5). Yahweh’s “fire is in Zion, [his] furnace in Jerusalem” (Isa 31:9), and his wrath will affect Israel’s enemies (cf. Isa 10:24–27). Yahweh assumes the roles of judge, ruler and king upon Zion to save his people (cf. Isa 33:22). As an axiom of faith, the belief in safety resultant from Yahweh’s presence upon Zion was still common among the Jerusalemites in the final years of the kingdom of Judah threatened by Babylonia. Jerusalem’s liturgy worships Zion and the temple as a sign of Yahweh’s presence among his people, as is borne out by the triple acclamation – “The temple of Yahweh, the temple of Yahweh, the temple of Yahweh” (Jer 7:4) – which is criticized by the prophet Jeremiah as a mere platitude giving a 6.  Cf. Roberts, “Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition,” 343. 7.  Cf. B. C. Ollenberger, Zion the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult, JSOTSup 41 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 23–52. 8.  Ollenberger, Zion the City of the Great King, 146. 9.  The account in 2 Kings represents later theological rationalizations of the miraculous deliverance. However, both biblical and extra-biblical evidence for the events of 701, regardless of their interpretation, concurs that Sennacherib retreated from Jerusalem; cf. R. Liwak, “Die Rettung Jerusalems im Jahr 701 v. Ch.: Zum Verhältnis und Verständnis historischer und teologischer Aussagen,” ZTK 83 (1986): 137–66 (especially 156–57); M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 11 (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 246–51; R. G. Kratz, “Isaiah and the Siege of Jerusalem,” in New Perspectives on Old Testa­ ment Prophecy and History: Essays in Honour of Hans M. Barstad, ed. R. I. Thelle, T. Stordalen and M. E. J. Richardson, VTSup 168 (Boston: Brill, 2015), 143–60 (especially 156–57).

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

5

false promise of safety. The certainty evinced by Ezekiel’s contemporaries that Jerusalem is invincible is reflected in the image of meat in the pot (cf. Ezek 11:3b), which symbolically represents the inhabitants’ (“meat”) safety within the walls of the city (“pot”). Since the image is accompanied by a mention of house construction (cf. 11:3a), it can be assumed that the Judeans believed in a peaceful future for Jerusalem. The prophet first rejects this argument (cf. 11:11) only to return to it on the first day of the siege (cf. 24:3–14): then, as he claims, the content of the pot (“the bloody city”) will be completely burned by fire, which foreshadows the ultimate punishment of Jerusalem for the violence and turmoil rampant in its streets (cf. 22:1–13, 24–29). 1.3. The End of David’s Dynasty A final element of an illusory vision of life guaranteed by God’s involvement in Israel’s history is the Davidic dynasty. The treatment of God’s promises to the Davidic dynasty as a covenant appeared before the Deuteronomic tradition, the evidence of which is the text of 2 Sam 23:1–7 relating David’s last words. David, “the man God established, the anointed of the God of Jacob, the darling of the Stronghold of Israel” (v. 1), mentions God’s praise of a just monarch (vv. 3–4), announcing later that God “made with [him] an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure” (‫כי ברית עולם ׂשם לי ערוכה בכל וׁשמרה‬, v. 5). Analysing the dating of the fragment, Kyle McCarter argues that there is insufficient evidence to claim that the “last words of David” originated in the final years of the Judean monarchy.10 The opening formula of the poem (v. 1, which is parallel to the opening of Balaam’s oracle; cf. Num 24:3–4), the expressions used to refer to God in v. 1, the lack of Deuteronomic terminology as well as the solar metaphor employed to refer to the king that evinces Egyptian influence (vv. 3b–4) all prove that the promise of the “everlasting covenant” should be assigned to the early monarchical period. Hence, the continuity of the Davidic monarchy would be from the start guaranteed by Yahweh’s covenant, which is understood as a promissory covenant, whereby Yahweh was supposed to act on behalf of the Davidic dynasty and protect it even if the king himself turned out to be disloyal.11 In this way, the promise of the covenant given to David becomes a permanent guarantee of the continuity of religious and national life. 10.  Cf. P. K. McCarter Jr., II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 9 (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 483–86. 11.  Cf. R. E. Clements, Abraham and David: Genesis 15 and Its Meaning for Israelite Tradition, SBT II/5 (London: SCM Press, 1967), 53.

6

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

As Ezekiel shows, the actual state of affairs in the monarchy is a far cry from the expectations of the people, who attributed to the monarchy the strength of the lion (cf. 19:1–10), the might of the cedar (cf. 17:3) and the vitality of the vine (cf. 17:5–6, 8; 19:10–11). Actually, the last two kings of Judah – Jehoiachin in exile (cf. 17:12; 19:8–9) and Zedekiah in Judah (12:12–13; 19:10–14; 21:30–32) – are punished for their disloyalty to Yahweh. The former had no influence on the events that led to Jerusalem’s fall for he had been deported to Babylonia (cf. 19:8); the latter might have nominally ruled but he had long ago lost “a sceptre to rule” (19:14) and – faced with the approaching army of Nebuchadnezzar – he could only “remove the turban and take off the crown” (21:31). The incapability of thinking and acting evinced by Zedekiah and other leaders of Judah (cf. 7:26–27) was one of the causes of the people’s extermination. The Babylonian exile marks the end of the major institutions of biblical Israel and leads to a crisis of faith. The prophets of that period speak to people who need to reconsider their identity as defined by the covenant with Yahweh. The land plays a key role in the process. The nations view Israel’s loss of the land as a sign of the termination of their relation with Yahweh. Ezekiel quotes them in 36:20 as saying: “These are the people of Yahweh, and yet they had to go out of his land (‫)ארצו‬.” This comment can be understood in two ways: either Yahweh deserted his people or he is too weak to protect them. The Israelites themselves were in favour of the former interpretation. In the wake of the first conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 597 BCE, the Jerusalemites repeated: “Yahweh does not see us, Yahweh has forsaken the land (‫( ”)הארץ‬Ezek 8:12; 9:9). The next step was accusing God of injustice and indifference towards his people. The proverb about the sour grapes eaten by the fathers but harming their children, mentioned by both Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer 31:29; Ezek 18:2), shows that people refused any responsibility for the causes of the Babylonian exile. Rather, they accuse God that his way “is not right” (Ezek 18:25, 29). The fall of Jerusalem will prompt the people to acknowledge their sins; then, they will be certain there is no hope for them: “Our transgressions and our sins weigh upon us, and we waste away because of them; how then can we live?” (Ezek 33:10). Even though they are alive, they treat themselves as dead, which is expressed in the tripartite lamentation in the vision of the dry bones: “Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are indeed cut off” (37:11). The final downfall of Judah shows the people that their only hope lies in God; yet, aware of their fatal situation, they view themselves as “cut off” from God (cf. Ps 88:6), “cut off out of the land of the living” (Isa 53:8), excluded from a life-giving relationship with God (cf. Pss 31:23; 88:6).

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

7

The theological interpretation of the Babylonian exile shows that geopolitical and economic consequences of Jerusalem’s fall and successive deportations to Babylonia had a direct impact on the crisis of faith. The crisis refers not only to the covenant seen through the prism of land, Zion and the Davidic monarchy, but it refers to the very essence of human existence formed through a relationship with Yahweh. This relation manifests itself, also materially, in the Promised Land. According to the people, the possession of the Promised Land is necessary for his enjoyment of God’s generosity connected with the Jerusalem temple and the Davidic dynasty. Accepting the task of revising the basic axioms of Israel’s faith, Ezekiel needs to address the question of the status of the land of Israel, the land’s place in the covenant with Yahweh and the land’s role in shaping the identity of the chosen nation. 2. The Semantic Field of the Book of Ezekiel Exegetical studies devoted to semantic analysis manifest a certain inaccuracy when it comes to defining the semantic field and its varieties.12 For Jost Trier, the forerunner of literary studies of the semantic field, the term denotes a group of thematically related words whose meaning is determined by their mutual relations.13 This succinct definition is the starting point for various concepts of the semantic field that differ with respect to the relations occurring among words inside a given semantic field. For example, the concept of a lexical field is based on the similarity and opposition inside a group of words with a specific meaning.14 The associative field is formed by the inclusion of terms linked lexically, syntactically, derivatively and symbolically to the principal word.15 The syntagmatic and paradigmatic fields arise from the combination of two groups of complementary words: the former is based on syntagmatic 12.  This issue is discussed in more detail in W. Pikor, Soteriologiczna metafora wody w Księdze Izajasza, StBibLub 4 (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2009), 87–95. 13.  Cf. J. Trier, Altes und Neues vom sprachlichen Feld, Duden-Beiträge zu Fragen der Rechtschreibung, der Grammatik und des Stils 34 (Mannheim: Duden­ verlag, 1968), 10. 14.  The first exegete to employ the method in his studies was John F. A. Sawyer, Semantics in Biblical Research: New Methods of Defining Hebrew Words for Salvation, SBT 24 (London: SCM Press, 1972). 15.  Ingrid Riesener’s analysis is based on this concept of the semantic field: Der Stamm ‫ עבד‬im Alten Testament: Eine Wortuntersuchung unter Berücksichtigung neuerer sprachwissenschaftlicher Methoden, BZAW 149 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1979).

8

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

relations with a given principal word, while the latter encompasses words that have similar syntagmatic relations.16 The conceptual field organizes vocabulary belonging to a specific semantic field on the basis of the mutual relations of words and phrases informed by the assumed conception of the world.17 This variety of concepts makes it essential to emphasize the fact that the meaning of a given word is not stable but relational. The relational meaning of the word is the result of its lexical relations with synonymous expressions and of its syntagmatic relations with other words. In light of the above, the study of the semantic field of the land in the book of Ezekiel needs to be approached in a two-fold way. To avoid a static understanding of the field (which would then be tantamount to a lexical field), syntagmatic relations of the words inside the field need to be considered. In this way, it will be possible to capture new meanings of words that refer to specific material designata (e.g. the mountains of Israel). At the same time, a paradigmatic approach will serve to identify those terms that for theological reasons function as synonyms in the book of Ezekiel (e.g. ‫ ארץ‬and ‫)אדמה‬. The second criterion to be employed in the analysis of the semantics of land in the book of Ezekiel will be of a conceptual character. Such an approach is necessitated by the sheer amount of lexical material referring to land in Ezekiel’s prophecies. Suffice it to say that the expression “land,” which is polyvalent in itself, is lexically connected in a direct way to the noun ‫( ארץ‬employed 136 times in the book of Ezekiel), ‫( אדמה‬used 28 times) and ‫( ׂשדה‬used 26 times).18 For this reason, Ezekiel’s semantics of land will be approached from three distinct angles: geomorphological, anthropo-geographical and metaphorical ones.

16.  Such an understanding of the semantic field is proposed in D. J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, 8 vols. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2011). The methods of syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis are discussed in DCH 1:19–21. 17.  An example of such a method is Pietro Bovati’s Ristabilire la giustzia: Procedure, vocabolario, orientamenti, AnBib 110, 2nd ed. (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1997), in which legal vocabulary employed in the Hebrew Bible is organized according to court procedures. 18.  The statistics are to be found in A. Even-Shoshan, ed., A New Concordance of the Bible: Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible Hebrew and Aramaic Roots, Words, Proper Names, Phrases and Synonyms, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: “Kiryat Sefer” Publishing House, 1997).

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

9

2.1. Land as a Geomorphological Entity The land’s semantic field encompasses words that denote the land’s topography. As a planet, the Earth is perceived in the book of Ezekiel in accordance with the vision of the world functional at the time in the ancient Near East and most fully expressed in the Bible in Gen 1. Even though Ezekiel does not refer to the Earth as a flat disc supported by the pillars submerged in the underworld waters, such an image forms the background of the syntagma ‫“( ארבעת כנפות הארץ‬the four corners of the land”) in Ezek 7:2. The centre of this clearly demarcated space is called ‫ טבור הארץ‬in 38:12. The surface of the land constitutes a space of life, as expressed by the phrase “the land of the living” (‫ ארץ חיים‬in 26:20; 32:23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32). Its antithesis is the underworld (‫ ארץ תחתית‬in 31:14, 16, 18; ‫ תחתיות ארץ‬in 26:20; 32:18, 24), also called Sheol (‫ׁשאול‬ in 31:15, 16, 17; 32:21, 27). In one instance, a noun other than ‫ ארץ‬is deployed to denote the surface of planet Earth. The description of the world’s panic in the face of Gog’s attack makes use of the division of the living beings into fowls of the heaven, fishes of the sea, beasts of the fields and creeping things, familiar from the book of Genesis. Ezekiel 38:20 employs the expression ‫ על־האדמה‬to refer to animals creeping on the land, while in Gen 1:26, 28, 30 the adverbial ‫ על־הארץ‬is used.19 The reason for the rejection of the typical noun for the sake of ‫ אדמה‬in Ezek 38:20 will become clear during the analysis of the two terms with reference to the land of Israel. The term ‫ ארץ‬used to refer to planet Earth, its inhabitants and all that lives on it may be translated as “the world.” In 8:3 ‫ ארץ‬forms a merism with ‫ׁשמים‬, describing the space of the world under the heaven. In 43:2 ‫ ארץ‬is illuminated by Yahweh’s Glory, while in 35:14 ‫ כל־הארץ‬rejoices on account of Edom’s destruction. The Earth as the world is evoked in the expressions referring to its inhabitants: ‫ יוׁשב הארץ‬in 7:7; ‫ כל־עמי הארץ‬in 31:12; and ‫ נׂשיאי הארץ‬in 39:18. To refer to the Earth as terra firma, the book of Ezekiel also employs the noun ‫ׂשדה‬. It appears – alongside the noun ‫ – ארץ‬in 32:4, where it signifies the antithesis of the sea (‫ ימים‬in 32:2), out of which a crocodile – a symbol of the Egyptian ruler – will be thrown. The word ‫ ׂשדה‬is used in a similar way in the prophecy against Tyre in 26:6, 8, which contains the prediction that some inhabitants of the city – which is located on an island – will be killed on terra firma (‫)ׂשדה‬.

19.  Cf. Keller, “La terre dans le Livre d’Ezéchiel,” 487.

10

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Even though Ezekiel lives in exile in Babylonia, he repeatedly refers in his prophecies not only to Palestine’s terrain but also to that of Egypt, which is the addressee of several of his oracles. The only expression used to denote the topography of the Babylonian land is the term ‫בקעה‬, which means a wide valley, a flatland. Ezekiel means the plain in southern Mesopotamia, where the Euphrates and the Tigris flow. It is on this plain near Tel Abib upon the Euphrates near the city of Nippur where Ezekiel is called to prophesy (3:22, 23; 8:4) and where he has the vision of dry bones (37:1, 2). Palestine’s terrain is typically described in the book of Ezekiel through the combination of four nouns: ‫“( הרים‬mountains”), ‫“( גבעות‬hills”), ‫“( אפיקים‬ravines”) and ‫“( גאיות‬valleys”). These words serve to describe the topography of “the mountains of Israel” (‫ הרי יׂשראל‬in 6:3 and 36:4), “the land of Israel” (‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬in 36:6; ‫ אדמתם‬in 34:1320) and “Mount Seir” (‫ ׂשעיר הר‬in 35:7–8), that is Edom, Judah’s neighbour in the southeast. To get a full picture of Palestine as described in the book of Ezekiel, two more expressions need to be mentioned: ‫( חוף הים‬25:16), used with reference to the coastal plain inhabited by the Philistines, and the Arabah Valley (‫ )הערבה‬mentioned in 47:8 – a flat crevice of the Jordan River from the southern tip of the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea and further south to the Gulf of Aqaba. The fact that these two expressions appear in the book of Ezekiel only once each seems to testify to the fact that Palestine is viewed by the prophet as a mountainous area. This tendency is captured in the expression “the mountains of Israel,” which will be discussed in the part of the chapter devoted to the anthropo-geographical aspect of Ezekiel’s semantics of land. The mountain (‫ )הר‬as a geomorphological form is presented in the book of Ezekiel in opposition to the valley (‫ )גיא‬in 7:16 and 32:5 and to the ravine (‫ )אפיק‬in 32:6. The top of the mountain is called ‫ראׁש ההר‬, which is employed in 43:12 to refer to Mount Zion. The expression is used in its plural form – denoting the mountains of Israel – in 6:13. The mountain’s rocky slope is called ‫ מדרגות‬in 38:20 (the term is employed only once more in the Hebrew Bible in Cant 2:14).21 The noun ‫כתף‬ (‫ כתף מואב‬in Ezek 25:9) – literally meaning the back in a human body – is used to denote a mountain range. The expression “the mountain range of Moab” assumes the perspective from the valley of the Jordan River, 20.  In 34:13 only two elements are mentioned – ‫ הרים‬and ‫ – אפיקים‬but they are accompanied by “all the inhabited places in the country” – ‫כל מוׁשבי הארץ‬. 21.  Cf. L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World: A Philological and Literary Study, AnBib 39 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970), 135.

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

11

from which the mesa of Moab – its western slopes, to be more specific – seems to be a mountain range. In the book of Ezekiel Mount Zion is never referred to by name; the hill located in the south-eastern part of Jerusalem is always presented as a high mountain: ‫“( הר־גבה ותלול‬high and lofty mountain”) in 17:22, ‫“( הר מרום יׂשראל‬high mountain of Israel”) in 17:23 and 20:40, and ‫“( הר גבה מאד‬very high mountain”) in 40:2.22 Another specific mountain mentioned in the book of Ezekiel is the Mount of Olives, part of elevated land towards the east from Jerusalem, where Yahweh’s Glory will stay after abandoning the temple (‫ההר אׁשר מקדם‬ ‫ לעיר‬in 11:23). The expression ‫גבעה‬, one of the four characteristic elements of Palestine’s terrain mentioned earlier, refers to a slight elevation of land, a hill or a hillock. To emphasize its height, the feminine gerund form of the verb ‫“( רום – גבעה רמה‬high hill”) – is used three times: in 6:13; 20:28 and 34:6. In the first two cases the meaning of the attribute transcends its geomorphological sense, for the context of idolatry indicates that ‫רמה‬ signifies places of idolatrous cult, similar to Ezek 16:24, 25, 31, 39.23 Only once is the word ‫ גבעה‬used to denote Mount Zion: the expression ‫גבעתי‬ (“my hill”) in Ezek 34:26 is identical to the way Zion is referred to in Isa 10:32. The term ‫רמה‬, meaning the upland as an elevation artificially created for the sake of idolatrous worship, is synonymous with the noun ‫במה‬. The word is used in this way in Ezek 6:3, 6; 16:16; 20:29; 43:7. However, in 36:2 the term is employed in its geomorphological sense, for the syntagma ‫“( במות עולם‬ancient heights”) used there is synonymous with ‫ הרי יׂשראל‬in 36:1. The other two words employed in the book of Ezekiel to describe Palestine’s terrain – ‫ אפיקים‬and ‫ – גאיות‬may be translated as “valley,” but there is a difference between them when it comes to the valley’s crosssection profile. The term ‫ גיא‬means a valley surrounded by hills,24 with no river flowing through its bottom.25 Such a place is mentioned in the Gog oracle, which foretells the burying of the soldiers’ bodies in ‫גי העברים‬ (“The Valley of the Travellers” – Ezek 39:11), called also ‫גיא המון גוג‬ (“The Valley of Hamon-Gog” – Ezek 39:11, 15). The noun ‫ אפיק‬in turn 22.  Cf. the already mentioned description of Zion as ‫ ראׁש ההר‬in 43:12. 23.  William L. Holladay shares the view that the expression has a cultic meaning. On the basis of the expression ‫ גבעה גבהה‬in Jer 2:20, he sees in it a standard term for idolatrous cult (“On Every High Hill and Under Every Green Tree,” VT 11 [1961]: 170–76 [170]). 24.  Such a composition of the valley is suggested by the expression ‫גיא־הרים‬ (“the valley between the mountains”) in Zech 14:5. 25.  Cf. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, 136.

12

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

refers to a valley with a river.26 Such a place abounding in water is ideal for sheep pastures (cf. ‫ אפיקים‬in 34:13). Another geomorphological form mentioned repeatedly in the book of Ezekiel is the desert (‫)מדבר‬. It is defined in 19:13 as “dry and thirsty land” (‫)ארץ ציה וצמא‬. Ezekiel’s prophecies most often mention the desert traversed by the Israelites during the exodus. It is called in 20:36 “the wilderness of the land of Egypt” (‫)מדבר ארץ מצרים‬, while the term ‫מדבר‬ itself is used to refer to it in 20:10, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23. The desert, located in the Sinai Peninsula, is not the same as the one mentioned in 29:5, which spans both sides of the Nile River in Egypt. Another desert possible to identify in Ezekiel’s prophecies stretches over the Arabian Peninsula. It is the desert inhabited by the Sabeans, if one reads in MT the form suggested in Qere with reference to 23:42 (‫)ממדבר סבאים‬.27 Finally, the term ‫ מדבר‬is employed in 6:14 to refer to the Negev Desert to the south of Judah.28 The noun ‫ מדבר‬in 34:25 may refer to the desert’s northern part, which looks like a mesa covered with grasses and shrubs. The oracle against the shepherds of Israel foretells the moment when the sheep will “live securely in the wilderness,” which is a type of a grassland providing sufficient food, yet no protection from predators. The term ‫ הדׂש‬is typically employed in the book of Ezekiel to denote a steppe. The noun is juxtaposed with the cityscape (7:15) or wooded areas (39:10) to suggest that it signifies an open, steppe-like space. The steppe is inhabited by wild, undomesticated animals called ‫( הדׂשה תיח‬31:6, 13; 34:5, 8; 38:20; 39:4, 17). The expression ‫( הדׂשה יצע‬17:24; 31:4, 15) refers to the trees growing on the steppe, with the exception of 34:27, in which the phrase refers to fruit trees. Speaking of the lay of the land, one needs to mention also the expressions used to refer to cropland. The book of Ezekiel makes use of two terms – ‫ ארץ‬and ‫ – ׂשדה‬but their deployment to refer to soil is made clear either by the context or their grammatical attributes. ‫ ארץ‬signifies cropland twice: in 34:27 it yields harvest (‫)יבול‬, while in 36:34 its cultivation is

26.  Cf. the expressions ‫ אפיקי מים‬in Pss 18:16; 42:2; Cant 5:12; Joel 1:20 and ‫ אפיק נחלים‬in Job 6:15. It remains unknown why Luis I. J. Stadelmann overlooks the noun ‫ אפיק‬while discussing the terms used in the Hebrew Bible to denote valleys in The Hebrew Conception of the World, 136–38. 27.  Keeping the Ketib form ‫( סובאים‬qal masc. plur. part. of ‫סבא‬, “to get drunk”), the verse speaks of the nomadic drunkards inhabiting the desert. 28.  The land of Israel which will be ravaged lies between the “desert” in the south and Riblah in the north (following the substitution of ‫ ד‬for ‫ ר‬in the name ‫ דבלה‬in MT – as does the translator of LXX), the city in Hama (cf. 2 Kgs 23:33).

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

13

expressed with the verb ‫עבד‬. The expressions ‫( ׂשדה־זרע‬17:5) and ‫ׂשדה טוב‬ (17:8) are used to speak of the land’s fertility. The crops given by ‫ ׂשדה‬are mentioned in 36:30 (‫)תנובה‬.29 Finally, the deployment of the noun ‫ ארץ‬as part of a collocation needs to be mentioned. In the expressions such as “throw to the ground,” “pour to the ground,” “sit on the ground” or “measure from the ground” the noun ‫ ארץ‬plays the role of an adverbial of place30 and signifies a walkable surface, the surface of the ground. 2.2. Land as an Anthropo-Geographical Entity The semantic analysis of the word “land” also requires the paying of attention to the socio-economic aspect of the relation between a human being and the land. Three nouns present in the book of Ezekiel – ‫ארץ‬, ‫ אדמה‬and ‫ – הרים‬evince an anthropo-geographical aspect. In an anthropo-geographical sense, the term ‫ ארץ‬denotes an area of land inhabited by an ethnically homogenous group (a nation or a people). In this context, the word is translated either as “land” or as “country.” The context of several occurrences of the noun in the book of Ezekiel makes it possible to translate it even as “homeland”: ‫“( ארץ מכרותיך‬the land of your origin”) to refer to Ammon in 21:35 and Egypt in 29:14, and ‫ארץ מולדתם‬ (“the land of their birth”) in 23:15 to refer to Chaldea (Babylonia). An ethnically distinct identity of a people inhabiting a given country is visible also in the expression ‫“( מׁשפחות הארצות‬tribes of the lands”) in 20:32. In a similar vein, the words of Edom that wanted to possess “these two nations and these two countries” (‫)את־ׁשני הגוים ואת־ׁשתי הארצות‬, quoted in 35:10, show that in the eyes of the neighbouring people Palestine is inhabited by two separate peoples who were in the past two separate countries, even though over a century has passed since the demise of the Northern Kingdom.

29.  The context of the oracle suggests that the expression ‫ צמח הׂשדה‬in 16:7 does not refer to cropland but to steppe (cf. 16:5). The image mentioned in the sentence serves as a metaphor for the beauty of Jerusalem presented as a girl; therefore, the expression ‫ צמח הׂשדה‬can be translated as “a wild flower.” 30.  Cf. ‫ לארץ‬as the adverbial of place of the verbs ‫( ׁשלך‬19:12), ‫( ירד‬26:11) and ‫( נפל‬38:20); ‫ אל־הארץ‬as the adverbial of place of ‫ נגע‬in hiphil (13:14); ‫ על־הארץ‬as the adverbial of place of ‫( ׁשפך‬24:7; 36:18), ‫( יׁשב‬26:16), ‫( ׁשלך‬28:17) and ‫נתן לאפר‬ (28:18); ‫ מעל הארץ‬as the adverbial of place of ‫( רום‬10:16); ‫ מן־הארץ‬as the adverbial of place of ‫ רמם‬in niphal (10:19); as a point of reference for measurement: 41:16, 20; 42:6; 43:13.

14

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

The ethnic character of ‫ ארץ‬is emphasized in attributive constructions, in which the term is defined as a country by a nomen rectum of the name of the country or the people inhabiting the country. Such toponomous phrases are used in the book of Ezekiel to refer mostly to Egypt and Babylonia, infrequently to Israel, once to the already extinct country of Canaan and once to refer to the country of Gog’s origin: • • • •

Canaan: ‫ ארץ הכנעני‬in 16:3; Egypt: ‫ ארץ מצרים‬in 19:4; 20:6, 8, 9, 10, 36; 23:19, 27; 29:9, 10, 12, 19; 30:13[×2], 25; 32:15; ‫ ארץ פתרוס‬in 29:14;31 Babylonia (Chaldea): ‫ ארץ כׂשדים‬in 1:3; 12:13; 32‫ארץ כנען כׂשדימה‬ in 16:29;33 Magog: ‫ ארץ המגוג‬in 38:2.34  

A similar expression – ‫ –ארץ יׂשראל‬is used three times to refer to Israel, yet its designata vary. 27:17 mentions “Judah and the land of Israel” as two separate subjects engaged in commercial relations with Tyre; hence, 31.  As the Egyptian phrase P3-t3-rsj (“southern land”) suggests, the verse refers to Pathros – Upper Egypt, as opposed to Lower Egypt (the Nile Delta) and Ethiopia (Cush). Those three names as designations of three parts of Egypt are mentioned in Isa 11:11. Cf. HALAT 2:930. 32.  The terms “Chaldeans” and “Babylonians” are used synonymously in the book of Ezekiel in 12:13; 23:15, 23. 33.  A similar expression ‫ ארץ כנען‬is used in 17:4 to refer to Babylonia. The noun ‫ כנען‬is not a proper name here but is transformed into a common noun meaning a merchant or a trader. This change testifies to a widespread perception of the Canaanites as deceptive merchants, which is noted in Hos 12:8 (cf. N. P. Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites, JSOTSup 110 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991], 135–39). Eventually, the name of the people inhabiting Canaan begins to denote a merchant, which is confirmed by the deployment of term ‫ כנעני‬in Job 40:30; Prov 31:24; Isa 23:8; Zech 14:21 (the texts are analysed in by Lemche on pp. 125–29, 143–49). 34.  Gen 10:2 makes it clear that Magog is the name of the founder of a people (cf. 1 Chr 1:5) whose location remains unknown. Most frequently the country of Magog is linked to the Scythians (a people living since the seventh century BCE to the north of the Black Sea), the Babylonians or the Lydians with their king Gyges (†652 BCE) as Gog (cf. S. Bøe, Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38−39 as Pre-text for Revelation 19:17–21 and 20:7–10, WUNT 135 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001], 95–97). In the syntagma under analysis here the presence of the definite article next to the name Magog (‫)המגוג‬ is striking, yet a similar situation occurs in Josh 9:6; 10:6, 7, 9, where the place name Gilgal is written as ‫הגלגל‬. Such a situation may be an outcome of a wrong division of words in MT, whereby the directional ‫ה‬- was added to the name Magog (cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 284). Gog’s identity will be discussed in §IV.3.3.

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

15

‫ ארץ יׂשראל‬refers to the Northern Kingdom (Israel).35 In 40:2 and 47:18 the same expression refers to the united Israel, whose future restoration the prophet presents in his visions in chs. 40–48. In the majority of cases the noun ‫ ארץ‬appears without an attribute and for this reason it is not always possible to identify the country it denotes. For example, the prophet gives an example of an unidentified ‫ ארץ‬while explaining the logic of God’s justice or his own nomination to be the watchman for the house of Israel (14:13, 15, 16, 17[×2], 19; 33:2, 3). Unidentified foreign countries (‫ )הארצות‬are mentioned as places of Israel’s dispersion and exile and of its future assembly and return from exile. The following list enumerates the occurrences of the term ‫הארצות‬ as the adverbial of place in verbal collocations with: • • • •

 ‫ פוץ‬in hiphil (“disperse”): 11:16;  ‫ זרה‬in piel (“disperse”): 6:8; 12:15; 20:23; 22:15 (in niphal in 36:19);  ‫“( אסף‬gather”): 11:17;  ‫ קבץ‬in piel (“assemble”): 20:34, 41; 34:13; 36:24; 38:8; 39:27.

Similarly, it is among ‫ הארצות‬that Egypt will become dispersed (‫זרה‬ in piel in 29:12; 30:23, 26; ‫ בוא‬in hiphil in 32:9) and Ammon will be destroyed (‫ אבד‬in hiphil in 25:7). When compared with other countries among which Yahweh’s people became dispersed, the land of Israel, “a land flowing with milk and honey,” appears as “the beauty of all lands” (‫ צבי היא לכל־הארצות‬in 20:6, 15). The Israelites, however, wanted to be “like the tribes of the lands (‫ )כמׁשפחות הארצות‬serving wood and stone” (20:32). Punished for their idolatry, Israel becomes “a mockery to all the lands” (‫( )לכל־הארצות‬22:4). As is the case with the phrase ‫ארץ יׂשראל‬, it is necessary to pay attention to the context to understand the designatum of the noun ‫ ארץ‬when it refers to Israel but lacks further specification. During Ezekiel’s prophetic call the addressees of his words are termed “the sons of Israel” (2:3). The name “Israel” harks back to the forefather of the people, Jacob/Israel (cf. 20:5; 28:25; 37:25; 39:25). Even though after Samaria’s fall in 722 BCE the ten northern tribes lost their autonomy as a nation, Ezekiel continues to employ the term Israel to denote all those that belong to Jacob’s 35.  In this case it is not the area of Israel that is emphasized but the people who inhabit it, which is well expressed in LXX: οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ Ισραηλ (cf. T. Willi, “Die alttestamentliche Prägung des Begriffs ‫א ֶרץ יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬,” ֶ in Nachdenken über Israel, Bibel und Theologie: Festschrift für Klaus-Dietrich Schnuck zu seinem 65.Geburtstag, ed. H. M. Niemann, M. Augustin and W. H. Schmidt, BEATAJ 37 [Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang, 1994], 390).

16

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

descendants, including the Judeans. The meaning of ‫ ארץ‬as connected to Jacob’s offspring depends on the identification of the addressees of the oracles employing the term in question. In the majority of cases the word signifies Judah,36 although only the text of 12:19 shows it in a straightforward way. The third person feminine singular suffix added to the noun ‫ )ארצה( ארץ‬refers to Jerusalem, hence the text refers to Judah, which in the same verse is called “the land of Israel” (‫)אדמת יׂשראל‬. The term ‫ארץ‬ should be interpreted as denoting the whole Israel in three cases: •

•

•

in 38:8, 9, 11, 16; 39:12, 14, 15, 16 – the addressees of the oracle in chs. 38–39 – the objects of Gog’s invasion, are the Israelites who have returned from exile and repopulated the land promised to their fathers; in the sentences mentioning Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, one element of which is the Promised Land: ‫ ארץ‬as the object of the promise given to the forefathers (‫)נׂשאתי את־ידי לתת אותה ל‬: 20:28, 42; as the object of gift (‫)הארץ אׁשר נתתי ל‬: 36:28; 37:25; as the object of inheritance (‫)ירׁש‬: 33:24, 25, 26; as “possession” (‫)מורׁשה‬: 11:15; 33:24; 36:5.37 This rule also pertains to the pronominal forms of the noun ‫ ארץ‬in which the suffix refers to Yahweh: ‫ ארצי‬in 36:5; 38:16; ‫ ארצו‬in 36:20; in the vision of Israel’s restoration (Ezek 40–48). Alongside the construction ‫ ארץ יׂשראל‬in 40:2 and 47:18, mentioned above, the term ‫ ארץ‬refers to the whole country of Israel in the oracles speaking of the new division of the land: as ‫ נחלה‬in 45:1[×2]; 47:14; 48:29; as ‫ אחזה‬in 45:8[×2]; as the direct object of the verbs ‫ חלק‬in piel (47:21) and ‫ נחל‬in hitpael (47:13); in the expressions: ‫“( קדׁש מן־הארץ‬the sacred portion of the land”) in 45:4; ‫גבול‬ ‫“( הארץ‬the borders of the country”) in 47:15; ‫“( תרומת הארץ‬the allotment of the land”) in 48:12; ‫“( ראׁשית הארץ‬the choice portion of the land”) in 48:14.

Another anthropo-geographical aspect of the noun ‫ ארץ‬in the book of Ezekiel is signalled by the expression ‫“( ארץ ומלאה‬the land and its fullness”) used in 19:7; 30:12 (cf. 12:19; 32:15). The context of the 36.  Cf. 7:23; 8:12, 17; 9:9; 11:15; 12:12, 20; 15:8; 22:24, 30; 33:24, 28, 29; 34:13, 25, 29; 36:35. 37.  The dispute concerning the entitlement to the land in Ezek 11:14–21 and 33:23–29 is limited to Judah, the country of origin of the exiles to Babylonia. However, those Judeans who have remained in the country understand the promise of the land to refer to the whole Israel.

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

17

phrase’s employment suggests that the land is viewed as a space filled with people and the results of their cultural activities of various kinds (especially agricultural ones and those connected with urbanization). The expression ‫ ארץ פרזות‬has a similar meaning in 38:11, referring to an unguarded country, lacking fortifications such as “walls or bars or gates.” Another term employed in an anthropo-geographical sense in the book of Ezekiel is the noun ‫אדמה‬. Out of its 28 occurrences it is used in collocation with the attribute “Israel” 17 times (‫)אדמת יׂשראל‬, while in nine other cases the possessive pronoun added to the noun refers to Israel.38 Lexicographical analyses of the term posit that the expression does not refer to an area of land understood in geographical or political terms.39 In the book of Ezekiel, however, the term functions as a synonym of the word ‫ ארץ‬employed in a geographico-political sense to denote a “country”: •

• •

 ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬appears in 11:17; 34:13; 36:24 as the ultimate destination of the returnees from the exile among the nations (‫)הארצות‬. In the same context, ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬is juxtaposed in 20:38 with ‫ ארץ מגוריהם‬in exile;  ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬appears in 20:42; 33:24 alongside the noun ‫ארץ‬ signifying the land of Israel as the object of the promise given to the forefathers;  the geographico-political sense of the expression ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬is assumed in 12:19 and 34:27. In those two verses the land of Israel used for growing crops is termed ‫ארץ‬.

Since the expression ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬appears only in the book of Ezekiel as an equivalent of the syntagma ‫ארץ יׂשראל‬, a question concerning the reason for this lexicographical innovation needs to be posed. Scholars claim the following:

38.  The syntagma ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬in 7:2; 11:17; 12:19, 22; 13:9; 18:2; 20:38, 42; 21:7, 8; 25:3, 6; 33:24; 36:6; 37:12; 38:18, 19; the suffixal construction ‫ אדמתכם‬in 36:24 and 37:14 and ‫ אדמתם‬in 28:25; 34:13, 27; 36:17; 37:21; 39:26, 28. In two other occurrences in 38:20 the noun ‫ אדמה‬denotes the surface of the ground walked on. 39.  Cf. L. Rost, “Die Bezeichnungen für das Land und Volk im Alten Testament,” in Festschrift Otto Procksch zum sechzigsten Geburtstag am 9. August 1934 über­reicht, ed. A. Deichert and J. C. Hinrich (Leipzig: Deichert, 1934), 147; H. H. Schmidt, “‫’ ֲא ָד ָמה‬adāmā Erdboden,” THAT 1:60; J. G. Plöger, “‫א ָד ָמה‬,” ֲ ThWAT 1:100; M. A. Grisanti, “‫א ָד ָמה‬,” ֲ NIDOTTE 1:271.

18

•

•

•

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

 the term ‫ אדמה‬refers to the cropland of Israel, which Moshe Greenberg views as “particularly poignant in the mouth of an exile.”40 Ezekiel’s lexicographical choice would then express a nostalgia for the homeland felt by the exiles in Babylonia;  ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬captures the memory of the grandness of the beloved country, bestowed by Yahweh upon the Israelites. Such an interpretation would stress Ezekiel’s allegiance to Deuteronomy (cf., e.g., Deut 4:40; 5:16; 21:1, 23);41  the noun ‫ אדמה‬appears only in chs. 7–39, signalling the fact that it is employed to refer to the land of Israel devoid of Yahweh’s Glory and his people. The situation changes in chs. 40–48, which make use only of the noun ‫ ארץ‬to characterize the restored land of Israel.42

These scholarly suggestions raise some objections. First, the book of Ezekiel employs the terms ‫ ארץ‬and ‫ – ׂשדה‬not ‫ – אדמה‬to refer to cropland. The land as a gift from Yahweh should also be described with the use of the noun ‫ארץ‬. Finally, the claim that the term ‫ אדמה‬denotes the land deserted by Yahweh’s Glory is unfounded in light of the Israelites’ statement quoted in 8:12 and 9:9 – ‫ – עזב יהוה את־הארץ‬which would require a similar interpretation of the noun ‫ארץ‬. To understand Ezekiel’s preference for the expression ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬it is necessary to pay attention to the verbs it collocates with. Essentially, these verbs fall into one of two groups: verbs of movement, which describe Israel’s return from exile,43 and verbs of habitation, which present Israel’s residence in the land of Israel. The second group includes the verb ‫ יׁשב‬used with the adverbial of place ‫ על־אדמתם‬in 28:25; 34:27; 36:17; 39:26. The gerund form of the verb refers to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (‫ )יוׁשבי ירוׁשלם‬in 12:19 and of “those ruins” (‫יׁשבי החרבות‬ ‫ )האלה‬in 33:24 – in both cases a location in ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬is added. The concept of residence is also expressed by the verb ‫ נוח‬in hiphil in 37:14, which foretells the future rest of Israel in its land (‫)על־אדמתכם‬. Only twice – in 36:28 and 37:25 – does the noun ‫ ארץ‬function as the adverbial 40.  M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22 (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 145. 41.  Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 203; Plöger, “‫א ָד ָמה‬,” ֲ 100. 42.  Keller, “La terre dans le Livre d’Ezéchiel,” 489–90. 43.  The land of Israel ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬as the adverbial of place of the verb ‫בוא‬ appears only in the context of the Israelites’ return from exile. When the subject of the verb is Gog, then his destination is ‫ ארץ‬inhabited by the Israelites (cf. 38:8, 11, 16). In 38:18 ‫ על־אדמת יׂשרא‬is used as the object of Gog’s movement, yet the preposition ‫ על‬means “against,” just like in 23:22, 24; 28:7; 39:2 (cf. Joüon, §133f).

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

19

of the verb ‫יׁשב‬. Its deployment in these texts confirms the tendency of its usage in the context of the land as a gift of the covenant.44 It seems, therefore, that the noun ‫ אדמה‬constitutes a less formal alternative to ‫ארץ‬, which is used to speak of the nation’s territory to emphasize its character as a space of safe residence (cf. 34:27) guaranteeing essential means of support (cf. 12:19). For this reason, ‫ אדמה‬is never used in the book of Ezekiel to denote the land of exile, which is always referred to as ‫ארץ‬. In the case of the noun ‫הרים‬, the anthropo-geographical aspect is visible in the expression “the mountains of Israel” (‫)הרי יׂשראל‬, which appears only in the book of Ezekiel.45 The phrase is an outcome of the perception of the land inhabited by the twelve tribes of Israel as a mountainous area (cf. “a land of hills and valleys” in Deut 11:11). This perception was strengthened by the fact that the mountainous regions stretching from the north to the south give way to the depressed area of the Jordan Valley in the east and to the Coastal Plain in the west. The phrase “the mountains of Israel,” however, emphasizes more than the mere geomorphological characteristics of the area; it stresses the features of the land connected with human existence. In 33:28; 37:22 and 38:8 the expression ‫ הרי יׂשראל‬is used synonymously to the word ‫ ארץ‬referring to Israel as a country. It is particularly salient in 37:22, in which “the mountains of Israel” are presented as a political entity: “And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel (‫ ;)בארץ בהרי יׂשראל‬and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms.” A dominant characteristic of Ezekiel’s “mountains of Israel” is their presentation as a space of life. As a result of the punishment that will befall Yahweh’s people, the mountains will become depopulated (33:28). The future restoration of the chosen nation will lead to the repopulation of “the mountains of Israel, which had long lain waste (‫( ”)לחרבה תמיד‬38:8). In a pastoral metaphor of ch. 34, the mountains are 44.  The noun appears also in Ezek 38:12 as the adverbial of place in collocation with the verb ‫יׁשב‬, yet then it means the Earth as a planet (its centre, to be more precise – ‫)טבור הארץ‬. Similarly, in 7:7 the expression ‫ יוׁשב הארץ‬denotes land as such, which is evinced by the distinction between ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬and ‫ הארץ ארבעת כנפות‬in 7:2 45.  In Josh 11:16, 21 the syntagma ‫ הר יׂשראל‬is used, but it refers to one of the territories conquered by Israel, together with ‫הר יהודה‬, mentioned also in 20:7; 21:11 and in 2 Chr 21:11; 27:4. What is more, the Hebrew Bible frequently mentions ‫( הר־אפרים‬Josh 17:15; 19:50; 20:7 etc.) and ‫ הר נפתלי‬once (Josh 20:7). In the book of Joshua, therefore, the three mountainous regions of the land of Israel are the mountains of Judah, Ephraim and Naphtali (20:7) or – if the last two were to be combined – the mountains of Judah and Israel (Josh 11:21).

20

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

presented as a good, opulent pasture (‫ נוה טוב ומרעה ׁשמן‬in v. 14) for the house of Israel. With the return of the people, crops will again grow on the mountains (36:9). 2.3. Land as a Metaphor The analysis of the elements constituting the semantic field of the land conducted above focused on the literal meaning of the terms, both geomorphological and anthropo-geographical ones. However, in the book of Ezekiel the meaning of these terms sometimes changes, whereby they are either attributed the features of the objects compared to them (land as a metaphorized element) or their features are transferred onto the objects linked to them semantically (land as a metaphorizing element). The semantics of land in metaphorical constructions will be discussed following the order of three basic semantic models of a metaphor.46 2.3.1. The Metaphoric Substitution of the Land. In the substitution structure of a metaphor there occurs a transfer between the metaphorized and metaphorizing elements. Such a situation may be noticed in Ezek 36:8: “Oh, mountains of Israel, you will shoot out your branches, and yield your fruit to my people, Israel.” The attribution of the features of a tree to the mountains in this metaphor is especially striking in light of the literal understanding of mountains in Palestine as cropland in the following verse: “you will be tilled and sown” (36:9). Another example of substitution may be noticed in 38:12. Gog and his army attack a people “who live in the centre of the earth.” Such a translation of the expression ‫ טבור הארץ‬is still debated by exegetes, yet whether the noun ‫ טבור‬is translated as “the centre” or as “the navel of the earth”47 the expression constitutes a substitute of “the mountains of 46.  This system takes into account the formal structure of a metaphor, not the conceptions explaining its functioning (cf. A. Okopień-Sławińska, “Metafora,” in Słownik terminów literackich, ed. J. Sławiński, 4th ed. [Wrocław: Ossolineum, 2002], 300–303). 47.  The version “the navel of the world” follows the translation in LXX: τὸν ὀμφαλὸν τῆς γῆς (likewise Vulg.: umbilici terrae), which is based on the conceptions of the world in ancient Greece (cf. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, 150; S. Talmon, “ ‘Navel of the Earth’ and the Comparative Method,” in Scripture in History & Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam, ed. A. L. Merrill and T. W. Overholt [Pittsburgh, PA: The Pickwick Press, 1977], 247) and Mesopotamia (the temple complex in Nippur is called Dur-an-ki, “heaven–earth bond,” which Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972], 14–15, interprets as the place

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

21

Israel,” and not of Jerusalem. Granted, the text of 5:5 describes Jerusalem as a city placed by Yahweh “in the centre of the nations, with lands around her” (‫)בתוך הגוים ׂשמתיה וסביבותיה ארצות‬, yet Gog invades not Jerusalem, but “the mountains of Israel,” as 38:8 makes clear.48 2.3.2. Land as an Element of a Simile. A simile assumes a similarity between the land and the element compared to it, as is the case in 36:35: “This desolate land has become like the garden of Eden” (‫הארץ הלזו‬ ‫)הנׁשמה היתה כגן־עדן‬. A similarity between the metaphorized element (land) and the metaphorizing element (the garden of Eden) is signalled formally by the conjunction ‫כ‬. Eden is called in Ezek 28:13; 31:9 “the garden of God” (‫)גן האלהים‬, mentioned two more times in 31:8. At the same time, however, 31:16, 18 speaks of “the trees of Eden” thrown to Sheol. To interpret the metaphor in 36:35, the designatum of the term Eden needs to be clarified. The metaphor “the wilderness of the peoples” in 20:35–36 is also based on a similarity: “I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples (‫מדבר‬ ‫)העמים‬, and there I will enter into judgment with you face to face, as (‫ )כאׁשר‬I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt (‫)מדבר ארץ מצרים‬, so (‫ )כן‬I will enter into judgment with you.” The localization of “the wilderness of the peoples” in the context of the Babylonian exile as the desert between Babylonia and Palestine does not correspond to the metaphorical character of the expression, which typologically compares the desert of the first exodus (“the wilderness of the land of Egypt”) to the desert of the new exodus (“the wilderness of the peoples”).

where Enlil cut the umbilical cord linking the earth to the heaven). The motif of the “navel of the world” is addressed also in intertestamental (cf. Jub. 8:19; 1 Hen. 26:1) and rabbinical literature (cf. Midrash Tanḥuma Qedoshim 10, b. Sanh 37a). 48.  Daniel I. Block interprets ‫ טבור הארץ‬in Ezek 38:12 in the context of Judg 9:37 (where the expression is used to refer to the location of Mount Gerizim from the perspective of Shechem) and translates it as “the top of the world.” This phrase would correspond to “the mountains of Israel,” which in Gog’s opinion are a country lacking fortifications (38:11), yet still, due to the lay of the land, offer a safe place for the Israelites to live in (The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25−48, 448). Talmon interprets the same expression in Judg 9:37 as a mesa. That it should be treated in the same way in Ezek 38:12 is corroborated by the expression ‫ ארץ פרזות‬in Ezek 38:11, which Talmon translates by analogy to Zech 2:8 and Esth 9:19 as “the country of unfortified cities, open spaces” (“ ‘Navel of the Earth’ and the Comparative Method,” 261–62).

22

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

2.3.3. Land in Metaphoric Interaction. A metaphor may also be constructed through mutual influence of two areas, one of which is transformed by associations connected with the other. In the case of the book of Ezekiel such metaphoric constructions are built via the attribution to the land of features typical of a human being: a) The land as an agent of moral action. The personification of land occurs in several texts of the Hebrew Bible,49 yet it is only in the book of Ezekiel that the land functions as an agent whose actions receive God’s judgment and punishment. The oracle about the logic of God’s justice in Ezek 14:12–23 begins with an example of a country which has sinned against Yahweh by being unfaithful: ‫( ארץ כי תחטא־לי למעל־מעל‬14:13). The sins committed by the land are also mentioned in 22:24: “You are a land (‫ )ארץ‬that is not cleansed, not rained upon (50‫ )היא לא גׁשמה‬in the day of anger.” The land undergoes God’s judgment, the vehicle of which is the rain. Instead of watering and fertilizing it, the rain will bring about the land’s destruction, in the wake of which it will become cleansed of its sins. b) The land as the addressee of the oracles. The terms belonging to the land’s semantic field occur repeatedly in typical prophetic formulas in the book of Ezekiel: • •

messenger formula (“Thus says Yahweh to…”) 7:2 – ‫כה־אמר אדני יהוה לאדמת יׂשראל‬ 6:3; 36:4 – ‫ולגאיות כה־אמר אדני יהוה להרים ולגבעות לאפיקים‬ commission formula: “prophesy to…” “the land of Israel” 21:7 – ‫הנבא אל־אדמת יׂשראל‬ 36:6 – ‫הנבא על־אדמת יׂשראל‬ “the mountains of Israel”51 36:1 – ‫הנבא אל־הרי יׂשראל‬

49.  The personification of the land in the Hebrew Bible is an outcome of the land’s participation in the relation between God and people as his creations. The land reacts in a human way both to God’s actions in the world and to people’s attitudes to God: it shivers (cf. Ps 18:8; Isa 13:13), it rejoices (cf. Pss 96:11–13; 98:7–9), it cries (Job 31:38), etc. (cf. C. J. H. Wright, “‫א ֶרץ‬,” ֶ NIDOTTE 1:520). 50.  The term ‫ גׁשמה‬in MT seems to be the combination of the verb ‫ גׁשם‬in pual perfect (‫ )גוׁשׁשמה‬with the noun ‫ גׁשם‬with third person fem. sing. suffix. 51.  “The mountains of Israel” are referred to with the use of the third person masc. plur. pronoun in this formula in 6:2. Similarly, a reference to “Mount Seir” through the preposition third person masc. sing. occurs in 35:2.

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

•

•

•

23

commission formula: “say to…”52 “the land of Israel” 21:8 – ‫אמרת לאדמת יׂשראל‬ 36:6 – ‫אמרת להרים ולגבעות לאפיקים ולגאיות‬ orientation formula: “set your face toward…” in combination with the commission formula “prophesy to…” “the mountains of Israel” 6:2 – ‫ׂשים פניך אל־הרי יׂשראל והנבא אליהם‬ “the forest land of the south”53 21:2 – ‫ׂשים פניך דרך תימנה והטף אל־דרום והנבא אל־יער הׂשדה נגב‬ “Mount Seir” 35:2 – ‫ׂשים פניך על־הר ׂשעיר והנבא עליו‬ attention formula: “listen…” “the mountains of Israel” 6:3; 36:1, 4 – ‫הרי יׂשראל ׁשמעו דבר־אדני‬.

The land of Israel as the addressee of the oracles is described in the above-mentioned formulas only with the use of the terms ‫אדמת יׂשראל‬ and ‫הרי יׂשראל‬. The syntagmas’ anthropo-geographical aspect emphasizes the fact that ‫ אדמה‬and ‫ הרים‬refer to a space offering the people of Israel a safe and opulent existence. “The land of Israel” and “the mountains of Israel” function as the addressees of the prophetic word, which signals not their personification but rather their subjectification. Since God addresses 52.  “The mountains of Israel” are the assumed object of this formula in 6:3; 36:1. The four addressees of the formula in 36:6 together constitute “the land of Israel,” as is made clear by the formula immediately preceding it: “prophesy to the land of Israel.” Cf. “Mount Seir” (referred to with the use of the third person masc. sing. pronoun) as the object of this formula in Ezek 35:3. 53.  The expression ‫ יער הׂשדה נגב‬is in itself a metaphor. The word ‫ נגב‬needs to be interpreted not as the proper name of the Negev Desert, but as an indication of the southern direction, just like the two preceding nouns ‫ תימן‬and ‫דרום‬. Such a meaning of ‫ נגב‬is confirmed in the following verse – 21:3 – in which ‫ נגב‬appears as the attribute of ‫יער‬, but simultaneously forms a collocation with ‫צפון‬, signifying two opposite geographical directions: the south and the north, similar to v. 9. Jerusalem is the subject of the oracle, as stated directly in 21:7; it is Jerusalem, then, that is compared to the forest that will be burned down in a fire. This metaphor seems to depend on the text of Jer 21:14, where Jerusalem’s dense building development is compared to a forest that will burn down. The forest is described as a southern one – for it lies to the south of the enemy who will invade Jerusalem from the north. The historical context makes it clear that this enemy is Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylonia (cf. Jer 1:14–16; 4:5–7; 6:1–5, 22–23; 10:22), to the south of which lie Jerusalem and Judah. Ezekiel’s motif of “the enemy from the north” will be further discussed in §IV.3.1.2.

24

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

his word to them, he views them as listening agents, capable of pondering the word and their own actions, which results in self-transformation as a response to the word. The land is not a mere object in history, but rather a protagonist of the history of salvation. To sum up the analysis of the land’s semantic field in the book of Ezekiel, the wealth of terms used for expressing various geomorphological and anthropo-geographical aspects of the land needs to be emphasized. Ezekiel’s perception of the land is a reflection of the geographical conditions in which he lives: he describes the structure of the land primarily through the prism of Palestine’s topography. Describing the land of Israel, Ezekiel respects the polysemantic character of the nouns ‫ ארץ‬and ‫אדמה‬, but introduces some lexicographical innovations as well. The basic word to denote a country – meaning the territory inhabited by a given nation – is the noun ‫ארץ‬. With reference to Israel, the noun is favoured in the context of the land as an element of the covenant – whether as the object of the promise given to the fore­fathers or when speaking of the future division of the country. When Israel is presented vis-à-vis other countries described as ‫ארץ‬, then it is called ‫אדמת יׂשראל‬. The expression acquires in the book of Ezekiel a new semantic value which transcends its geomorphological sense. There is practically no allusion to ‫ אדמה‬as soil in the uses of ‫ ;אדמת יׂשראל‬instead, the notion of the land offering safe and affluent existence is noticeable, whereby the land becomes a synonym of home. Another expression capturing the anthropo-geographical aspect of the land of Israel is ‫הרי‬ ‫יׂשראל‬, which is also semantically modified to some extent. Thinking of Israel’s mountainous terrain, Ezekiel describes the whole country as “the mountains of Israel.” At the same time, a certain anthropo-geographical motivation can be noticed in the choice of the expression, for it is on “the mountains of Israel” that the restored people of Yahweh will live. A characteristic feature of the semantics of the land in the book of Ezekiel is the treatment of the land as a subject, visible most clearly in typical prophetic formulas, in which ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬and ‫ הרי יׂשראל‬function as the addressees of Ezekiel’s oracles. In this way, the land becomes a protagonist in the history of salvation. 3. The Structural Position of the Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel In comparison with other prophetic texts, the book of Ezekiel seems a coherent body of text that has a well-thought-out, progressively developing structure. Although biblical scholars agree on the redactional

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

25

character of the book, there is no unanimity among them as far as the process of the book’s creation is concerned. The plethora of scholarly suggestions shows that the book of Ezekiel does not easily yield to simple categorizations that would help distinguish between primary and secondary material.54 This is a testimony to the homogeneity of Ezekiel’s tradition, in which later redactional elements are stylistically and theologically close to the texts of the prophet himself.55 The synchronic attitude to text that this book privileges requires a question to be posed of the place that the motif of the land of Israel occupies within the structure of the book of Ezekiel. 3.1. The Synchronic Perspective on the Structure of the Book of Ezekiel The majority of contemporary exegetes subscribe to the tripartite structure of the book: (1) chs. 1‒24 – judgment of the people of Yahweh, (2) chs. 25‒32 – judgment of the nations, (3) chs. 33‒48 – salvation for the people of Yahweh. Such a division would correspond to the “tripartite eschatological scheme”56 of several prophetic books (cf. Isa 1–39: 1–12//13–23//24–35; the Greek text of Jer: 1:1–25:14//25:15–38; 46–51//26–36; Zeph: 1:1–2:3//2:4–3:8//3:9–20). The judgment of Israel’s sins is now a thing of the past (Ezek 1–24), while alongside the judgment of the nations (Ezek 25–32) a future salvation is being prepared (Ezek 33–48). In this eschatological pattern, the present seems to be the time of transition between 54.  A detailed account of the history of the redaction criticism of the book of Ezekiel until the beginning of the twenty-first century may be found in K.-F. Pohlmann, Ezekiel: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 29–73 55.  Cf. M. Greenberg, “What Are Valid Criteria for Determining Inauthentic Matter in Ezekiel?,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation, ed. J. Lust, BETL 74 (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 133–35; P. M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary, LHBOTS 482 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2007), 12–13. 56.  Such a structure of the book is supported by, among others: G. Fohrer and K. Galling, Ezechiel, HAT 13, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1955), xii; H. F. Fuhs, Ezechiel 1–24, NEchB (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984), 7; K.-F. Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel/Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–19, ATD 22/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 19; F. Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel: Kapitel 1‒24, NSKAT 21/1 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002), 48.

26

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

punishment and salvation, the time of waiting for the eschatological fulfilment. The coherence of the book of Ezekiel presupposed by the tripartite eschatological scheme is nevertheless of a relative character. Among the oracles of punishment in Ezek 1‒24 one can find prophecies that voice a positive message for Israel (cf. 11:14–21; 16:53–63; 17:22–24; 18:30–32; 20:33–44), while in Ezek 25‒48 negative messages are also present (cf. 34:1–6, 17–27; 35:1–9; 36:31–32; 38‒39). By a similar token, the group of oracles against the nations is by no means exhaustive: 21:33–37 may be treated as a disguised oracle against Babylonia (MT in 21:33: Ammon), a straightforward prophecy of punishment for Edom appears as late as Ezek 35, and, finally, the oracle against Gog (Ezek 38–39) resembles the prophecies against foreign nations. The position of chs. 40‒48 is also debatable: some exegetes treat them as a separate section of the book of Ezekiel that foretells the future restoration of worship and the temple.57 The division of the whole book into three or four sections on the basis of alternating oracles of punishment and salvation is somewhat reductive. Umberto Cassuto confirms the above by arguing that the organization of pericopes inside the three parts of the book of Ezekiel (chs. 1–24; 25–32; 33–48) is based on the associations of ideas and words.58 Cassuto delimits individual units (sequences) inside the book, yet he does not try to relate them to one another in order to capture the composition of the whole book. This is accomplished later by Henry van Dyke Parunak and William H. Shea, who see chs. 1–11 and 40–48 as balancing each other.59 On the basis of their arguments, Richard M. Davidson proposes the following concentric structure of the book of Ezekiel:60 57.  Cf. J. W. Wevers, Ezekiel, NCBC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969), 1–11; R. E. Clements, “The Ezekiel Tradition: Prophecy in a Time of Crisis,” in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd, ed. R. Coggins, A. Phillips and M. A. Knibb (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 152; Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel/Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–19, 18–22. 58.  Cf. U. Cassuto, “The Arrangement of the Book of Ezekiel,” in Biblical and Oriental Studies. Vol. 1, Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1974), 228. 59.  Cf. H. Van Dyke Parunak, “The Literary Architecture of Ezekiel’s mar’ôt ’ĕlōhîm,” JBL 99 (1980): 61–74; W. H. Shea, “The Investigative Judgment of Judah: Ezekiel 1‒10,” in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, ed. A. V. Wallenkampf and W. R. Lesher (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1981), 283–91. 60.  R. M. Davidson, “The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel,” in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. D. Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, 1997), 71–93 (the structure cited here is presented on p. 75).

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

27

A 1‒11 Yahweh comes to his temple: he comes to the defiled temple for investigative judgment and then departs B 12‒23 Oracles of judgment C 24 Jerusalem besieged D 25:1‒28:10 Oracles against foreign nations E 28:11–19 Judgment of the fallen cherub D′ 28:20‒32 Oracles against foreign nations C′ 33 Jerusalem falls B′ 34‒39 Oracles of restoration A′ 40‒48 Yahweh comes to his temple: he comes to the restored temple on the Day of Atonement and does not depart

Davidson attempts to prove the existence of chiastic and parallel structures inside the book of Ezekiel. The sections he views as parallel ones, however, do not always respect literary units present in the text and identified on the basis of formal criteria.61 As far as the motif of the land is concerned, the structure proposed by Davidson does not take into account the relation between prophecies about the mountains of Israel in 6:1–14 and 36:1–15.62 Finally, his interpretation of the sequence of the visions of Yahweh’s Glory is problematic: the account of the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple, related in 43:1–9, corresponds to the vision in chs. 8‒11; for this reason, it is impossible to treat the visions in chs. 1 and 43 as parallel ones, as Davidson does.63 Symmetrical structures also inform the view of John F. Kutsko, who focuses on the presence of the motif of Yahweh’s Glory in the book of Ezekiel, thereby treating God’s presence and absence in the Jerusalem temple as matters of Ezekiel’s major interest. Thanks to a simplified scheme of the book’s structure, Kutsko respects certain tensions visible in its composition:64 A 1‒11 From divine presence to divine absence B 12‒24 Preparation for destruction C 25‒32 Oracles against the nations B′ 33‒39 Preparation for restoration A′ 40‒48 From divine absence to divine presence 61.  E.g. the author shifts individual verses inside chs. 37 and 38–39, thereby creating units that do not exist in the book (Davidson, “The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel,” 82). 62.  Cf. Davidson, “The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel,” 83. 63.  Cf. Davidson, “The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel,” 80. 64.  Cf. J. F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel, BJS 7 (Winona Lake, MI: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 78–79.

28

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

The concentric structure of the book of Ezekiel assumes that the oracles placed in the centre of the book contain a key rhetorical message for Ezekiel’s theology. It will be difficult, however, to treat the oracles against the nations as such. Another reservation stems from the presentation of chs. 1–11 as one sequence parallel to chs. 40–48. If one were to identify a framework for the vision of Yahweh’s Glory in Ezek 1, it would be located in the narrative introduction of 3:22–24 that opens the final pericope in the group of texts about Ezekiel’s prophetic call.65 For this reason, the vision of Yahweh’s Glory abandoning the Jerusalem temple in chs. 8–11 opens a new part of the book of Ezekiel, as does the vision of the return of Yahweh’s Glory to Jerusalem in chs. 40–48. The above critique of the symmetrical structures in the book of Ezekiel does not negate the validity of paying attention to the recurrent words, motifs and themes in the study of the book’s composition. It is vital, however, to respect their mutual positioning vis-à-vis one another, rather than allocate them to some pre-conceived concentric structures. To do so, it is necessary to resort to another rhetorical phenomenon – namely, the resumptive exposition – which makes it possible to capture the structure of the book in the context of the dynamics of Ezekiel’s prophecies. 3.2. The Motif of the Land as an Element of Resumptive Exposition in the Book of Ezekiel The book of Ezekiel is characterized not only by a thematic (anthological) grouping of individual pericopes but also by resumptive exposition. This phenomenon is a type of inner-biblical exegesis: some motifs that have been introduced earlier are returned to and developed in the new contexts of the same book.66 In the book of Ezekiel such a mechanism of interpretation occurs with regard to the description of Yahweh’s Glory (cf. 1:1–28 and 10:1–22), in Ezekiel’s call to serve as a watchman for the house of Israel (cf. 3:16–21 and 33:1–20), in the metaphorical presentation of Jerusalem as a pot (cf. 11:1–12 and 24:1–14) or in the conjugal metaphor in chs. 16 and 23. Another type of resumptive exposition works by mentioning a given subject briefly only to drop it and return to it later in the book to fully expose it. An example of such a mechanism may be short declarations of hope added to the oracles of punishment in 6:8–10; 11:17–20; 16:59–63 and 20:40–44, which are fully developed in later salvation oracles in 34:1–31 and 36:16–38. 65.  Cf. W. Pikor, La comunicazione profetica alla luce di Ez 2–3, TGST 88 (Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2002), 31–32. 66.  Cf. M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 10–12; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 24.

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

29

A mere enumeration of the occurrences of resumptive exposition in the book of Ezekiel does not suffice to capture the lucid composition of the book.67 It allows, however, the identification of a certain axis that accounts for the dynamics of Ezekiel’s prophecies. One can notice that three motifs connected with his prophetic call in chs. 1–3, which describe his activity after Jerusalem’s fall, recur in ch. 33:68 •

•

•

the formula of the prophet’s recognition by the house of Israel (‫ )ידעו כי נביא היה בתוכם‬appears in 2:5 and 33:33. In the latter case Ezekiel is recognized as a prophet not only because of his prophesying but because of the fulfilment of his word foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem; divine designation of Ezekiel as a watchman for the house of Israel in 3:17 and 33:7 (‫)בן־אדם צפה נתתיך לבית יׂשראל‬. The repetition of the nomination in 33:7 emphasizes the urban background of the watchman and alludes to the situation of the exiles in Babylonia, who have already learnt about Jerusalem’s fall; the prediction of Ezekiel’s dumbness in 3:26 (the verb ‫ אלם‬in niphal) comes true during Jerusalem’s siege (24:27). The prophet ends his period of silence at the moment of the arrival of a refugee who notifies the exiles in Babylonia of the city’s fall (33:22).

The repetition in ch. 33 of those three motifs connected with Ezekiel serves to recreate at this point in the book the initial situation as described in chs. 1–3. It happens at a specific moment in time, when “the city has been taken” (33:21). Jerusalem’s destruction is a turning point both in Ezekiel’s prophecies and, more importantly, in Yahweh’s relation with his people. As a result, the fall of Jerusalem is the axis of division between the oracles “before and after the conquest of the city.”69 Nevertheless, such a division is not a mere return to a two-part structure of the book (chs. 1–32 and 33–48), which is shown by the employment of resumptive exposition in the texts dealing with the motif of the land of Israel. First, the mechanism of resumptive exposition as applied to the motif of the land does not necessarily entail an antithetical correlation of two prophecies that are temporally divided by the fall of Jerusalem. As an example, one may give the oracle against the land of Israel in 7:1–27, 67.  Cf. the examples of this type of resumptive exposition in the book of Ezekiel enumerated in Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 24–25. 68.  Cf. Pikor, La comunicazione profetica alla luce di Ez 2–3, 21–22. 69.  R. Rendtorff, “Ez 20 und 36:16ff im Rahmen der Komposition des Buches Ezechiel,” in Lust, ed., Ezekiel and His Book, 261.

30

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

which is paralleled by the oracle in 21:1–22: the two oracles are connected not only by the formal presence of the expression ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬in typical prophetic formulas (cf. 7:2; 21:7, 8), but primarily by their development of the motif of the punishment by sword mentioned first in 7:15 and developed in 21:7–10, 14–22. In the group of oracles situated after the fall of Jerusalem, resumptive exposition may be seen, for example, in the predictions of the restoration of the land of Israel in the context of the covenant of peace in 34:25–31 and 37:26–28, or in the reapportionment of the land of Israel in 45:1–8 and 47:13–48:35. Secondly, the prophecies addressing analogous questions concerning the land of Israel and divided by the caesura of the year 586 BCE are not always organized antithetically as the oracle of judgment and the oracle of salvation. One can see it most clearly in the disputes concerning the entitlement to the land of Israel: the one in 11:14–21 foretells the restoration of the land while the one in 33:23–29 heralds the land’s punishment. Thirdly, the restoration of the land of Israel is not the exclusive domain of the oracles from ch. 33 onwards. Among the salvation oracles placed earlier in the book one notices the prophecies of the land’s restoration that make use of the method of resumptive exposition, for example, the texts announcing the restoration of Zion – “the high mountain of Israel” – in 17:22–23 and 20:40–44. Finally, when it comes to the sheer number of prophecies, the oracles addressing the motif of the land of Israel dominate in the group of texts from ch. 33 onwards. They develop various motifs signalled in the prophecies uttered before the fall of Jerusalem to show the future restoration of the land of Israel: • •

•

•

the oracle against the mountains of Israel in 6:1–14 is correlated with the salvation oracle for the mountains of Israel in 36:1–14; the oracle against the land of Israel in 7:1–27, which foretells the land’s end on the day of Yahweh, is resumed in the Gog oracle in chs. 38–39, which envisions a positive outcome of the day of Yahweh for the land; the history of Israel informed by the motif of exodus in ch. 20 is continued in the oracle in 36:16–38, which emphasizes the motif of the holiness of Yahweh’s name as the reason for God’s involvement in Israel’s history and presents the restoration of the land of Israel in the context of the new covenant; in the final vision of chs. 40–48 the restoration of the land of Israel is strictly connected with the return of Yahweh’s Glory to Jerusalem, which is a reversal of the vision in chs. 8–11 (cf. 10:1–22 and 11:22–23 to 43:1–9). The connection is depicted

I. The Context of the Motif of the Land in the Book of Ezekiel

31

in a yet clearer way in the vision of the water flowing from the Jerusalem temple and restoring the land of Israel to paradisiacal conditions (47:1–12). Such a restored land of Israel is repopulated by the twelve tribes of Israel, whereby the new exodus from the land of exile to the Promised Land is completed (47:13–48:35). As the object of resumptive exposition, the land of Israel is one of the elements giving the book of Ezekiel its formal structure, especially in the context of the book’s historical narration. The juxtaposition of the initial vision of Yahweh’s Glory in the land of the Babylonian exile (chs. 1–3) and the final vision of the Glory returning to the restored land of Israel (chs. 40–48) shows Ezekiel’s prophecy to be an announcement of the new exodus with its finale in the form of the repossession of the Promised Land. The turning point of Jerusalem’s fall in 586 BCE is anticipated in the first three oracles Ezekiel gives after his prophetic call. Starting with Jerusalem (chs. 4–5), through the mountains of Israel (ch. 6), they show how the situation of the land of Israel determines the future fate of the whole Earth (ch. 7). The vision of the departure of Yahweh’s Glory from the Jerusalem temple (chs. 8–11) not only confirms the future destruction of the city (cf. 9:4–7; 10:2), but also resumes the question of the reason for the Israelites’ captivity and, by inference, of their relation to the Promised Land (cf. 11:14–21). As for the presence of chronological information in the book’s structure, the date introducing the vision in chs. 8–11 is followed by another date at the beginning of ch. 20, which brings a theological reflection on Israel’s history as connected with the Promised Land. The prophecy links together the past, present and future of the chosen nation in the context of entering the land, which becomes necessary in the wake of Israel’s definitive dispersal among the nations. The beginning of the process is marked by the fall of Jerusalem, confirmed again in the prophecy against the land of Israel in ch. 21. The plight of the besieged Jerusalem is extended in time, which is signalled in the structure of the book by the dates accompanying ch. 24, containing the prophecies voiced at the beginning of the siege in January 587 BCE (cf. 24:1), and ch. 33, relating the story of the arrival of the refugee from Jerusalem in January 585 BCE to inform the exiles in Babylonia about the fall of the city. The oracles against foreign nations, the majority of which originated in the same period,70 confirm the vision of the day of Yahweh included in ch. 7. The day will bring about the destruction not only of the land of Israel, but also of “the four corners of the land” (7:2). 70.  The exceptions are the prophecies against Tyre in 29:17 (April 571 BCE) and Egypt in 32:1 (March 585 BCE).

32

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

At the same time, these oracles revolve around the announcement of the revival of the land of Israel (28:24–26), which will again be inhabited by Yahweh’s people returning from exile. Such a view becomes dominant in the prophecies included in chs. 34–48, which are dated to the period after the fall of Jerusalem. The oracles of chs. 34–37 resume the history of the land of Israel depicted in ch. 20, portraying its restoration in the context of the new exodus.71 The oracle against Gog in chs. 38–39 shows the final cleansing of the land of Israel on the day of Yahweh. In this way, the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the land of Israel will become possible and the land will be repopulated by the twelve tribes of Israel (chs. 40–48). To sum up the analysis of the structure of the book of Ezekiel, several conclusions vital for the subsequent study of the motif of the land of Israel need to be pinpointed. The following study will privilege the synchronic approach to the book of Ezekiel, which assumes the book’s literary coherence to be strictly connected with the person of the prophet, the redactional character of the book notwithstanding. Diachronic questions will be discussed only in cases of clear traces of later redactional interventions visible in the text. The structural elements of the book of Ezekiel include the tripartite eschatological scheme, chronological data as well as parallel and concentric structures. The last element points to the mechanism of resumptive exposition, which serves not only to correlate the prophecies scattered throughout the book but also to indicate the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE as the axis of the events depicted in the book, borne out by the formal and thematic links between chs. 1–3 and 33. The motif of the land, interpreted in such a context, contributes to the narrative continuity of Ezekiel’s history of the chosen people, which step by step discloses the new conception of the land of Israel. To reconstruct it, the subsequent analysis will start with the prophecies showing the present situation of the land of Israel, which – as Ezek 6–7 evinces – emphasize the subjecthood of the land in Yahweh’s relation with Israel. Subsequently, the oracles showing the past of the land of Israel will be discussed, especially Ezek 20, which will allow for the understanding of the land’s status in the context of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. The following chapter will focus on the prophecies of Ezek 34–39, which speak of the Promised Land in the context of Israel’s return to it. The final destination of Israel’s history is the new land, which will be characterized in the last chapter of this book on the basis of the vision in Ezek 40–48. 71.  Cf. L. Boadt, “The Function of the Salvation Oracles in Ezekiel 33 to 37,” HAR 12 (1990): 1–21 (12, 16).

Chapter II T he P he n om en ol og y of t h e L and of I sr ae l

The second chapter will be devoted to the analysis of the oracles addressed to the land and mountains of Israel. On their basis the characterization of the Promised Land in the book of Ezekiel will be attempted. Three aspects of the motif of the land will be examined: (1) the subjecthood of the land reflected in its relationship with Yahweh, Israel and the nations; (2) the connection of the land with human sin; and (3) the land’s destruction on the day of Yahweh. This section of the book will help verify the extent and aim of the anthropomorphization of the land of Israel present in Ezekiel’s prophecies. 1. The Subjecthood of the Land of Israel The semantic analysis of the terms belonging within the semantic field of land in the book of Ezekiel proves not only their polysemantic character but also their metaphorical deployment, which is especially clear in the oracles addressed to the land. What is the function of this rhetorical strategy employed by Ezekiel? An answer to this question will shed some light on three aspects of the land of Israel, namely its subjecthood, its relational character and the role it plays in and for the world. 1.1. The Land as the Addressee of the Oracles The oracles addressed to the land are directed either to the land of Israel or to the mountains of Israel (including Mount Seir in Ezek 35). Kalinda Rose Stevenson understands the relationship between the land and the mountains in terms of a synecdoche.1 Synecdoche is a type of metonymy in which a word with a narrow range of meanings (here, the mountains of Israel) replaces one with a broader meaning (here, the land of Israel) according to the Latin rule of pars pro toto. However, in the book of 1.  Cf. K. R. Stevenson, “If Earth Could Speak: The Case of the Mountains against YHWH in Ezekiel 6; 35–36,” in Habel, ed., The Earth Story, 158–71 (160). This argument is advanced in D. Casson, “The Mountain Shall Be Most Holy: Metaphoric Mountains in Ezekiel’s Rhetoric” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 2004), 78.

34

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Ezekiel these two designations – the land and the mountains – are rather used as synonyms. This is borne out first and foremost by the geomorphological description comprising four elements – “mountains, hills, valleys, ravines” – which refers both to the mountains (cf. Ezek 6:3; 36:4) and to the land of Israel (cf. Ezek 36:6). The equation of the mountains with the land of Israel is also confirmed by the use of the terms ‫ ארץ‬and ‫ הרים‬as synonyms in Ezek 33:28 and 37:22. These two terms have a different geomorphological and anthropo-geographical meaning but in the prophetic communication they denote the same addressee. It seems that the use of these two different labels to refer to the same addressee serves rhetorical purposes, a hypothesis that will be explored in this chapter. The land of Israel as the addressee of the oracles is evoked through an appropriate preposition, whereby the land becomes the indirect object of various formulas introducing Ezekiel’s oracles, as shown below: ‫אדמת יׂשראל‬ messenger formula – ‫כה־אמר אדני‬ ‫יהוה ל‬ commission formula – 2‫אמרת ל‬ commission formula – ‫הנבא אל‬ commission formula – ‫הנבא על‬ orientation formula – 7‫ׂשים פניך אל‬

‫הרי יׂשראל‬

7:2 21:83 21:75 36:6

6:3; 36:14 6:2;6 36:1

+ ‫ גבעות‬+ ‫הרים‬ ‫ גאיות‬+ ‫אפיקים‬ 6:3; 36:4 36:6

6:28

2.  In 22:24 the object of the same commission formula, which has the form of an order, is the land of Israel: ‫אמר־לה‬. The suffix added to the preposition ‫ ל‬signifies the land of Israel (here referred to as ‫)ארץ‬, which the prophet addresses directly in a subsequent fragment of his speech. 3.  The same commission formula is used in Ezek 21:3; here, however, its object is “the southern forest,” which in 21:1–12 functions as a synonym for “the land of Israel.”. 4.  Even though in both cases the formula is restricted to the verb, the context of the command makes it clear that the mountains of Israel are its object. 5.  The object of the same commission formula in Ezek 21:2 is “the forest land of the south,” which is synonymous with “the land of Israel,” as confirmed by the parallels visible in 21:2–3a and 7–8b. 6.  Here, “the mountains of Israel” are expressed through the third person masc. plur. suffix, which is the object of the preposition ‫אל‬. 7.  This command is also used in Ezek 21:3 with the complement “toward the south,” which is paralleled in 21:7 by the complement “toward Jerusalem.” Both expressions denote the land of Israel. 8.  The object of the same orientation formula in 35:2 is “Mount Seir,” which is, however, introduced with the preposition ‫על‬.

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

35

It is also worth mentioning the call to attention formula – ‫– ׁשמעו דבר־יהוה‬ which is addressed in 6:3 and 36:1, 4 to the “mountains of Israel.” Thus, the land of Israel as the addressee of the oracles appears in the following prophecies: 6:1–14; 7:1–27; 21:1–12; 22:23–31 and 36:1–15. The oracle in 35:1–15 is, in turn, addressed to Mount Seir. What is striking about these formulas is the fact that, as inanimate matter, the land and the mountains cannot be subjects of verbal communication. In this way, the land of Israel joins the ranks of other inanimate addressees of prophecies, such as Jerusalem and dry bones. Jerusalem constitutes an object (through the use of an appropriate preposition) of the messenger formula (cf. 16:3), the prophetic commission formula (cf. 4:7)9 and the call to attention formula (cf. 16:35). Dry bones, in turn, are introduced through the use of prepositions as the object of the prophetic commission formula and the call to attention formula in Ezek 37:4. “Dry bones” will come back to life during the vision and, hence, can be interpreted as animate beings, which ties in with the explanation of the vision in 37:11 (“these bones are the whole house of Israel”). The oracle included in ch. 16, which is addressed to Jerusalem (that is accompanied by her sister, Samaria), together with the prophecy addressed to both Jerusalem and Samaria in Ezek 23, personifies the two cities. They are represented as women who are in a conjugal relationship with Yahweh. By contrast with these two cities as the recipients of Yahweh’s word, Ezekiel does not refer to the land of Israel as to a woman (even though both terms denoting land – ‫ ארץ‬and ‫ – אדמה‬are feminine forms). He does not present the history of the land of Israel in the form of a biography, nor does he present the relationship between the land of Israel and Yahweh as akin to a personal relationship between people.10 How exactly, then, does Ezekiel animate the land of Israel? Some scholars are of the opinion that Ezekiel personifies the mountains and the land of Israel so that they could metonymically be represented in the oracles the people of Israel.11 David Casson speaks even of the “geographization” of the people of Israel, by which he means the application of the mountains’ characteristics to Israel, especially to its leaders.12 Thus, the mountains of Israel would function as a metaphor, presenting 9.  Cf. Jerusalem as the indirect object of the verb ‫ נבא‬in Ezek 13:16. 10.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 200. 11.  Cf. Wevers, Ezekiel, 60; W. H. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, WBC 28 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986), 96; C. J. H. Wright, The Message of Ezekiel, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester: InterVarsity, 2001), 94; Galambush, “God’s Land and Mine,” 99–100; Habel, “The Silence of the Lands,” 134. 12.  Cf. Casson, “The Mountain Shall Be Most Holy,” 65.

36

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

in a negative way the people deserting God, especially the leaders. Like mountains, people assert their autonomy in order to separate themselves from God (mountains are separated, autonomous from one another). People are obstinate and haughty (as symbolized by the mountains’ immobility), and they strive to achieve high social status (as symbolized by the mountains’ height). Such an interpretation of the metaphor becomes problematic if one takes into account the classical understanding of this rhetorical figure, which presupposes the existence of three elements: the metaphorizing, the metaphorized and the motivation – the relationship between the first two which makes the understanding of the metaphor possible.13 The mountains of Israel, like the land of Israel, do not replace the people or their leaders in the book of Ezekiel. The mountains/land and the people remain separate entities, which – though intricately connected – do not lose their independent and individualistic status. The mountains and the land are geomorphological entities that serve as a space of life for people and animals. It has to be noted that, in Ezek 6, the punishment that will befall the mountains of Israel will result in their depopulation (cf. 6:6, 7, 14), which obviously necessitates the distinction between the mountains and the people inhabiting them. A similar conclusion can be drawn from the depiction of the place covered with the corpses of the idol-worshippers killed by the sword. This space is first identified with the mountains (cf. 6:4: “I will throw your beaten ones in front of your idols” – the second person masc. plur. possessive pronoun refers to the mountains), but later it is described as an environment defined by human activity (cf. 6:5: “I will lay the corpses of the people of Israel in front of their idols”). Another argument supporting the distinction between the mountains of Israel and the people of Israel in Ezek 6 is the fact that both groups are presented independently as subjects recognizing Yahweh: in v. 7 the command to recognize Yahweh is addressed to the mountains of Israel, while in v. 10 it is addressed to those saved among the people of Israel. In Ezek 22:23–27 the distinction between the land of Israel and the leaders of the people is made even more clear. In this oracle, the land of Israel lacks any protection (cf. v. 29) from the leaders of Israel (vv. 25–29 mention priests, prophets and princes), who make the land impure through their religious and social transgressions (cf. v. 24). 13.  The elements comprising a metaphor may go by different names. For the sake of clarity this book will employ the terms “metaphorized” and “metaphorizing” as equivalents of tenor (frame) and “vehicle” (focus), respectively. Similar terminology is used by Daniel Bourguet in his study Des métaphores de Jérémie, Études Bibliques 9 (Paris: Lecoffre, 1987), 10.

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

37

The mountains and the land of Israel acquire human characteristics as a result of being the addressee of the oracle; nevertheless, in none of the prophecies are the characteristics typical of the mountains (especially their height, interpreted as haughtiness) attributed to Israel. The land functions as an element that is metaphorized, while the people, their behaviours and features are the metaphorizing element. Despite certain attempts at their “humanization,” the mountains and the land retain their geomorphological properties. Therefore, to determine their position in the world it is necessary to verify the extent of their anthropomorphization. As a direct recipient of God’s word, the land of Israel is treated as a subject of prophetic communication. This fact is confirmed by the usage of personal pronouns with reference to the land and the mountains of Israel. It has to be remembered that in Hebrew personal pronouns in the first and second person are used only with reference to animate beings (cf. the second person masc. plur. pronoun in 36:8 used with reference to the mountains of Israel and the second person fem. sing. pronoun in 22:24 and 36:13 used with reference to the land of Israel).14 In the case of a human being, listening is a process involving ears, eyes and the heart, so that the word is not only received but also understood and interiorized (cf. the description of the activity of listening in Ezek 12:2; 40:4; 44:5). Verbal communication also presupposes a reply, which in turn involves the use of the mouth. In the accounts of prophetic calls, the mouth becomes a major tool of communication, which process is understood as the opening of the mouth by the prophet: first to receive (consume) the word of God, and, secondly, to convey it to its final recipients (cf. Jer 1:9–10; Ezek 2:8–3:3). Ezekiel does not allegorize the mountains and the land of Israel, whose descriptions do not allude to the organs of human perception. Still, they are a subject listening to Yahweh’s words and the words of foreign nations, as related in Ezek 36:2, 13. Mount Seir is also described as a speaking subject, whose words are heard by Yahweh (cf. 35:12–13). Since the mountains and the land of Israel are put side by side with another subject called to listen to God’s word, namely the house of Israel, it can be inferred that all of them are free to communicate with God. The word which God addresses to them may be rejected, as happened in the case of the people of Israel (cf. 2:5, 7; 3:7, 11, 27). By contrast to the house of Israel, however, the mountains and the land of Israel are not presented as rebelling against or resisting the prophet’s mission.

14.  Cf. Waltke – O’Connor, §16.1d.

38

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

The oracles addressed to the mountains or to the land of Israel present them as a subject of moral conduct. The land of Israel will be judged by Yahweh on the basis of “its ways” (‫דרך‬, in its meaning of “conduct”) and its “abominations” (Ezek 7:3, 8). God’s judgment will be independent of the judgment carried out by the leaders of Israel (Ezek 7:27). The punishment that will befall the land of Israel is of a retributive character, as suggested by the expression “I will put your ways/abominations upon you” (Ezek 7:3, 4). Ezekiel 14:13 presents the hypothetical sinfulness and unfaithfulness of some unspecified “land” against Yahweh, but in the oracle included in vv. 21–23 this land is identified as the land of Israel. Both verbs used in this oracle to describe the land’s activity – ‫חטא‬ a and ‫ – מעל‬are normally used with reference to a human subject. The mountains of Israel – the subject of the verb ‫ כׁשל‬in hiphil in Ezek 36:15 – are presented as responsible for bringing about the downfall of their people. The land of Israel is treated as the owner of the people who inhabit it, which is clear in the accusation that it “devour[s] men and deprive[s] [its] nation of children” (cf. Ezek 36:12–14).15 The land of Israel also acquires subjecthood as the space of life for the people of Israel. In Ezek 36:8, 12 Yahweh speaks of “his own people, Israel,” but in 36:13, 14, 15 he calls Israel “your people” (‫)גוייך‬, whereby the second person feminine singular possessive pronoun refers precisely to the land of Israel. The mountains of Israel own various cult objects and installations: high places, altars, stelae and idols (cf. Ezek 6:3–6). On the approaching day of Yahweh the land of Israel will be deprived of “its wealth” (‫ המונה‬in Ezek 7:12, 13, 14), which is the outcome of trade. The above analysis of Ezekiel’s anthropomorphization of the land of Israel shows that while “humanizing” certain behaviours of the mountains and the land the prophet does not deprive them of their position within the natural world nor does he impose a human form on them. The land does not undergo a process of personification but rather that of subjectification, as a result of which the land becomes a moral subject. The land’s subjecthood is expressed in its activities typical of human beings, who are aware of good and evil, who are free and responsible for their own behaviour. In this way, the land of Israel co-creates history by entering into relationships with various other subjects that are protagonists of the history of salvation.

15.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 199.

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

39

1.2. The Relationality of the Land of Israel The land of Israel is a specific geomorphological structure which in Ezekiel’s prophecies is comprised of mountains, hills, valleys and ravines (cf. Ezek 6:3; 34:13; 36:4, 6). This space has a particular anthropogeographical character that is contingent upon its relations with three subjects: Yahweh, Israel and the foreign nations. 1.2.1. The Relationship with Yahweh. The oracles in which Yahweh addresses the mountains or the land of Israel belong almost exclusively to the category of punishment prophecies. The only exception is the oracle in Ezek 36:1–15, which foretells the revival of the mountains of Israel, at the same time confirming the fulfilment of the punishment prophecy in ch. 6.16 Some scholars see the relationship between Yahweh and the land that arises from these texts as one which is full of violence, aggression and God’s cruelty towards the land. They argue that God abuses the land, discriminates against it and treats it as an object; the land becomes a scapegoat onto which God projects the transgressions of other parties.17 This scholarship, however, neglects Yahweh’s treatment of the land as a subject; as its owner, Yahweh respects the land’s autonomy, independence and responsibility. Yahweh defines the land’s status vis-à-vis himself with the use of several nouns to which he adds the first person singular possessive pronoun, whereby the land is construed as belonging to him. Yahweh’s ownership of the land is first expressed through the expression “my land” (‫)ארצי‬. In 36:5 Yahweh sides with “his land,” which has become the possession (‫ )מורׁשה‬of other nations and all of Edom in the wake of 16.  Rhetorically speaking, Ezek 36:1–15 is closely connected with the oracle against Mount Seir in 35:1–15. Both prophecies constitute a reversal of an earlier oracle against the mountains of Israel in ch. 6: the punishment foretold in ch. 6 will now befall Mount Seir, while the mountains of Israel will experience restoration reversing their earlier punishment. A detailed analysis of the relations between these prophecies as regards their structure, form and content may be found in Gosse, “Ézéchiel 35–36:1–15 et Ézéchiel 6,” 511–17; Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 372–77, 454–56. 17.  Cf. Stevenson, “If Earth Could Speak.” Stevenson’s ideas are discussed by Norman C. Habel in “The Silence of the Lands,” 135–38. In a similar – though somewhat more balanced – vein, Keith Carley considers in “Ezekiel’s Formula of Desolation: Harsh Justice for the Land/Earth” the land’s responsibility for its relationship with Yahweh (pp. 143–57). Ultimately, though, he accuses Ezekiel of insensitivity towards the land (pp. 152–54; cf. idem, “From Harshness to Hope,” 122–23).

40

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Jerusalem’s conquest in 586 BCE. On the one hand, the occupants treat the land as loot to plunder and destroy (cf. 7:21; 36:3, 5). On the other hand, the land of Israel is scorned by its new owners (cf. 36:3, 5), who question its relationship with Yahweh’s people (cf. their statements in 36:13, 20). However, the land as Yahweh’s property remains his gift for Israel (cf. 36:12). The value of this gift is guaranteed by the sympathy of Yahweh, who turns to the land in the wake of its destruction and declares his involvement in its recultivation and repopulation (cf. 36:9–11). The expression “my land” is used by Yahweh for the second time in the context of Gog’s invasion in 38:16. Speaking about bringing Gog and his army to his own land, God negates the aggressor’s conviction of his right to appropriate and plunder the land (cf. 38:11–12), which remains solely in Yahweh’s remit. The second expression shedding light on the land’s relationship with Yahweh is ‫“( צפוני‬my treasure”) in 7:22. In this text, the profanation of Yahweh’s “treasure” is foretold twice, but in the second case the verb ‫חלל‬ in piel has as its direct object the third person feminine singular suffix (instead of the expected masculine form were the suffix to be synonymous with ‫)צפוני‬. Some scholars believe that Yahweh’s “treasure” is Jerusalem with its temple,18 but the description of the invasion in v. 24 mentions the profanation of the sanctuaries, which implies the existence of various places of worship in different parts of the land of Israel. Calling the land of Israel his “treasure,” Yahweh does not treat it as his exclusive property but shares it with Israel, to which it is given as “its beautiful ornament” (‫)צבי עדיו‬. This expression appears in 7:20 in the context of accusing Israel of “exchanging its beautiful ornament for pride.” In the context of the gold and silver mentioned in 7:19, it may be assumed that the fault of the people lies in their melting their jewellery to make “abominable and disgusting images” of idols. The word ‫ עדי‬is also used in Ezek 16:11 and 23:40, where it refers to valuable ornaments given by Yahweh to his bride, Jerusalem. Thanks to Yahweh’s benefaction, she becomes a beautiful queen (cf. 16:13). This image has a symbolic character, harking back to Hosea’s description of the gifts that God gives to his people, who are presented as a harlot. The gifts are connected with the land and the fruit that it bears (cf. Hos 2:7, 10–11, 14). Such an understanding of ‫עדיו‬ in Ezek 7:20 is supported by its attributive relationship with the term ‫צבי‬ (“grandeur, beauty”). This noun is used in the book of Ezekiel to denote 18.  Cf. W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary, trans. C. Quin, OTL, 5th ed. (London: SCM Press, 1996), 104; Fohrer and Galling, Ezechiel, 65; Wevers, Ezekiel, 65; Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 114–15.

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

41

the magnificence of the land of Israel, which is superior to any other land on account of its fertility and beauty (cf. 20:6, 15).19 As the owner of the land, Yahweh intends to manage it in such a way that it would regain its original beauty lost due to its transgressions, would yield harvests and would become a suitable place for people and animals to live in (cf. Ezek 36:9–11). The actual relationship between Yahweh and the land of Israel was called into question by the events of the year 597 BCE and later of 586 BCE, which led to the conquest of the land of Israel by other nations (not only by the Babylonians, but also by the smaller neighbouring nations of Judah, especially Edom, which took advantage of Jerusalem’s fall to annex some of its land). It was not only Israel that questioned this relationship, but the other nations did so as well. In his visionary tour of the Jerusalem temple, related in chs. 8–11, Ezekiel quotes the elders of Judah saying “Yahweh does not see us, Yahweh has abandoned this land” (8:12), which corresponds to ordinary people’s conviction that “Yahweh has abandoned this land, Yahweh does not see” (9:9). Edom radicalizes the idea of God’s absence even further by claiming its right to the land. Viewing Yahweh as the patron deity of Israel, Edom interprets the plundering of the land as proof of Yahweh’s absence there, due to which the land now belongs to Edom (cf. 35:10) and to other nations (cf. 36:2). The utterances analysed above which question Yahweh’s presence are, however, rejected by Yahweh himself. The argument that Yahweh “does not see us” is a misunderstanding, since it is Yahweh who leads Ezekiel around the temple so that he could “see” the ritual abominations committed by the Israelites (cf. the verb ‫ ראה‬in 8:6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17). The belief in Yahweh’s abandonment of the land is likewise negated by God’s actions. Exposed to acts of idolatry committed in his own temple, Yahweh claims that such “great abominations” force him to “go far away from his sanctuary” (8:6). The vision ends with an image of God’s Glory, which, having left the temple, stops on the mountain situated to the east of the city (11:23), thus staying within the land of Israel. In the whole book of Ezekiel God does not speak even once of deserting the land of Israel. As described in Ezek 43:1–9, Yahweh’s Glory returns “from the east” (v. 2) to the temple, not to the land as such (cf. v. 3). God’s presence in the destroyed and plundered land of Israel is additionally proved by his reaction to the claims laid to the land not 19.  In its two other usages, the term refers either to the land of Moab (25:9) or to “the land of the living” (26:20). Thus, Ezekiel employs the term ‫ צבי‬exclusively to assess the value of the land.

42

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

only by the nations (cf. 35:10; 36:2) but also by the Judeans themselves, who after the fall of Jerusalem live in “the ruins in the land of Israel” (cf. 33:24). Edom misunderstands the doom befalling the land of Israel as evidence of Yahweh’s desertion of the land while, in fact, he is present there all the time (cf. 35:10). The destruction of the land of Israel should be interpreted as God’s punishment for betraying him. Though punished by God, the land still remains his and he is worried by the nations’ treatment of the land as loot and object of derision (36:5). 1.2.2. The Relationship with Yahweh’s People. In response to the nations’ claims to the land of Israel as their property (cf. 35:10; 36:3, 5), God confirms in 36:12 the right of “his people, Israel” to manage the land as their property. In its relationship with the people, the land retains its status as a subject, which is emphasized in the last fragment of the oracle addressed to the mountains of Israel in ch. 36 (vv. 13–15). Addressing the land of Israel directly, Yahweh promises in the oracle to nullify the punishment inflicted on the land, affecting especially the land’s relationship with Yahweh’s people. The people who inhabit the land are called “your people” three times (‫גויך‬, vv. 13, 14, 15). The term ‫ גוי‬is employed here to emphasize the political aspect of the relationship between the land and Israel. In its original meaning, the term ‫ גוי‬denotes a community of people coming from the same ancestor, living on the same land and governed by the same ruler.20 Even if Edom perceives the land of Israel as divided into two separate areas inhabited by two politically autonomous nations (cf. ‫ את־ׁשני הגוים ואת־ׁשתי הארצות לי‬in 35:10), Yahweh speaks in 36:13–15 of “your people” in the singular, anticipating the prediction in 37:22 that Israel and Judah will become one nation, inhabiting one land and governed by one ruler. If the land is a factor determining the autonomy and political identity of Yahweh’s people, then, by the same token, the land deprived of its people loses its anthropo-geographical status and, in a way, ceases to be land in a geomorphological sense as well. In the prophecies addressed to the land and the mountains of Israel there recurs a prediction that they will become an area of desolation and waste. The totality of the destruction of the land’s material and human components (cf. 6:14; 21:9) will make the land an object of scorn among the nations, which will ridicule it as a land which “devour[s] men and deprive[s] [its] nation of children” (36:13). The quotation relies on a two-fold metaphor, employing zoomorphic and maternal imagery. The image of a lion devouring people is used in Ezek 19:3, 6 as a metaphor 20.  Cf. A. Cody, “When Is the Chosen People Called a gôy?,” VT 14 (1964): 1–6 (5).

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

43

for the rapacity of Judah’s leaders. The construction of the land as an insatiable beast which devours its inhabitants brings to mind a similar expression used by the spies sent by Moses to explore the land of Canaan (cf. Num 13:32). The second metaphor makes use of the verb ‫ ׁשכל‬in piel (“to lose a child, be childless, take away a child, miscarry”),21 comparing the land to a woman who does not have children on account of her sterility. Viewed by the Hebrews as God’s curse, childlessness brought serious consequences: a childless person had no future prospects since the future was guaranteed solely by having children (cf. Jer 11:19; 22:30). By analogy, when deprived of its people, the land of Israel is doomed to cultural and political annihilation. Without people cultivating it (cf. Ezek 36:9), the land loses its fertility and is turned into a desert (cf. 14:15). Deprived of people that contribute to its political identity, the land loses its sovereignty for the sake of the nations, which will complete its destruction in cultural terms.22 Presenting various aspects of the relationship between the land of Israel and the people that inhabit it, Ezekiel draws attention to the mutual responsibility of these two subjects for religious transgressions, which becomes most clear in the oracle included in ch. 6. The objects used for the sake of idolatrous worship belong both to the mountains and to the people that inhabit the mountains, as signalled by the possessive pronouns “your” (second masc. plur. suffix) and “their” (third masc. plur. suffix) added to the term “idols” (vv. 4–5, 13) and “altars” (vv. 4–13). At the same time, the prophet emphasizes people’s responsibility for the state of the land, on the basis of which they are judged by God. The land’s impurity mentioned in Ezek 22:24 is a result of social injustice rampant in Jerusalem, from which it spreads all over the land.23 In this context, God speaks of his ineffectual search among the people of Israel for “a man who would erect a wall and take up position in front of the hole in it so that it is not destroyed, but he did not find anyone” (22:30; cf. a similar charge levelled at the false prophets in 13:5). Without the people’s appropriate attitude towards the land, the latter not only loses its cultural profile intended by God but also ceases to function as a space of contact between God and humanity, and between humans themselves. 21.  Cf. the semantic analysis of this verb in H. Schmold, “‫ ָׁשכֹל‬šāḵol,” ThWAT 6:1323–27. 22.  Cf. the desire expressed by Edom in Ezek 35:12 to “devour” the mountains of Israel. 23.  Cf. the parallel in Ezek 22 between the words addressed to “the bloody city” (vv. 1–16) and to “the land” of Israel (vv. 23–31) in the description of the transgressions of Israel’s various leaders.

44

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

1.2.3. The Relationship with the Nations. The relationship between Yahweh, the land and the people, outlined above, is also recognized by the nations among whom the Israelites live as a result of their exile. In their statement quoted in Ezek 36:20 – “These are the people of the Lord, and they came forth out of his land” – the attributive structure employed indicates not only that both the land and the people belong to Yahweh, but also that they are connected to each other. As the verb “to come forth out of” (‫ )יצא‬suggests, the relationship between the land and the people is now broken. The words of Edom cited in 35:10 confirm the conviction of Judah’s neighbours that “the land of Israel” is, in fact, comprised of “two lands” populated by “two nations.” The pagans’ misinterpretation of the destruction and depopulation of the land of Israel leads them to believe that Yahweh has abandoned the land, by which he showed his weakness, and that the land now belongs to them (cf. 35:10; 36:2). Such an attitude towards the land of Israel makes them the land’s “enemies” (‫ האויב‬in 36:2), among whom the most prominent one is Edom, with its “perennial enmity” (‫ איבת עולם‬in 35:5) and “hatred” (‫ ׂשנאתיך‬in 35:11). It is the relationality of the land of Israel that underlies its cultural, religious and political functions. The most prominent relationship is the one with Yahweh, for whom it becomes an autonomous and independent subject, responsible for its actions. Giving the land to his people, Yahweh determines its geopolitical position while simultaneously ensuring its cultural existence. In its relationship with Israel, the land does not lose its status as a subject, which becomes especially clear when one takes into account its active participation in people’s relationship with Yahweh. The breach of the relationship with Yahweh leads to the land’s destruction and desolation, whereby the land loses its proper identity intended by Yahweh and becomes an object in its relationship with the nations. 1.3. The Land of Israel and the Knowledge of Yahweh The loss of the land’s status as a subject in the wake of the events of 586 BCE gives rise to a question of the function that it is supposed to play in its relationship with the nations. The land’s role is prominent in the relationship between Yahweh and the nations. Ezekiel’s perspective on the land of Israel is influenced by his exile in Babylonia: he calls the land of Israel “the mountains of Israel” since, from the position of Babylonia’s alluvial plains, the land of Israel indeed seems mountainous. By the same token, he situates the land of Israel to the south in Ezek 21:2–3. At the same time, Ezekiel respects the Hebrew viewpoint according to which the land of Israel is the point of reference for the localization of other countries; he calls the mountains of Israel

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

45

“the centre of the earth” (‫ )טבור הארץ‬in 38:12.24 Jerusalem is thus situated by God “in the centre of the nations, with countries all around her” (5:5). The book of Ezekiel distinguishes between the lands where Yahweh’s people live in exile (‫)הארצות‬25 and those that are adjacent to the land of Israel. The inhabitants of the latter are referred to in the prophecy against the mountains of Israel in 36:1–15 as “the rest of the nations all round” (v. 4), “the rest of the nations” (v. 5) and “the nations that are around” (v. 7). All six of them constitute the first group of the addressees of the oracle against the nations (25:1–28:23). They are addressed in a clockwise order on the basis of their geographical position vis-à-vis Israel (‫)מסביב‬, beginning from the east: Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre and Sidon. The reference to them as “the rest of the nations” (‫ )ׁשארית הגוים‬emphasizes that, unlike the land of Israel, they survived the Babylonian assault. These nations made Jerusalem their loot and object of scorn (cf. 36:4). The destruction of the land of Israel is misinterpreted by the nations as proof of its abandonment by Yahweh and as proof of Yahweh’s weakness. Using a recognition formula, Ezekiel calls Israel’s neighbours, as well as Yahweh’s own people, to recognize Yahweh. Biblical scholars cannot agree whether this formula contains the expectation that the nations will recognize Yahweh.26 It seems that the problem of the nations’ recognition of Yahweh requires a broader look at the verb ‫ידע‬. Recognition cannot be understood only in cognitive terms, as it goes hand in hand with “contact” recognition, whose outcome is “experience, conviction, noticing.”27 Recognition is thus not theoretical, but practical: a witness to Yahweh’s actions experiences a particular aspect of his being. Another subject recognizing Yahweh are the mountains of Israel which will experience God both through punishment (cf. Ezek 6:7, 13) and through revival (cf. 36:11). The latter is connected with the punishment of the nations that appropriated the land of Israel. Undoubtedly, God’s 24.  Cf. the analysis of the expression ‫ טבור הארץ‬in §I.2.3.1. 25.  Cf. 6:8; 11:16–17; 12:15; 20:23, 34, 41; 22:15; 34:13; 36:19, 24; 38:8; 39:27. 26.  Henning Graf Reventlow (“Die Völker als Yahwes Zeugen bei Ezechiel,” ZAW 71 [1959]: 33–43 [43]) argues that the nations’ “recognition of Yahweh” will lead to their belief in Yahweh, while for Paul M. Joyce (Divine Initiative and Human Response, JSOTSup 51 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989], 94) the use of the nations as the subject of the recognition formula is a mere rhetorical strategy whose aim is to emphasize Ezekiel’s central theme – namely, the manifestation of Yahweh. 27.  Cf. W. Schottroff, “‫ ידע‬jd‘ erkennen,” THAT 1:690; F. Fechter, Bewältigung der Katastrophe: Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fremvölkersprüchen im Ezechielbuch, BZAW 208 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1992), 66–68.

46

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

judicial action with respect to the land of Israel is aimed at making the land recognize Yahweh’s power over it (and, more broadly, God’s power over nature and the nations, cf. 21:4, 10), Yahweh’s interest in whatever is happening in the land (contrary to people’s conviction that Yahweh does not see, cf. 8:12; 9:9), Yahweh’s justice in judging the land (cf. 7:4, 9), and, finally, the reliability and efficacy of Yahweh’s word (cf. 6:10). However, such recognition does not amount to a complete knowledge of Yahweh, which will only be possible after the revival of the land of Israel (cf. 36:9–11). The land of Israel constitutes both a subject and object of the knowledge of Yahweh. Like “all flesh” (cf. 21:4, 10), the land is called to see the person of Yahweh in all the events that it participates in. At the same time, the land constitutes a space in which Yahweh makes his presence known to the nations. Thus, the land’s relationship with Yahweh is indispensable: it is only thanks to this relationship that the land can experience renewal, which is the source of God’s ultimate manifestation in the world. 2. The Land’s Solidarity with Israel’s Sin Ezekiel views the land of Israel as a subject responsible for its relationships. Such a presentation of the land necessities an analysis of the connection between the land and the sin of the people, which results in God’s judgment and punishment of both people and the land. In this context, Walther Eichrodt sees the land as being “in league with men.”28 This solidarity is visible also in the punishment which befalls “several components of Israel suffer[ing] as a unity”: people, Jerusalem, sanctuaries and the land of Israel (cf. Ezek 21:7).29 In light of this, the issue of the land’s solidarity with Israel’s sin needs to be addressed. Is the punishment of the land an outcome of its own sins or the ones committed by people? How does the land’s solidarity with people affect its status in Yahweh’s eyes? 2.1. The Sin of the Land of Israel The oracles addressed to the land and mountains of Israel before the fall of Jerusalem foretell their destruction and depopulation. Yahweh’s punitive intervention is generated not only by people’s actions, but also those of the land, which is likewise to be judged by God (cf. Ezek 7:3–4, 8–9). Even though Ezekiel does not characterize the land’s sins in a precise way 28.  Cf. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 94. 29.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 144.

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

47

in the prophecies included in chs. 6; 7; 14; 21 and 22 (and a reference to them in 36:15), the analysis of these texts shows a specific type of action for which the land of Israel needs to answer to God. The oracle addressed to the mountains of Israel in Ezek 6 does not directly mention their responsibility. As the prophecy directed to the land of Israel in ch. 7 makes clear, however, God’s judicial activity presupposes a judgment of a guilty party according to their actions (cf. 7:3, 27). The punishment, then, needs to correspond to the transgressions committed. In Ezek 6:3–7 Yahweh foretells the destruction of cultic installations and objects that belong to the land of Israel: “your high places” (vv. 3b, 6a), “your altars” (vv. 4a, 5b, 6a), “your incense altars” (vv. 4a, 6b), “your idols” (vv. 4b, 5a, 6a) and “your works” (v. 6b). Ezekiel employs the term ‫ במה‬to refer generally to the place of cult and various ceremonial objects. This is indicated by the use of the verb ‫ יׁשם‬in 6:6 to foretell the desolation of high places. The verb is employed twice more in the book of Ezekiel – in 12:19 and 19:7 – to refer to the land of Israel, which “will be stripped of all it contains” (‫)תׁשם ממלאה‬. High places will thus be stripped of the altars on which sacrificial animals are killed (‫)מזבחות‬, incense altars (‫)חמנים‬30 and images of idols (‫)גללים‬. These and other cultic objects used on high places (e.g. ‫מצבה‬, a stele, an erect stone symbolic of male divinity, and ‫אׁשרה‬, a wooden pole symbolic of female divinity) are called in Ezek 6:6 “your works” (‫)מעׂשיכם‬. The terms used by Ezekiel to refer to objects and installations used for cultic purposes on high places are not precise enough to determine the character of that cult. Undoubtedly, it follows Canaanite fertility cults, thereby performing the baalization of the Yahwistic cult. Yahweh is treated in the same way as pagan deities: as Ezek 20:28 shows, the cult of Yahweh revolves around providing food for him. Another aspect of the baalization of Yahwism is the introduction of pagan fertility rituals. Ezekiel signals the existence of such rituals while speaking of cultic activity performed on high places “under every green tree” – a green tree being a symbol of fertility (cf. 6:13; 20:28) – and of sacred prostitution on high places (cf. 16:16). The baalization of Yahwism through pagan fertility rituals is directly revealed by the prophet when he mentions the worship of Canaanite deities called ‫( גלולים‬cf. the description of idolatrous cult in the Jerusalem temple in Ezek 8, which enumerates Asherah [v. 3], Tammuz [v. 14] and Shemesh [v. 16]). This illegitimate cult is performed 30.  Most scholars treat ‫ חמן‬as a small incense altar in the shape of a stone base with a cavity in its top part for incense burning; cf., e.g., Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 94; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 186; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 132; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 87; Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel/Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–19, 106.

48

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

on the mountains of Israel (cf. 18:6, 12, 15; 33:25), which obviously may be treated as “high places” for geomorphological reasons. In Ezek 36:2 the nations call the mountains of Israel ‫במות עולם‬, which accommodate within their space objects of idolatrous cult. As hosts of idolatry, the mountains participate in this sinful cult and become guilty of severing their relation with Yahweh alongside Yahweh’s people.31 Two expressions are employed in Ezek 7 to refer to the guilt of the land of Israel, namely “ways” (‫ )דרכים‬and “abominations” (‫)תועבות‬. Both appear in the judicial context in the expressions signalling Yahweh’s punishment of the land of Israel. The punishment is based on the principle of retribution: Yahweh will judge (‫ )ׁשפט‬the land of Israel “according to [its] ways” (vv. 3, 8), he will bring upon it (‫“ )נתן על‬all [its] ways” (vv. 4, 9) and “abominations” (vv. 3, 8). Its “abominations are among [it]” (vv. 4, 9), serving as evidence in God’s judgment of Israel (cf. a similar function of blood “in her [Jerusalem’s] midst” in 24:7). The majority of exegetes refrain from determining the precise character of Israel’s transgressions expressed through the terms “ways” and “abominations.” Apart from marginal (and, to some extent, mutually contradictory) comments by Walther Zimmerli, William H. Brownlee and Leslie C. Allen about the meaning of ‫תועבות‬,32 an interesting analysis of the term is attempted by Kenneth Dean Hutchens, whose semantic analysis, however, overlooks a crucial component, namely the mutual relation of the two terms in the book of Ezekiel.33 The term ‫ דרך‬may be used figuratively to refer to a person’s behaviour and attitude, without judging their conduct. The evaluation of a person’s behaviour is indicated by the verbs whose object is the noun “ways” (e.g. the expression “to be ashamed of your ways” presupposes a negative assessment of the behaviour in question, cf. 16:27, 61; 20:43; 36:32), by a more specific characterization of the subject (e.g. the “wicked” one is to “turn from his ways,” cf. 33:8, 9[×2], 11[×2]), by the adjectives used to characterize the behaviour (e.g. the “way” is “evil,” cf. 20:44; 36:31) or by nouns used in collocations with “ways.” An example of the last strategy may be the binomial ‫ דרכים–תועבות‬in 7:3–4, 8–9 and 16:43, 47. Using this binomial pair, Ezekiel suggests the synonymy of the two 31.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 88. 32.  Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 107, interprets it as “a general term for wrongdoing committed in the homeland,” while Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 106–7, claims that it denotes “crimes and assassinations that will take place inside the country.” On the other hand, Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 190, claims that “abominations” functions as “a comprehensive term for all sins of cultic impurity.” 33.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 111–15.

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

49

words while at the same time assessing ‫ דרכים‬through ‫( תועבות‬cf. 36:31). Ezekiel’s use of the term ‫ תועבה‬primarily to denote various cultic transgressions corresponds to the original meaning of the term, which is used only secondarily in ethical and legal contexts.34 The cultic interpretation of “abominations” in 7:3–4, 8–9 is also suggested by the deployment of the term in the immediate context of the fragment: in 6:9 “abominations” are directly connected with people’s rejection of Yahweh for the sake of idols (‫)גלולים‬, while in 7:20 “abominations” (together with ‫ )ׁשקוצים‬serve to denote idols’ material images (‫)צלמים‬. The acts of idolatry committed in the Jerusalem temple and described in ch. 8 are characterized as “abominations” (cf. 8:6[×2], 9, 13, 15, 17; 9:4). A similar perception of “idols” as “abominations” may be found in 14:6; 16:36 and 23:36. The term ‫ תועבות‬is used in its ethical meaning in the book of Ezekiel in those texts that specify the sins of the Israelites. In such contexts, it may refer to a specific cultic (cf. 18:12) or social (cf. 22:11; 33:26) misdeed, or it may encompass all cultic and ethical transgressions (cf. 18:12, 24; 36:31). The prediction of God’s judgment of the land of Israel according to its ‫ דרכים‬and ‫ תועבות‬refers to the land’s co-responsibility for acts of idolatry committed in its midst. Yahweh despises such acts as “abominations” (cf. 16:50). It may be assumed that the land’s participation in illegitimate cult occurs analogously to that of the mountains – namely, by hosting such activities. On account of its connection with the cult of other deities, the land of Israel proves disloyal to Yahweh and violates the relationship crucial for its identity. The accusation of the land of Israel of unfaithfulness towards Yahweh is formulated in the oracle in Ezek 14:12–23; the unspecified land given as an example there (vv. 13–20) may be identified as the land of Israel (vv. 21–23). It is to this land that Yahweh directs the accusation in v. 13: “if a land sins against me by committing unfaithfulness.” On the syntactic level, the verb in infinitus absolutus preceded by the preposition ‫ל‬ (‫ )למעל־מעל‬is an adverbial specifying or clarifying the activity mentioned earlier (‫)תחטא־לי‬.35 Thus, the land’s sin lies in its unfaithfulness towards God. The land’s accusation of unfaithfulness towards Yahweh may be an outcome of its solidarity with the people who inhabit it. The Israelites break their covenant with God, but the consequences of their sins fall onto the land, whereby it itself becomes a subject of sin (cf. Isa 24:20). This fact sheds some light on the command articulated in Deut 24:4: “You 34.  Cf. E. Gerstenberger, “‫ תעב‬t‘b pi.,” THAT 2:1053. 35.  Cf. Joüon, §124o. A similar structure appears also in Ezek 18:9.

50

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

should not cause the land to sin (‫)לא תחטיא את־הארץ‬, which Yahweh, your God, gave you as an inheritance.” People’s unfaithfulness brings about the land’s abandonment of Yahweh. On the other hand, however, Ezekiel’s earlier accusations of the land and mountains of Israel of participating in idolatry through hosting the procedure reveal the actual sin of the land: it opposes Yahweh’s will and rejects its relationship with God, a crucial element of God’s covenant with Israel. In Israel’s relationship of covenant with Yahweh, the land is much more than a mere gift for people; it is a subject that has influence on Israel’s attitude to Yahweh. The oracle foretelling the restoration of the mountains of Israel in Ezek 36:1–15 ends with a two-fold promise. First, the land will be populated and tended again, thanks to which it will cease to be one that “devour[s] men and deprive[s] [its] nation of children” (vv. 13–14). Secondly, the land will never again “cause [its] nation to stumble” (v. 15).36 The sentence is a rare example of the occurrence of the verb ‫ כׁשל‬in hiphil in the context signalling a figurative sense of the stumbling. Ezekiel uses the same form in 33:12 to emphasize the fact that “the wickedness of the wicked” will not cause him to stumble, provided he repents and converts. The verb in hiphil is used with a human subject also in Mal 2:8, where the priests are presented as those who through their teachings cause people to stumble. Two occurrences of the verb ‫ כׁשל‬in hiphil in the Hebrew Bible attribute people’s stumbling to pagan deities. King Ahaz’s sacrifices to the gods of Damascus led to “the downfall of him and all Israel” (2 Chr 28:23). Through Jeremiah, God foretells that due to the idols that are “nothing” (‫ )ׁשוא‬people will be “made to stumble in their ways” (Jer 18:15). These two texts suggest that the land of Israel causes its people to stumble on account of its participation in the sin of idolatry. Giving itself – its elevations, hills, mountains, its patulous green trees – to foreign gods to be worshipped on, the land becomes one of the causes of Israel’s sin. Being Yahweh’s property, the land of Israel has been given as a gift 36.  Like most scholars, the editor of BHS reads in Ezek 36:15 the verb ‫תׁשכלי‬ (“orphan”) instead of ‫“( תכׁשלי‬cause to stumble”), assuming that the verb ‫ כׁשל‬appears here instead of the verb ‫ ׁשכל‬as a result of metathesis, similar to what happens in v. 14 (the Masoretes read ‫ תׁשכלי‬here as Qere; their suggestion is followed by ancient translators). A proper wording of v. 13 would thus be: “You devour men and orphan your nation” (‫היית‬ ‫)אכלת אדם אתי ומׁשכלת גוייך‬. MT suggests that the alternative wording of the verb (Qere–Ketib) should be used only in v. 14 while ‫ תכׁשלי‬should be retained in v. 15. The verb ‫ כׁשל‬in v. 15 constitutes a lectio difficilior, leading to an intended play on the words ‫ כׁשל‬and ‫ ׁשכל‬in vv. 13–15 (cf. D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Volume 3, Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes, OBO 50/3 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992], 295–96).

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

51

to serve as a space of interaction between God and his people. However, through its topography and rich natural resources the land has created an opportunity for Israel to stumble. Ezekiel does not exempt people from the responsibility for their behaviour towards God, nor does he perceive the land in an anthropocentric way, shifting onto it the blame for people’s sins. Acknowledging the land’s subjecthood in its relationship with God, Ezekiel strives to understand the reason for its punishment by Yahweh. The land’s participation in Israel’s punishment stems from its participation in human sin. The oracles addressed to the land and mountains of Israel stress the fact that the land was a host that allowed idolatrous cult. Making its space available for idolatrous cult, the land breaks its relationship with Yahweh and ceases to be a place of his worship. The land, Yahweh’s gift for his people of the covenant, goes against its appointment as a space of experiencing Yahweh’s presence and generosity. 2.2. The Land of Israel as a Victim of Human Sins Seeking to understand the reasons behind the punishment of the land of Israel, Ezekiel takes into account its dependence on the people who inhabit it. The prophet mentions two transgressions of the house of Israel that directly affect the land, namely “the blood that they had shed in the land” and “the idols with which they had defiled it” (Ezek 36:18). The sins of the land of Israel are of a cultic nature, while those of its inhabitants encompass both cultic and social spheres, the latter being presented in the book of Ezekiel in a more detailed way, also in the prophecies other than those addressed to the land of Israel. Subsequent analysis will focus only on those actions of Israel that are connected with the land they inhabit as these tie in with the purpose of this book. 2.2.1. Social Sins. Trying to understand the connection between the fate of the land and the sins of its inhabitants, Ezekiel indicates two transgressions characterized by blood and violence. He describes the land as filled with blood (7:23: ‫ ;מׁשפט דמים‬9:9: ‫ )דמים‬and violence (8:17: ‫ )חמס‬several times in the book. “Bloodshed” (‫)ׁשפך דם‬, an expression characteristic of Ezekiel, takes place in the whole land of Israel (cf. 33:25), but primarily in Jerusalem (cf. 22:3, 4, 6, 12, 27), which becomes known as “the bloody city” (37‫עיר הדמים‬ 37.  The plural form (the so-called pluralis compositionis) of the noun “blood” in this phrase suggests that it refers to the blood shed on account of murder. Therefore, the expression ‫ עיר הדמים‬may be translated as “murderous city” (Joüon, §136b; cf. Waltke – O’Connor, §7.4.1b)

52

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

in 22:2; 24:6, 9). This expression – so far reserved for Nineveh (cf. Nah 3:1) due to the terror and cruelty of the Assyrian imperial politics (cf. the metaphor of a lion in Nah 2:12–14) – is used with reference to Judah because of the leaders’ attitudes exhibited in social life (cf. Ezek 22:6–13, 25–29). Through their activities, they fill the whole land of Israel with blood, making it unclean (cf. 22:24). Some scholars claim that accusations of bloodshed are used metaphorically to refer to particularly serious sins against life and the body.38 Such an opinion only partly corresponds to Ezekiel’s evaluation of the situation of the land of Israel. He claims in 7:23 that the land is full of ‫מׁשפט דמים‬, death penalties unjustly ordered by courts.39 These judicial crimes are frequently motivated by bribes (cf. 22:12) and have the aim of getting rich at the expense of the convicts (cf. 22:2740). That bloodshed really takes place in the land of Israel is suggested by two animalistic metaphors that the prophet uses to illustrate the actions of Israel’s princes (‫)נׂשיאי יׂשראל‬41 and leaders (‫)ׂשרים‬. The former resemble lions (22:26; an identical image appears in 19:3, 6 with reference to the kings of Judah), the latter – wolves (22:27). In both cases the metaphorizing element is the identical behaviour of the two predators – “tearing the prey” – which illustrates the attitude of the secular leaders of the house of Israel towards the people entrusted in their care. Taking over people’s riches happens at the price of their lives: the princes “devour human lives (‫)נפׁש‬,” making “many widows” (22:25) in the process, while the leaders “shed blood” and “destroy lives” (22:27). It all occurs with the violation of the law, which is replaced by power. The principle espoused 38.  Cf. H. Graf Reventlow, Wächter über Israel: Ezechiel und seine Tradition, BZAW 82 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1962), 102–3; A. Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile, OTM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 95, 164–65. 39.  Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 154; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 267. 40.  The ones accused in 22:27 are ‫ׂשרים‬. In the book of Ezekiel the term ‫ ׂשרים‬is used with reference to leaders performing various functions in the state administration, including judges, as the text of 22:27 makes clear (cf. M. I. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, VTSup 56 [Leiden: Brill, 1994], 110–11). They are distinguished from the “princes of Israel” (‫)נׂשיאי יׂשראל‬, mentioned in 22:6 and accused in 22:25. 41.  In the triad representing secular power in Ezek 7:27 (king – princes – people of the land), the princes (‫ )נׂשיאים‬as representatives of tribes and families would occupy an intermediary position between the king and the land owners supporting the Davidic house (“people of the land”). Ezekiel deploys the term ‫ נׂשיא‬in two different ways: apart from indicating a particular group in Judah’s political body, it is used also to refer to royal power (cf. Ezek 12:10, 12; 19:1; 21:30; all the occurrences [×17] of the term in chs. 40–48). A detailed analysis of the term ‫ נׂשיא‬in Ezekiel may be found in Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, 11–27.

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

53

by the leaders is expressed with the phrase ‫( איׁש לזרעו היו‬22:6), which may be translated as “one acts according to the personal power one has at one’s disposal.”42 Those who are economically deprived suffer the most for their material situation forces them to resort to borrowing on high interest (‫ )נׁשך‬and usury (‫( )תרבית‬22:12). Their possessions are taken over by force (cf. ‫ עׁשק‬in 22:12, 29), which becomes actual robbery (cf. ‫גזל‬ in 22:29). Such a “profit” is stained with blood that is shed “in your [the land’s] midst” (22:13; cf. 22:13). In this way, both the land of Israel (Ezek 8:17) and Jerusalem (7:23; cf. Mic 6:12; Zeph 1:9) are filled with violence. For Ezekiel, ‫ חמס‬encompasses all the misdeeds against human life, not only those that result in bloodshed. The oracle directed to the land in Ezek 22 specifies the character of the acts that Ezekiel links to ‫חמס‬. These actions are directed against those members of the community who cannot defend their own rights because of their weak social position (both legal and economic), namely the alien, the orphan and the widow. Ezekiel does not treat those three subjects as a traditional triad of the socially disabled (cf. Exod 22:20–21; Lev 19:33–34; Deut 14:29; 24:17, 19–21; Jer 7:6; 22:3; Zech 7:10), for they differ in terms of the forms of violence they experience. Orphans and widows are harmed (‫ ינה‬in hiphil) by the princes of Israel (22:7), just like “the poor and needy” are harmed by “people of the land”43 (22:29), being deprived of their rights and means of livelihood.44 Aliens (‫)גר‬, in turn, are oppressed (‫ )עׁשק‬by the princess of Israel (22:7) and “people of the land” (22:29). In 22:12 the verb ‫ עׁשק‬denotes a wicked overtaking of a neighbour’s property due to his debts. In the case of an alien it is done unlawfully (‫ בלא מׁשפט‬in 22:29), becoming an act of robbery with the use of force, which is signalled in 22:29 by the expression ‫ גזל גזל‬complementing the syntagma ‫עׁשק עׁשק‬.45 2.2.2. Cultic Sins. The above-mentioned solidarity of the land of Israel with human sin manifests itself in the sphere of cult, the organization of which was a human province. Hence, through the use of appropriate possessive pronouns the oracle addressed to the mountains of Israel in 42.  This is Greenberg’s suggestion, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 453, following BDB, 516 (def. 5i[b]). 43.  In Ezek 22:29 (as in 7:27; cf. n. 41) the expression ‫ עם הארץ‬appears alongside a reference to other leaders of Israel, hence, it signifies opulent landowners connected with the Davidic house 44.  Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 454. 45.  The two verbs form a collocation also in Ezek 18:18.

54

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Ezek 6 links the installations and objects used in idolatrous cult both to the mountains (cf. vv. 4–5a, 6) and to their inhabitants (cf. vv. 5a, 13). The land of Israel is drawn into illegitimate cult by the Israelites and is used in it in various ways. It is the Israelites who find “high places” – natural elevations and mountains (cf. 6:13; 18:6, 15) – or construct them (cf. 16:16). The images of the idols are made by the Israelites (cf. 7:20; 22:3, 4) from the land’s natural resources (cf. 7:20).46 The crop of the land becomes sacrificial matter in idolatrous cult. The “pleasing aroma” (‫ )ריח ניחח‬offered to idols on high places (cf. 6:13) comes from the burning of flour, olive oil and honey (cf. 16:19; 20:28). These sacrificial acts stem from people’s misreading of the relation between the land and Yahweh. They do not treat the land as Yahweh’s gift for them to sustain their lives (cf. 16:19). Their “lift[ing] up their eyes to the idols” (cf. 18:6, 12, 15; 33:25) that accompanies idolatrous sacrifices is not an expression of their piety but of apostasy. Looking upwards to the mountains during prayer was a sign of seeking Yahweh’s generosity (cf. Ps 123:1) while at the same time expressing one’s dependence on, deference to and obedience towards God (cf. Ps 123:2). Yahweh sees idolatrous cult performed on high places as an outcome of the Israelites’ “adulterous heart that turned away from [him], and their adulterous eyes that turned after their idols” (Ezek 6:9). The Israelites treat the idols as sources of life, they attribute the land’s fertility to them and it is the idols that they turn to in times of crisis. Cultic transgressions include “bloodshed,” which is mentioned in Ezek 33:25. Although “bloodshed” typically refers to a crime of a social character, the parallels between vv. 25 and 26 in Ezek 33 suggest that the three actions mentioned in the former verse – including “bloodshed” – are examples of cultic offences, while the latter verse mentions three socioethical transgressions. The cultic variant of “bloodshed” may include “eat[ing] over blood,” mentioned in 33:25. The expression does not refer to eating meat that contains blood, but rather to the practice of divination over the blood of sacrificial animals spilled onto the ground to call up spirits that would predict the future (cf. Lev 19:26). Other acts of cultic “bloodshed” barred by the law include the slaughter of sacrificial animals outside the temple (cf. Lev 17:4) or eating the blood of sacrificed animals (cf. Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10–14). These transgressions, however, are not the most serious cultic crime connected with bloodshed, which is sacrificing children. Both the metaphorical depiction of Israel’s history in Ezek 16 (cf. vv. 20–21) and its rendition as exodus in Ezek 20 (cf. v. 31) present child sacrifice as the utmost example of the Israelites’ idolatry. Some 46.  Cf. the interpretation of Ezek 7:20 in §II.1.2.1.

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

55

exegetes interpret the expression “to pass someone through the fire” (Ezek 20:31; 23:37; cf. 16:21) as a symbolic gesture of offering children to Molech. This – together with the application of the verbs ‫( זבח‬Ezek 16:20) and ‫( ׁשחט‬16:21; 23:39) to such practices as well as the mention of the sacrificed children’s “blood” in 16:36 – proves beyond any doubt that children’s blood was really shed as part of cult. As Daniel I. Block sees it, idolatry and bloodshed – encompassing in the book of Ezekiel all cultic and social transgressions of the house of Israel – undermine the very foundations of life for the community of the covenant: idolatry ruins their vertical relation with Yahweh, while violence destroys horizontal relations within the community.47 An analysis of Israel’s sins that takes into account the oracles to the land and mountains of Israel shows that both transgressions remain closely connected with the land of Israel. The land becomes a victim of Israel’s cultic and social sinfulness in two ways. First, the land is a space of violence for those economically deprived, who lose their rights, including property rights and the right to partake of the gift of the land. Moreover, the land and its gifts are employed in illegitimate cult to produce idolatrous installations, objects and sacrificial matter. In both cases the land is objectified, losing its proper place in God’s relation with Israel. Secondly, human sins exert a direct impact on the land, which goes beyond Yahweh’s punishment of the people of the covenant. Human sinfulness leads to the devastation and desecration of the land, whereby it ceases to be a space of human life and a place of Yahweh’s presence. 2.3. The Lost Purity of the Land of Israel Presenting the land of Israel as a relational subject, Ezekiel employs the categories of cleanliness and uncleanliness to determine its status. Some scholars perceive the pollution of the land of Israel due to the sins committed by the people of the covenant to be of a ritual character, which would in essence be an outcome of God’s punishment of the mountains of Israel foretold in Ezek 6.48 To be more precise, places of idolatrous cult (6:13: “on every high hill, on all the mountain tops, under every green tree, and under every leafy oak”) will be filled with damaged cultic structures and objects (altars and idols), and among the destroyed installations there will also lie the bodies of the killed idolaters (cf. 6:4, 7, 13). A dead body needs to be buried so as not to pollute the earth (cf. Deut 21:22–23) and 47.  Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 704. 48.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 83–84; W. A. Tooman, Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39, FAT II/52 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 183.

56

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

all those that would come into contact with it. A similar principle applies to the bones lying on the surface of the earth (cf. Num 19:16). Such ritual uncleanliness will affect the Jerusalem temple – whose precincts will be filled with corpses (cf. Ezek 9:7) – and the whole land of Israel, whose surface will be covered with the bodies of Gog’s soldiers (cf. Ezek 39:12, 14–16). In the latter case, the way to cleanse the land by burying the soldiers’ bodies is also specified. The prophecy against the mountains of Israel makes it clear that the uncleanliness of the land of Israel goes beyond ritual pollution, for the land is defiled primarily through idolatry committed in its midst. It is idolatry – and not the presence of the corpses of idolaters, as Kenneth Dean Hutchens would have it49 – that makes the land unsuitable as a space of rightful cult. The death of idolaters should be viewed as a sanction imposed by Yahweh in his attempts to cleanse his land. Therefore, the pollution of the land of Israel as an outcome of the attitudes exhibited by its inhabitants belongs to the category of moral uncleanliness, as stated in the first sentence of the oracle addressed to the land of Israel in Ezek 22:23–31: “You are a land that is not cleansed (‫ )את ארץ לא מטהרה היא‬or rained on on the day of indignation” (v. 24).50 The statement that the land is not “rained on” accompanying the allegation of the land’s uncleanliness in 22:24 should not be treated as a metaphor for God’s punishment (for in such a case Ezekiel would rather speak of famine), but should be read as referring to Yahweh’s failure to purify the land despite his efforts to do so (cf. Ezek 24:13).51 If one 49.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 83. 50.  Some exegetes (cf. G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936], 244; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 94; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 465, 467–68; R. M. Hals, Ezekiel, FOTL 19 [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989], 160; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 32; Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel/Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–19, 328; Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel: Kapitel 1‒24, 314) suggest that MT should be corrected following the example of LXX, whose translation σὺ εἶ γῆ ἡ οὐ βρεχομένη stems from reading ‫( מטרה‬from the root ‫מטר‬, “to rain”) instead of ‫( מטהרה‬from the root ‫טהר‬, “to be clean”). It seems, however, that the version of MT should be retained for the root ‫ מטר‬does not appear in the piel nor pual conjugations (even with the assumption that the prefix ‫ מ‬could be omitted in them), while the root ‫ טהר‬is used in piel. The context of the oracle in Ezek 22 indicates that ‫ טהר‬should be read there, for the uncleanliness of the land resultant from the leaders’ conduct affects also Jerusalem (cf. the verb ‫טמא‬, “to be unclean,” in vv. 3, 4). 51.  The above argument for the retaining of MT in Ezek 22:24 may be found in Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 3:187–88; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 460–61; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 720; Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 166–67.

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

57

takes into account the parallels between the oracles addressed to the land (vv. 23–31) and to Jerusalem (vv. 1–16) in Ezek 20, then it becomes clear that the uncleanliness of the land of Israel stems from bloodshed and the creation of idols committed by the leaders of the house of Israel (cf. Ezek 22:3, 4). These acts bring upon the land moral uncleanliness, which is intentional52 and can only be removed via God’s direct intervention. The land’s solidarity with its inhabitants originates in its subjecthood ordained by Yahweh. The land is acted upon by people, but at the same time it is an agent creating a space for human activity. Hence, the land and the house of Israel together experience punishment for their co-participation in idolatry. At the same time, however, the land is a victim of human injustice in the sphere of communal life. Filled by people with violence and bloodshed, the land is defiled not only ritually but also morally. For this reason, the land’s purification requires God’s intervention. In light of this, the punishment of the land of Israel may be seen also as an activity intended by God to return the land to its original state and to restore the subjecthood and relationality it has lost. 3. The Punished Land It is the subjecthood of the land of Israel that makes the land co-responsible for the sin of idolatry committed by its inhabitants. The land and people’s solidarity in sin translates into their solidarity in Yahweh’s punishment. The punishment of the land needs to be understood in the context of the day of Yahweh, which will bring about the land’s destruction and raise questions of its future. What is Yahweh’s intention in his punishment of the land of Israel? 3.1. The Land of Israel on the Day of Yahweh The oracle addressed to the land of Israel in Ezek 7 constitutes a sort of a climax of a sequence of prophecies foretelling the events of 586 BCE: chs. 4 and 5 show these events from the perspective of Jerusalem and its inhabitants, ch. 6 connects them with the mountains of Israel, while ch. 7 relates them to the end of “the four corners of the land” (7:2), which forms the background for presenting the end of the land of Israel. The last prophecy connects the punishment of the land of Israel with the day of Yahweh. Even though the expression “the day of Yahweh” (‫)יום יהוה‬ does not appear in Ezek 7, it is presumed by the appearance of the noun 52.  That the uncleanliness mentioned in Ezek 22:3–4 is of a moral character is also confirmed by the parallels between the verbs ‫ טמא‬and ‫“( אׁשם‬to be or become guilty”) (cf. D. Kellermann, “‫א ָׁשם‬,” ָ ThWAT 1:471).

58

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

“day” (‫ )יום‬in vv. 10, 12, further specified in v. 7 as “the day of tumult” (‫ )יום מהומה‬and in v. 19 as “the day of the wrath of Yahweh” (‫יום עברת‬ ‫)יהוה‬. A similar link between the punishment of the land of Israel and the day of Yahweh occurs in the prophecy in Ezek 22, whose third part (vv. 24–31) addressed to the land of Israel begins with a description of the land’s situation on “the day of wrath” (‫יום זעם‬, v. 24). A direct reference to “the day of Yahweh” appears in turn in the oracle against false prophets in Ezek 13:5 and in the one against Egypt in 30:3. In all of the above cases the day of Yahweh is temporally linked to Jerusalem’s fall to the Babylonians, and in a broader context to their victory over Egypt. Ezekiel is not the first prophet to employ the concept of the day of Yahweh.53 Hence, it is worth exploring his understanding of the day of Yahweh, the function the punishment of the land of Israel has and the role played by Yahweh’s anger. While reading Ezek 7, one is struck by the emotional language employed in the oracle. Some scholars see it as an outcome of the redactional character of the text. Significant differences between the versions of ch. 7 in MT and LXX,54 the repetitions of fragments of vv. 2–4 in vv. 5–9 and various slips of grammatical and syntactic nature (the former would include grammatical gender mistakes, while the latter includes omission of articles or absence of words whose presence is assumed by sentence structure) are explained either as a secondary expansion of the original text (as in vv. 6aβ–9) or as an inclusion in this oracle of various speeches of the prophet.55 Others, nevertheless, claim that Ezek 7 is a coherent text, and not “an amorphous agglomerate of lines and glosses.”56 First of all, the style of this chapter resembles poetry, which has a predilection for short sentences, repetitions and parallel structures. Hence, some repetitions forming parallel structures seem a kind of chorus (cf. 53.  Cf. W. Pikor, “Metafora gniewu Jahwe w Sofoniaszowym proroctwie o dniu Jahwe,” in Deus meus et omnia: Księga pamiątkowa ku czci o. prof. Hugolina Langkammera OFM, ed. M. S. Wróbel (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2005), 347–63. 54.  For example, in the Greek Bible vv. 3–6aα MT are placed after v. 9, while vv. 6aβ–7 MT follow directly v. 2. Other differences between the wording of Ezek 7 in MT and LXX are discussed in P.-M. Bogaert, “Les deux rédactions conservées (LXX et MT) d’Ezéchiel 7,” in Lust, ed., Ezekiel and His Book, 21–47 (41–42). 55.  The most detailed reconstruction of the redaction of Ezek 7 is offered by Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 193–94. The origin of Ezek 7 in the connection of originally separate speeches is argued for by Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 74; Fohrer and Galling, Ezechiel, 42; Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 105. 56.  Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 158. A similar opinion is articulated by Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 243.

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

59

the announcement of Yahweh’s judicial activity in vv. 3a–4 and vv. 8b–9 or the explicatory sentence in vv. 12b, 14b – “for wrath is upon all her mob”). A similar parallel structure is used as a device structuring the sequence of announcements of the day of Yahweh through the collocation of the verb ‫ בוא‬with an appropriate noun: ‫ קץ‬in v. 2, ‫ רעה‬in v. 5, ‫ צפירה‬and ‫ עת‬in v. 7, ‫ יום‬in v. 10 and ‫ עת‬in v. 12. On top of that, the mechanism of resumptive exposition – characteristic of Ezekiel’s style and discussed in detail in the previous chapter – is used to organize three announcements of the day of Yahweh that formally end with the divine recognition formula (vv. 2b–4, 5–9, 10–27). Secondly, the alliterations and paronomasia present in Ezek 7 are signs of spoken language, which is characteristic not only of poetry but also of emotional utterances. Alliteration – that is, the repetition of the same sounds in words that are next to each other or that occupy the same position in a line – appears, for example, in v. 6 (‫ קץ‬and ‫ )בא‬and v. 10 (‫הנה‬ and words with the letter ‫)צ‬. Paronomasia – the usage of homophones – is employed even more often, with a particular resonance in vv. 11, 13, 14, 24 (e.g. in v. 11 words with alliterative combinations of the letters ‫מ‬, ‫ה‬ and ‫)נ‬. Finally, these literary features of Ezek 7 testify to the intensity and fierceness of the emotions accompanying the utterance in which linguistic accuracy takes a back seat to rhetoric. It is rhetoric that exerts impact on the listeners not only through its musicality but also through its semanticosyntactic irregularity, which explains why a word may be repeated too many times or omitted where it should appear by the logic of repetition.57 The emotions permeating Ezekiel’s rendition of the day of Yahweh result from the closeness of that event. The prophet, however, is more interested in the nature of the day of Yahweh than in its chronology. This is confirmed by Ezekiel’s usage of nouns which as subjects of the verb ‫בוא‬ function in Ezek 7 as synonyms of the noun ‫יום‬, especially the term ‫ קץ‬in vv. 2[×2], 3, 6[×3]. Ezekiel’s deployment of the term – as many exegetes see it58 – follows Amos 8:2, where the coming of the end is applied to the fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Ezekiel 7 does not mean the final, absolute end, for the word ‫ קץ‬will be employed in this sense only later in 57.  An example of excessive repetition of the same words may be found in Ezek 7:6, the verse mentioned already with reference to alliteration. An omission of a word that results in a sort of unexpected acclamation is visible, for instance, in Ezek 7:2, 5, where the omission of the verb ‫ בוא‬serves as an exclamation separating the nouns ‫ קץ‬and ‫רעה‬. 58.  Cf. among others Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 201; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 160; F. I. Anderson and D. N. Freedman, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction

60

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

the book of Daniel (cf. ‫ עת־קץ‬in Dan 8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9).59 Moshe Greenberg claims that in Ezekiel’s usage the term returns to its original meaning of a measure of time and “reflects [the] idea of a set measure or term of iniquity which when filled will trigger punishment,” as the expression ‫ עת עון קץ‬in Ezek 21:30, 34; 35:5 makes clear.60 The last of the three verses, however, confirms Walther Zimmerli’s stance that ‫“ קץ‬is here more than simple definition of time. It is a complete ‘annihilation.’ ”61 In Ezek 35:5 ‫ עת עון קץ‬is used synonymously to ‫“( עת אידם‬the time of their calamity”) and hence may be translated as “the time of the punishment of annihilation.” According to Zimmerli, Ezekiel’s treatment of ‫ קץ‬as “annihilation” stems from the Priestly tradition represented by the text of Gen 6:13, where the flood is foretold as ‫קץ כל־בׂשר‬. The analysis of the term ‫ קץ‬ties in with the question of the territorial dimension of the day of Yahweh in light of the announcement of the end for “the four corners of the land” (Ezek 7:2). In this metaphorical image of the day of Yahweh the metaphorizing element is the spread canvas held by its four corners (cf. Deut 22:12). The earth is presented in the same way in Job 38:13: the godless are to be shaken off it as if off a canvas. Some scholars believe the land of Israel to be the metaphorized element in Ezek 7:2, thereby denying the day of Yahweh a universal dimension.62 However, the same expression is used in Isa 11:12 with reference to the whole earth, similar to the phrase ‫“( מכנף הארץ‬from the ends of the earth”) in Isa 24:16.63 In his description of the day of Yahweh, Ezekiel focuses on the fate of the land of Israel (to whom as ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬the oracle is addressed, cf. Ezek 7:2), yet he situates this event in a universalist perspective. The end of the land of Israel is not a local event, but one that generates consequences for the whole world, for all the inhabitants of the earth (cf. Ezek 7:7a; 21:8–9).

and Commentary, AB 24A (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 296–97; J. Jeremias, Der Prophet Amos, ATD 24/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 104; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 245–46. 59.  Cf. S. Talmon, “‫ ֵקץ‬qēṣ,” ThWAT 7:89. 60.  Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 433. 61.  Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 204. 62.  Cf. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 106; Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 103–4. 63.  Cf. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 101; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 203; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 147; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 249. These scholars mention the Akkadian expression kippat erbette (“the four quarters of the earth”) as an analogy (cf. CAD 8:399).

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

61

Ezekiel’s description of the day of Yahweh makes use of the motif of God’s anger, introduced into the day’s semantics by Zephaniah. This anthropopathism is a metaphor depicting God’s activity with respect to the land of Israel. The punishment of the land is not an impersonal misfortune, but is presented as God’s personal reaction to its sin. The devastation of the land of Israel is not an outcome of a human decision (cf. Ezek 21:23–32) but of God’s intervention with the finale decided on by Yahweh himself. Ezekiel personifies anger only to some extent, for example when he speaks of “send[ing] anger” upon the earth (‫ )ׁשלחתי אפי בך‬in 7:3.64 Anger is a tool of Yahweh’s action, comparable to famine, plague, sword and wild animals, which are “messengers” bringing God’s punishment (cf. the verb ‫ ׁשלח‬in piel in Ezek 5:16, 17; 14:19, 21; 28:23). At the same time, the motif of Yahweh’s anger indicates a proper historical-salvific context of God’s intervention. Wrath shows God’s “jealousy” (‫)קנאה‬, which is a sign of his justice and loyalty to the people of the covenant.65 Wrath does not denote a mere irrational emotional stance, but functions as a metaphor for God’s justice, which demands that he react to the evil committed by human beings (cf. Ezek 7:3–4, 8–9, 27). Moreover, anger reveals Yahweh’s faithfulness visible in his desire to free his people of all that leads to death. As the oracles foretelling the restoration of the land of Israel will show, God’s intention is the removal of evil and the cleansing of the land so that it can return to a proper relationship with Yahweh and the people of the covenant. 3.2. The Devastated Land of Israel The day of Yahweh is predicted as “the end” bringing the destruction of the land of Israel. Historically speaking, “the end” will take the form of the events connected with Jerusalem’s fall in 586 BCE. It will be unlike Yahweh’s many earlier punitive interventions caused by the transgressions of the land of Israel and its inhabitants. Proclaiming the day of Yahweh, Ezekiel identifies it with “evil”: ‫( רעה אחת רעה הנה באה‬7:5). The sentence proves difficult to translate due to the term ‫אחת‬. Some scholars maintain that it should be corrected to the pronoun ‫אחר‬, translating the phrase as: “evil upon evil.”66 However, such a translation of the Hebrew text would require the presence of the pronoun ‫על‬, as can be deduced 64.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 204; Wevers, Ezekiel, 62; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 147. 65.  Cf. ‫ אף‬in Ezek 5:13 and ‫ עברה‬in 38:19 as synonyms of ‫קנאה‬. 66.  Cf. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 98; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 195; Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 108; Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel/Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–19, 111.

62

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

from Jer 4:20 and Ezek 7:26. Following MT, ‫ אחת‬should be treated as a numeral, hence the expression should be translated as: “an evil. A singular evil; see, it is coming.”67 It is a “singular” evil in terms of its uniqueness and extraordinariness, predicted earlier with reference to Jerusalem, to which God promised: “I will do among you what I have not done, and the like of which I will never do again” (Ezek 5:9). The announcement of “an evil” does not serve to encompass all the disasters that will befall the land of Israel68 but rather to emphasize that its devastation will be unparalleled in Israel’s history. Surpassing all previous punishments, it will bring a genuine “end” to the land of Israel’s current existence. In punishment oracles for the land and mountains of Israel their devastation is expressed primarily through the terms formed from two roots: ‫ ׁשמם‬and ‫חרב‬.69 Most often the noun ‫ ׁשממה‬is used to express the outcome of the land’s punishment (cf. Ezek 6:14; 12:20; 15:8; 33:28, 29; 36:34 and in 14:15, 16 if the hypothetical land mentioned there is identified with Israel). In Ezek 6:14; 33:28, 29 ‫ ׁשממה‬collocates with the noun ‫מׁשמה‬. Deriving from the same root ‫ׁשמם‬, ‫ מׁשמה‬is a synonym of ‫ ;ׁשממה‬together they form a hendiadys to express the highest degree of destruction.70 The activity of destroying the land and mountains of Israel is most often foretold with the use of the verb ‫( ׁשמם‬cf. Ezek 25:3; 33:28; 35:12, 15; 36:3, 4, 34, 35, 36) and once with a synonymous verb ‫( יׁשם‬cf. 12:19). The noun ‫ ׁשממה‬is translated as “wasteland,” but to determine the character and extent of the destruction of the land of Israel it is essential to take into account the context of the term’s appearance. The devastation of the land of Israel in the wake of Yahweh’s punishment will have two dimensions: human and material. The former is the consequence of the depopulation of the land due to two causes. First, some people will die “by sword, by famine, and by pestilence” (cf. 6:11, 12; 7:15).71 Secondly, the depopulation of the land of Israel will happen as an outcome of the dispersion of the survivors. Some of them will desert their houses during military activities to seek shelter in the 67.  The translation follows Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 148; cf. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 77; Wevers, Ezekiel, 63. 68.  Cf. Joyce, Ezekiel, 94. 69.  Cf. the semantic analysis of these roots in Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 188–95. 70.  Cf. GKC §133l. The same structure appears in Ezek 35:3, 7. 71.  The same causes of death are enumerated as well with reference to the extermination of the Jerusalemites foretold in Ezek 5:12, 16. The elements of the triad are also mentioned separately as causes of death of the inhabitants of a hypothetical country, which may be identified with Judah (cf. 14:13, 17, 19).

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

63

mountains (cf. 7:16). The fate of the land will ultimately be sealed by the survivors’ “scatter[ing] among the countries” (6:8; cf. 12:16). They will join the exiles in Babylonia, who were deported there after 597 BCE (cf. 14:22). The other aspect of the land’s devastation pertains to the material sphere connected with broadly understood human culture. The oracles addressed to the land and mountains of Israel distinguish at least three areas of material culture which will be destroyed. The first of these is the sphere of cult. The punishment of the mountains of Israel, which are co-responsible for idolatry, will result in the destruction of places and installations of idolatrous cult (cf. 6:3–7), whereby “the high places will be desolate (‫( ”)תיׁשמנה‬6:6). The second area concerns trade. The desolation of the land of Israel stems from lack of people who would traverse it (cf. the verb ‫ עבר‬in 14:15; 33:28 and in 35:7 with reference to Edom). These are not regular inhabitants of the land, who were either killed or dispersed. The fragment seems to allude to the ceasing of trade or commodity exchange enabled by travelling salesmen and caravans.72 The day of Yahweh will bring to a halt all types of mercantile activity (cf. 7:12–13). The third sphere destroyed is that of agriculture. Joyful cries upon the mountains uttered at the end of harvest or vintage will not be heard again (cf. 7:7). Devoid of people, the land will lie waste – there will be nobody to tend (cf. 36:9, 34), sow (cf. 36:9) or plant it (cf. 36:36). The multifaceted cultural degradation of the land of Israel will make the land “stripped of all it contains” (12:19( )‫ ;תׁשם ארצה ממלאה‬cf. a similar punishment foretold for Egypt in 30:12; 32:15). There will be one more factor contributing to the devastation of the land of Israel, namely its pillaging by Judah’s conquerors. They will take over the properties of previous inhabitants (cf. 7:24) and treat the land as loot (cf. the noun ‫ בז‬in 36:4, 5), plundering it with utmost cruelty (cf. the verb ‫ ׁשאף‬in collocation with ‫ ׁשמם‬in 36:3). The second group of terms Ezekiel deploys to describe the destruction of the land of Israel on account of God’s punishment is formed from the root ‫חרב‬. It is semantically complementary to the root ‫ׁשמם‬: while ‫ׁשמם‬ is used to refer to human and material aspects of the destruction and desolation of the land, the root ‫ חרב‬describes the destruction that occurs through the demolition of buildings and other elements of cityscape, which are turned into ruin. The restoration of the original state requires the rebuilding of the ruins, which is expressed with the verb ‫ בנה‬in 36:10, 33, 36. The devastation of the cities of Judah is foretold with the use of the 72.  Cf. I. Meyer, “‫ ָׁש ֵַמם‬šāmam,” ThWAT 8:249–50.

64

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

verb ‫ חרב‬in 6:6; 12:20; 19:7; 26:2. They are presented already as a “ruin” (‫ )חרבה‬in 5:14; 33:24, 27; 36:4, 10, 33; 38:8, 12. The destroyed cities will be devoid of people (cf. 36:4), and their ruins will become home to those who will survive the sword and escape deportation (cf. 33:24, 27). City ruins will become feeding grounds for foxes and other predators (cf. 13:4). When the terms formed from the roots ‫ ׁשמם‬and ‫ חרב‬appear in parallel parts of one sentence, they describe the totality of the destruction and depopulation of the land of Israel.73 The oracles of punishment present the destruction of the land of Israel as complete. Geographically speaking, it will encompass the whole land, “in all their dwelling places, from the wilderness to Riblah” (Ezek 6:14),74 “from south to north” (21:3, 9). The destruction is inevitable not only because the righteous one is not able to save the land of Israel (cf. 14:13–20). It is inevitable since there is no one who “would build up the wall and stand in the breach before me [Yahweh] for the land, so that I would not destroy it” (22:30). The destructive consequences of the day of Yahweh cannot be avoided for Yahweh himself declares: “My eye will have no pity on you [the land of Israel], nor will I spare you” (7:4, 9). 3.3. The Question of the Land’s Future The prediction of the destruction of the land of Israel raises questions about the future. Reading punishment oracles, one may come to the conclusion that there is no future for the land of Israel, as it will be completely devastated and depopulated, falling prey to wild animals (cf. Ezek 14:15) and foreign nations (cf. 35:12; 36:2–5). To what extent does such an interpretation do justice to God’s will? An answer to this question needs to take into account two things: Ezekiel’s role as a watchman for the house of Israel and the logic of a punishment oracle as regards the perspective of cleansing. The oracles foretelling the punishment of the land of Israel seem a death penalty similar to the one Ezekiel heard God utter with reference to the wicked (cf. 3:18). However, the prophet’s role as a watchman for the house of Israel is not restricted only to delivering Yahweh’s decision to the accused.75 Ezekiel’s function needs to be understood in the context of a judicial quarrel (‫)ריב‬, in which the subject entering a dispute announces the sentence only as a threat conditioned by his opponent’s subsequent 73.  Cf. Ezek 12:20; 36:33–35. 74.  The problem of the translation of Ezek 6:14 is touched upon in §I.2.1 n. 28. 75.  This interpretation suggested by R. R. Wilson, “An Interpretation of Ezekiel’s Dumbness,” VT 22 (1972): 91–104 (96), is espoused by Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 149, and Joyce, Ezekiel, 21.

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

65

attitude.76 The death penalty, therefore, does not have a definitive character; rather, the anticipation of death penalty is to prompt the guilty party to acknowledge their blame and change their conduct. Essentially, then, the threat constitutes a proposal of resolving a situation that would otherwise lead to death. Granted, the oracles of the punishment for the land of Israel do not directly call for repentance nor do they present repentance as a factor that can avert disaster. Even so, the postulate of repentance directed to the inhabitants of the land of Israel is present in these oracles, and not as irony or a mere rhetorical strategy stressing the inevitability of doom.77 Ezekiel’s depiction of the inhabitants’ reaction to the punishment of the land of Israel is not restricted only to their behaviour, for their behaviour is intricately interwoven with their feelings. To a large extent, these are natural gestures of reaction towards war, death and exile. In the face of such a disaster, one’s arms drop, legs become weak (cf. 7:17, 27; 21:12), the body shivers (cf. 7:18), and the mouth utters moans and sighs (cf. 7:16; 21:11–12). It is not only a response to the loss of the land and the beloved ones, as the prophet makes it clear that “all of them [will be] mourning (‫)המות‬, each over his own iniquity (‫( ”)בעונו‬7:16). Mourning, expressed here with the verb ‫המה‬, stems from an awareness of one’s own responsibility. The same reason for mourning (‫ ב‬+ ‫ עון‬+ suffix) is given with reference to Jerusalem’s fall, where people’s behaviour is expressed with the verbs ‫ מקק‬in niphal (“to rot away” – 24:23; 33:10) and ‫“( נהם‬to groan” – 24:23), whose sound is reminiscent of a synonymous verb ‫המה‬ in 7:16. Moaning will be accompanied by “self-loathing (‫ )נקטו בפניהם‬for the evils which they have committed, for all their abominations” (6:9). Those who will survive Jerusalem’s fall in 586 BCE will confess their “abominations” when already in Babylonia (cf. 12:16). The significance of such gestures for repentance becomes clear after the fall of Judah, when those exiled in 597 BCE are joined by a fugitive from Jerusalem who informs them of the city’s conquest by the Babylonians (cf. 33:21–22). The exiles react in the following way: “Surely our transgressions and 76.  Cf. Bovati, Ristabilire la giustizia, 74. 77.  Joyce’s opinion, Ezekiel, 20, 22, stems from the conviction that repentance cannot avert judgment or guarantee salvation in light of the future restoration of the land of Israel foretold in Ezek 36:22–32. Instead, according to Joyce, conversion is an outcome of God’s future activity of creation (p. 36). It has to be pointed out, however, that Joyce overlooks the relations between the terms specifying people’s attitude to the destruction of the land of Israel and their significance when applied to Yahweh. In the process of conversion, they seem to be an act of acknowledging one’s sins, without which it is impossible to open out to God’s saving initiative.

66

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

our sins are upon us, and we are rotting away in them; how then can we survive?” (33:10). These words evince not mourning but rather remorse and repentance leading to the acknowledgment of one’s sins to accommodate Yahweh and his saving activity. The confession of their sins is the first step towards conversion. Even though repentance will not change the current situation of the land of Israel, it is essential with respect to the future guaranteed by Yahweh’s loyalty. It is through the punishment of the land of Israel that Yahweh intends to restore its identity connected with Israel. The punishment of the land needs to be read in the context of its future restoration. Even though this aspect seems absent in the oracles foretelling the destruction of the land of Israel, it is nevertheless assumed by Ezekiel’s cosmic and symbolic perspective on the land’s uncleanliness. The statement that “the land is not rained upon” (Ezek 22:24) does not only have cultic connotations (water as a cleansing material) but also protologico-universal ones.78 Both the oracles addressed to the land of Israel and those concerning the land include many allusions to the flood, whose aim was to purify the land of human wickedness and violence. In its universal dimension, the violence filling the earth before the flood (Gen 6:11, 13) becomes a cosmic prototype for the violence filling the land of Israel (Ezek 8:17). Thus, the flood is the paradigm for the punishment of the land of Israel foretold in Ezek 22:24.79 In the logic of Genesis, the flood seems an act of new creation which restores the land of Israel to its original condition.80 To sum up the analysis of the oracles addressed to the land of Israel, it needs to be emphasized that the land’s function as a recipient of prophetic word is not a mere rhetorical strategy since Ezekiel treats the land as a subject. The metaphorization of the land of Israel serves to show it as an agent of moral activity in the world. Its identity is contingent on its relation with Yahweh, to whom it belongs and who gives it as a gift to the people of the covenant. The land’s connection with Israel determines its anthropo-geographical identity in its political, cultural and religious aspects. The land of Israel occupies a special position among the foreign nations, for whom it functions as a space of Yahweh’s self-manifestation in the world. 78.  Cf. C. Granados García, La nueva alianza como recreación: Estudio exegético de Ezek 36:16–38, AnBib 184 (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2010), 92. 79.  Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 461; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 723–24. 80.  A similar way of interpreting the day of Yahweh is suggested in Zeph 1:3.

II. The Phenomenology of the Land of Israel

67

The theophanic role of the land of Israel explains its subjection to Yahweh’s punishment. The land is accused of participation in the faithlessness of the chosen nation by allocating some of its spaces to serve as places of idolatrous cult. At the same time, the land falls victim to the Israelites’ cultic and social sinfulness. Bloodshed, encompassing various acts of violence in the community, and idolatry lead to the loss of the land’s cleanliness. Its pollution is of a moral character and requires an intervention of God himself to remove it. Ezekiel situates the punishment of the land of Israel in the context of the day of Yahweh. In accordance with earlier prophetic tradition of that day, Ezekiel predicts the day of Yahweh using very emotional language, evincing the closeness of that event, which may be identified with Jerusalem’s fall. The nature of the day of Yahweh is captured by the term “the end,” which the prophet understands as a total destruction of the land of Israel. The motif of God’s anger is alluded to in order to show that God’s action is a response to the chosen nation’s breach of the covenant, to which Yahweh remains faithful. The human and material desolation of the land of Israel cannot be treated exclusively as punishment. God intends to cleanse the land as a prerequisite for an act of creating a new land as a subject constituting an integral part of Yahweh’s covenant with the restored Israel. The prediction of the punishment for the land of Israel thus has two aims: the illocutionary and perlocutionary ones. On the one hand, punishment oracles show the truth of the land of Israel, its subjecthood and relationality, and, on the other, these prophecies contain an element of persuasion addressed to the exiles from 597 BCE. In the face of Jerusalem’s fall in 586 BCE, they are called to repent and acknowledge their responsibility for the punishment of the land of Israel. This requires confession of their sins and opening up to God’s saving initiative. As the following chapter devoted to the land’s place in the history of salvation will argue, the predicted “end” is in essence a beginning understood as Yahweh’s decisive involvement in the history of the land of Israel.

Chapter III T h e H i s tory of I sr ae l W r i t t e n f rom t h e P ers p ect i ve of the L and

This chapter seeks to determine the role played by the land of Israel in the history of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. To do so, the rhetorical structure of Ezek 20 – which offers a comprehensive view on the history of the land of Israel – will be analysed. Such a historical perspective will form the background against which to situate the promise of the land, serving as a framework for Israel’s history. The status of the Promised Land will be explored in the final part of this chapter, which is devoted to the analysis of the disputes concerning the entitlement to the land, which sheds light on the relationship between Yahweh, Israel and the land. 1. The Salvific History and the Land of Israel As the addressee of the punishment oracles in the book of Ezekiel, the land is perceived as a subject related to Yahweh and Israel. These oracles stress, on the one hand, the dimensions of the land’s guilt, with its present apex, and, on the other, foretell the punishment that will bring to an end the land’s current existence. Ezekiel’s view on the land of Israel is, however, much broader, as the chapters synthesizing Israel’s history show. Chapter 20 is unique in this respect since it makes it possible to interpret the prediction of the land’s punishment in the context of Israel’s whole history. The analysis conducted in this chapter will begin with a description of the exodus as a pattern of history, and then subsequently pinpoint the elements through which the prophet reinterprets the biblical tradition of exodus. 1.1. The Theology of History in Ezekiel 20 The starting point for the discussion of Ezekiel’s view of history in ch. 20 needs to be the question of the text’s literary coherence. Proponents of the redactional character of Ezek 20 distinguish two parts in the chapter:

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

69

vv. 1–31 and 32–44, attributing to Ezekiel only the former (and this with the exception of vv. 27–29). The oracle is assumed to have been delivered by the prophet (cf. 20:1) on 14 August 591 BCE.1 Even if the second part of the chapter is likewise attributed to Ezekiel, its creation is situated later, after Jerusalem’s fall. Such an argument is articulated most clearly by Walther Zimmerli,2 yet it does not seem sufficient to reject the coherence of Ezek 20. Zimmerli’s argument against the unity of vv. 1–31 and 32–44 is rooted, among other things, in the structural similarity of Ezek 20 to Ezek 8–11 and 14:1–11. These oracles are motivated by the elders’ request to consult Yahweh. The rejection of this wish is followed by a pronouncement of punishment. Nevertheless, the texts mentioned above refer to different communicational situations: 8:1 does not mention the elders’ wish to consult (‫ )דרׁש‬Yahweh, while in 14:3 the idolaters are refused divine response and are called to repent (cf. 14:6). Zimmerli is right to claim that the refusal of God’s response in ch. 20 constitutes a frame (‫ דרׁש‬in vv. 3, 31), yet v. 31 contains no expressions that would mark a definitive end of the oracle.3 What is more, the verb ‫ – ׁשפט‬employed in 20:4 to summon the prophet to evaluate the house of Israel – reappears in vv. 35, 36 as a clear reference to the command from the beginning of the oracle. Walther Zimmerli correlates the verb ‫ ׁשפט‬in 20:4 with parallel texts ordering the prophet to “judge” (22:2; 23:36) and to “make known to Jerusalem her abominations” (16:2; 22:2) to prove that such oracles offer no room for the proclamation of salvation present in 20:32–44. It needs to be emphasized, however, that the prediction of another exile, of purification in “the wilderness of the peoples” and of the feeling of self-loathing for the evil one has committed mentioned in the second part of the oracle are in accord with the threating tone of the first part. Even if Yahweh promises to “pour out [his] wrath” in 20:33, 34, he earlier soothed it (cf. 20:8, 21; also in v. 13). Finally, Zimmerli’s argument that the two parts of ch. 20 1.  The scholars who mention this date (Zimmerli, Greenberg, Allen, Block) follow the reconstruction of the historical data in Ezek 20:1 by R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, Brown University Studies 19 (Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1956), 28. 2.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 404, 412. 3.  The oath formula ‫“( חי־אני‬by my life”) present in Ezek 20:31 cannot be claimed to function as a concluding remark, for its other occurrences in the book of Ezekiel prove that it plays a different role: it expresses a statement that is later expounded on (cf. 16:48; 18:3; 20:3; 33:11; 34:8), confirms a pronouncement of judgment (cf. 14:16, 18, 20; 17:16) or signals a transition from rebuke to judgment (cf. 5:11; 17:19; 33:27; 35:6, 11).

70

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

are stylistically and semantically divergent may be refuted through a detailed enumeration of lexical connections between vv. 1–31 and 32–44, presented by Moshe Greenberg and Thomas Krüger.4 The attribution of the authorship of the whole of ch. 20 to Ezekiel offers important clues for the interpretation of the theology of history offered in the prophecy. To begin with, the chapter presents the prophet’s view of Israel’s history before Jerusalem’s fall in 586 BCE. Secondly, the prophecy is not restricted to Israel’s history (as assumed by the restriction of the “original” oracle to vv. 1–26, 30–31), but it encompasses the nation’s present and future as well. What is more, the schematism of Ezekiel’s rendition of history pertains not only to the period before the occupation of the land (vv. 5–26) but should also be applied to the analysis of the remaining parts of the oracle. Finally, the question of the reason for Ezekiel’s attempt to synthesize Israel’s history needs to be posed. A traditional perception of Ezek 20 as a history of Israel’s sin and apostasy overlooks the attention that Ezekiel pays to the future and the crucial role played in it by the land of Israel. 1.2. Exodus as the Key to Understanding the History of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 20 The rendition of Israel’s history in Ezek 20 is an example of the Hebrew rhetoric in which form communicates content. The assumption that originally the oracle consisted of vv. 5–26 makes scholars analyse the structure of this fragment only.5 The restriction of analysis to vv. 5–26 only does not take into account the literary coherence of Ezek 20. The rhetorical analysis of the chapter shows that the key to understanding Ezekiel’s concept of history is not his reworked version of the Deuteronomistic four-stage model of history but the fact of exodus. It is this fact that the prophet will use to create an antithetical structure of Israel’s history, encompassing the historical exodus from Egypt and the new exodus that will take place in the nation’s future. The analysis of the dynamics of the first and second exodus in Ezek 20 needs to be preceded by the determination of the caesura between these two events. Advocates of the redactional character of the oracle situate the first exodus within vv. 1–31 and see as the direct cause of the second exodus the statement of the house of Israel cited in v. 32: “We will be 4.  Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 381; T. Krüger, Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch, BZAW 180 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1989), 209–10. 5.  A detailed list of the authors may be found in L. C. Allen, “The Structuring of Ezekiel’s Revisionist History Lesson (Ezekiel 20:3–31),” CBQ 54 (1992): 448–62.

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

71

like the nations, like the tribes of the lands, serving wood and stone.” As a consequence, these words are read as a sign of the exiles’ despair and resignation, similar to their statements quoted in 33:10 and 37:11.6 Such an interpretation, however, raises formal doubts. To begin with, the Israelites’ statement is followed not by words of consolation but by words of threat and punishment. For example, Yahweh declares that he will rule over them “with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out” (20:33). A note of threat resounds even more clearly in vv. 34–38, which foretell the removal from among the nation of those who rebel against Yahweh. Secondly, as already stated in this chapter (cf. n. 3, above), v. 31, which forms an inclusion with v. 3 through the presence of the verb ‫דרׁש‬, does not contain any elements that would formally end the oracle. As the inclusion formed by the second person masculine plural pronoun, “you,” and the verb ‫( אמר‬vv. 30, 32) shows, vv. 30–32 constitute one rhetorical unit. As a result, the Israelites’ statement quoted in v. 32 constitutes the apex of their apostasy, an echo of people’s demand to have an earthly ruler, articulated in 1 Sam 8:20. Expressing their impudent wish to serve pagan deities, Ezekiel’s generation completes the history of unfaithfulness started by the Israelites in Egypt. In this way, the narration of the new exodus in Ezek 20 begins in v. 33. To delimit units comprising two separate parts of an oracle, both rhetorical and narrative criteria need to be taken into account. Narrative criteria include primarily the change of setting, time and characters. These play a crucial role in analysing Ezek 20 in light of numerous scholarly suggestions concerning the structure of vv. 5–26. From the narrative point of view, six pieces can be distinguished in the first part of the oracle: vv. 1–4, 5–9, 10–17, 18–26, 27–29, 30–32. The first and the last one are situated in the present: vv. 1–4 describe the context of the oracle’s delivery, while vv. 30–32 express Yahweh’s ultimate refusal to answer the elders’ inquiry. At the same time, the latter fragment depicts the transgressions of the last generation of the Israelites, thus bringing the narrative of Israel’s history “to this day” (v. 31). Framed in this way, the remaining four parts of the oracle pertain to Israel’s past: from their stay in Egypt (vv. 5–9) through the story of the first (vv. 10–17) and second generation in the desert (vv. 18–26) to entering the Promised Land (vv. 27–29). 6.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 414; P. Weimar and E. Zenger, Exodus: Geschichten und Geschichte der Befreiung Israels, SBS 75 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975), 152; A. Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People, AnBib 104 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1984), 66; L. C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990), 13–14.

72

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

The second part of the oracle foretells Israel’s future (Ezek 20:33–44). The only exception to this rule is v. 39, in which Yahweh directs his words to Ezekiel’s listeners and calls them to act now. In MT the verse reads: “Each of you go worship his idols, and afterward, if you do not listen to me, you shall not desecrate my holy name any more with your gifts and your idols.” The command to serve idols is of an ironic character, and, in reality, it is a command to take some action in light of the exclusion of rebels against Yahweh from among those who will enter the land, foretold in v. 38. The following adverb ‫ אחר‬introduces a conditional sentence, only the protasis of which is included (‫)אם־אינכם ׁשמעים אלי‬. It may be assumed that the omitted apodosis would mention the punishment befalling those who follow idols.7 Verse 39b constitutes a return to the future by ruling out the possibility of profaning Yahweh’s name after entering the Promised Land. This change of setting is indicated by the explicatory conjunction ‫ כי‬at the outset of v. 40, which describes Yahweh’s cult on “his holy mountain.” In this way, the awaited decision of the Israelites alluded to in v. 39a corresponds to the decision to rule over them which Yahweh has already taken, as expressed in v. 33. To delimit the remaining pieces of the second part of the oracle, rhetorical criteria need to be applied. The phrase “with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out,” repeated in vv. 33 and 34, serves as a median term; v. 34 starts the unit that ends in v. 38. The coherence of this piece is contingent upon the terms forming the frame (the verb ‫יצא‬in hiphil and the noun ‫)ארץ‬, the presence of verbs of movement (apart from ‫ יצא‬the verb ‫ בוא‬in vv. 35, 37, 38 and ‫ עבר‬in hiphil in v. 37) and the unity of place (the foretold events happen in the desert, cf. vv. 35, 36). Verse 33 is a one-verse piece, in which Yahweh’s will is communicated to the addressees of the oracle of Ezek 20. The piece starting in v. 39b ends in v. 42, which expresses the completion of the nation’s entrance into the land of Israel. Content-wise, the unity of vv. 39b–42 is confirmed by the presence of the terms formed from the same root ‫( קדׁש‬the noun in vv. 39, 40[×2], the verb in v. 41). The final piece of the oracle comprises vv. 43–44, whose parallelism stems from the repetition of the nouns ‫ דרכיכם‬and ‫ עלילותיכם‬as well as the verb ‫עׂשה‬. As the semantic relations between the first and the second part of Ezek 20 show, the two parts are organized into an antithetical parallel structure: 7.  Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 374; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 3:159; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 654.

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

73

the verb ‫ יצא‬in hiphil describes in the first part “bring[ing] them [Israel] out from the land of Egypt” (vv. 6, 9; the verb without the adverbial of place in vv. 10, 14, 22), and in the second the “bringing out” of Israel from the land of exile (in v. 34 “the nations” functions as the adverbial of place, while in v. 38 “the land of their sojourn”); the verb ‫ בוא‬in hiphil is used with reference to Yahweh’s leading Israel “into the wilderness” (v. 10). The adverbial of place complementing the verb in the second part of the oracle is “the wilderness of the peoples” (v. 35), which as the place of Yahweh’s judgment of Israel is juxtaposed in v. 36 with “the wilderness of Egypt”; the subject who Yahweh will not “bring…to the land” after the departure from Egypt is the first generation of exodus (v. 15: ‫)לבלתי הביא אותם אל־הארץ‬, while in the new exodus it is the Israelites who rebel against Yahweh (v. 38: ‫ואל־אדמת יׂשראל לא‬ ‫;)יבוא‬ while describing the second generations’ wandering through the desert, the first part of the oracle foretells that Yahweh will “disperse” (‫ פוץ‬in hiphil) and “scatter” (‫ זרה‬in piel) Israel among the nations (v. 23). The “dispersing” (‫ פוץ‬in niphal) of Israel is the starting point of the new exodus (vv. 34, 41); both the first and the second exodus ends with Yahweh’s “bring[ing] (‫ בוא‬in hiphil) you [Israel] into the land of Israel, into the land which [he] swore (‫ )נׂשאתי את־ידי‬to give to your fathers” (vv. 28 and 42, respectively); the description of Israel’s stay in the Promised Land in the first and second part of the oracle is connected by: (1) the adverb of place ‫( ׁשם‬used five times in v. 28 and three times in v. 40); (2) the terms denoting hills on which worship takes place (v. 28: ‫ ;גבעה רמה‬v. 29: ‫ ;במה‬v. 40: ‫ הר־קדׁשי‬and ‫( ;)הר מרום יׂשראל‬3) sacrificial terminology (v. 28: the nouns ‫זבח‬, ‫קרבן‬, ‫ ריח‬and ‫נסך‬ with appropriate attributes and verbs; v. 40: ‫ תרומה‬and ‫ראׁשית‬ ‫ ;מׂשאת‬v. 41: ‫;)ריח‬ the Israelites’ conduct after entering the land is described with the term ‫דרכים‬: the first part ends with an accusation that they “defile [themselves] in the manner of [their] fathers” (‫בדרך אבותיכם‬, v. 30), while the second part – with a two-fold statement: the Israelites will “remember [their] ways” (‫דרכיכם‬, v. 43) and God will act on their behalf “not according to [their] evil ways” (‫לא כדרכיכם הרעים‬, v. 44).

74

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

On the basis of the semantic correlations outlined above, the parallel dynamics of the first and the new exodus in Ezek 20 can be expressed in the following way: Part One: the first exodus (vv. 1–32) A (vv. 1–4)

the elders’ inquiry refused by Yahweh



B (vv. 5–9)

the Israelites in Egypt



B′ (vv. 10–17)

the first generation in the wilderness



B″ (vv. 18–26)

the second generation in the wilderness



C (vv. 27–29)

A′ (vv. 30–32)

the Israelites in the Promised Land

the Israelites’ abandonment of Yahweh and Yahweh’s rejection of their request

Part Two: the new exodus (vv. 33–44) A (v. 33)

Yahweh’s decision to rule over Israel

B (vv. 34–38)

A′ (v. 39a)

departing into the wilderness of the peoples

Israel called to take the decision to serve Yahweh

C (vv. 39b–42)

entering the land and Yahweh’s welcome of Israel on his holy mountain



the Israelites in the Promised Land

C′ (vv. 43–44)

1.3. The Character of Ezekiel’s Vision of Exodus in the Context of the Land of Israel Ezekiel’s account of Israel’s history in Ezek 20 is frequently deemed as “revisionist,” especially with reference to the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic tradition.8 A new look on the history of exodus stems from the experience of the Babylonian captivity, which generates questions of the reasons for the loss of the land and the possibility of returning to it. For Ezekiel, it is not at all obvious that the first exodus ended in success, even if he speaks in 20:28 of Yahweh’s bringing Israel “into the land that [he] swore [literally, lifted his hand] to give them.” The prophet concludes his account of the new exodus in 20:42 in the same way, which serves not only to emphasize the parallels between the two events, but also to show that the Israelites have yet to enter the land 8.  J. Pons, “Le vocabulaire d’Ézéchiel 20. Le prophète s’oppose à la vision deutéronomiste de l’histoire,” in Lust, ed., Ezekiel and His Book, 214–33, argues for the polemic character of Ezek 20 with reference to the Deuteronomistic tradition.

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

75

and that they are still on the way there. Such an impression is signalled first by the verbs Ezekiel uses to describe the new exodus in 20:41–42a: ‫יצא‬, ‫ קבץ‬and ‫ בוא‬in hiphil (cf. the same triad of verbs in 36:24; 37:21). The subject of these verbs is God, who gathers his people to lead them out of dispersal and into the Promised Land. The prophet does not use here the verb ‫ׁשוב‬, which would stress the actual moment of return (cf. Jer 29:14). Secondly, the first exodus ends with entering the land (cf. 20:28), yet the acts of idolatry described later prove that people viewed as their destination not the land as such but the high places frequented by them (20:29). They show through their acts that they still follow the road traversed by their predecessors in the wilderness. Thirdly, Israel’s current dispersal was decided on by Yahweh in the desert during the first exodus: “I swore [literally, lifted my hand] to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands” (20:23). On account of people’s breach of the covenant, Ezekiel views exile as Yahweh’s final and irreversible decision, taken before the entrance into the Promised Land, and not as a mere possibility, in the manner the Priestly and Deuteronomic traditions see it (cf. Lev 26:33–46 and Deut 4:25–28; 28:36–38, respectively). It was simply a matter of time before the decision would be implemented. Thus, Ezekiel views Israel’s history – from its very beginning to its future completion – as the way to the Promised Land. In Ezekiel’s rendition, Israel’s history is marked with idolatry from its very beginning in Egypt (cf. Ezek 20:7–8). Ezekiel does not treat the Egyptian captivity primarily as the experience of forced labour, oppression and misery but rather as a consequence of the Israelites’ bondage to idolatry. The forebears’ refusal to reject Egyptian idols, which amounted to rejecting Yahweh’s word, seems the archetype of the sin that will recur in subsequent generations. This sin is the cause of the first generation’s death in the wilderness (cf. 20:15) as well as of the prediction of a future dispersal among the nations delivered to the second generation (cf. 20:23). Dispersal is experienced by Ezekiel’s contemporaries; undergoing exile, they wish ultimately to reject Yahweh to “worship wood and stone,” just like other nations (20:32). As vv. 35–36 make clear, the first exodus is for Ezekiel the prototype of the new exodus. The counterpart of “the wilderness of the land of Egypt” is now “the wilderness of the peoples” (‫)מדבר העמים‬, which the prophet identifies as the place of Yahweh’s judgment of his nation. Judgment will take the form of a direct (“face to face”) meeting with Yahweh, who as a shepherd “will make [the Israelites] pass under the staff” (v. 37a). The pastoral metaphor (cf. Lev 27:32) shows on the one hand that God will treat his people as individuals, while on the other it indicates the inevitability of

76

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

judgment to single out “those who rebel and transgress against” Yahweh (v. 38). The judgment will be passed on those who Yahweh will lead out of “the land of their sojourn” (‫)ארץ מגוריהם‬. Although the oracle’s historical context suggests that it refers to the Israelites deported to Babylonia in 597 BCE, the deployment of the expression ‫ – ארץ מגוריהם‬a typical reference to Canaan in the narratives of the patriarchs (cf. Gen 17:8; 28:4; 36:7; 37:1, and also Exod 6:4) – shows that those Israelites who have yet to experience exile in the wake of Jerusalem’s fall in 586 BCE will also be judged.9 The irreversibility of exodus as the event of punishment does not mean that it will ultimately turn out to be the event of salvation. The outcome of meeting Yahweh in the desert is contingent upon the decision that the Israelites will have to take: whether they wish to serve idols or Yahweh (cf. v. 39a). The exodus as such, then, does not guarantee salvation. A parallel reading of Ezekiel’s narrative of the first and the new exodus raises questions of the different outcomes of the two events. Even though both end with entering the Promised Land (cf. 20:28, 42), it is only after the future event that people will remain faithful to Yahweh and will not return to the idolatry of their forebears. The explanation of this difference lies in the covenant, which is both the source and aim of exodus. The first exodus constitutes the fulfilment of the covenant that Yahweh made with the forefathers in Egypt. It is expressed with the verb ‫בחר‬, typical of the Deuteronomic tradition: God “chose Israel” (v. 5). The covenant is presented as a bilateral relation: on the one hand, Yahweh promises to lead Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the land of their fathers (cf. v. 6), and, on the other, Israel promises to abandon Egyptian idols for the sake of “Yahweh, their God” (v. 7). The gesture of the raised hand (vv. 5[×2], 6) which accompanies Yahweh’s choice of Israel is a sign of God’s oath, corresponding to the Priestly understanding of the covenant as God’s involvement on behalf of his people (cf. Exod 6:8; Num 14:30). It seems that during the first exodus Israel was saved as if despite their will.10 In reality, however, they keep heading for high places, 9.  Cf. J. Lust, “Ezekiel Salutes Isaiah: Ezekiel 20:32–44,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken, ed. J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne, BETL 132 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 367–82 (377). 10.  Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 384. According to Baruch J. Schwartz, the whole history of Israel is determined by God’s acting for his name’s sake. As a result, also the second exodus signifies “forced repatriation…by force and in fury, against their [i.e. the Israelites’] will and against their expectations” (“Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. M. S. Odell and J. T. Strong, SBLSymS 9 [Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000], 59).

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

77

showing that they are still on the way to the Promised Land (cf. v. 29). The nation needs purification and this is the aim of the judgment in the wilderness leading to the exclusion of those unfaithful to God from the community entering the land (cf. v. 38). The history of the first exodus shows, however, that such an exclusion is no guarantee that those who enter the land will remain loyal to God. For this reason, Yahweh’s intervention in the second exodus is not restricted to mere selection but leads to the renewal of the covenant, which is predicted in v. 37b as leading Israel “into the obligation [bond] of the covenant” (‫והבאתי אתכם במסרת‬ ‫)הברית‬.11 A certain gap in Ezekiel’s narrative may be noticed here. What is the difference between the first and the new covenant if both are related to law-abidingness? How to explain the attitude of the house of Israel after entering the Promised Land again (cf. vv. 43–44): will they reject (“they will abhor”) the memory of their sinful past (“they will remember”) for the sake of “knowing Yahweh” as the source of their life? The answers to these questions are given in the direct predictions of the new covenant in Ezek 11:17–20; 36:24–28, which will shed light on the event as an act of new creation of Israel. In Ezekiel’s rendition of Israel’s history in ch. 20 the motif of creation gives way to the motif of the land, the crucial aim of the prophet’s narrative. To understand the experience of the Babylonian captivity, it is necessary to approach Israel’s history from the perspective of exodus, which the prophet uses as a structuring device to explain the past and the future of the people of the covenant. Israel’s history is framed by the promise of the land, which marks the beginning and end of exodus. The new exodus is thus a continuation of the first one only to some extent: the new event turns out to surpass the past one, if not constituting a downright break with it. To prove this statement, it is essential to compare Ezek 20 with other promises of the land included in the book of Ezekiel.

11.  Moshe Greenberg’s textual analysis of the term ‫ מסרת‬shows that such a transcript is an outcome of the elision of the consonant ‫ א‬in the word deriving from the verb ‫“( אסר‬to bind”). This wording is confirmed by Vulg.: inducam vos in vinculis foederis (“lead you into the bonds of the covenant”). LXX’ s version – εἰσάξω ὑμᾶς ἐν ἀριθμῷ (“lead you in by number”) – does not only overlook the word ‫הברית‬, but also requires the retroversion of the term under analysis here for ‫במספר‬, which is not justified by textual reasons. In light of this, the version of MT should be retained as lectio difficilior (cf. M. Greenberg, “MSRT HBRYT, ‘The obligation of the covenant’ in Ezekiel 20:37,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983], 37–46 [39–41]).

78

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

2. God’s Promise of the Land in Ezekiel 20 The historical overview Ezekiel presents in ch. 20 shows Israel’s history to be related to the Promised Land. This relationship remains closely connected with God’s choice of Israel in Egypt (cf. 20:5–6), thereby forming part of the relation of covenant. The subsequent continuation of the analysis of Ezek 20 will take into account the role of the land in Ezekiel’s concept of the covenant. To do so, the promise of entering the land – which functions as the frame of Israel’s history in ch. 20 (cf. vv. 6, 42) – will be interpreted in light of other fragments of the book of Ezekiel that refer to God’s promise given to Israel’s forebears. The tension between Yahweh’s loyalty and Israel’s disloyalty in Ezek 20 will then be read in the context of the obstacles inhibiting the realization of the promise of the land. To conclude the analysis of the land’s role in the structure of the covenant, its soteriological value in the theological vision of history in Ezek 20 will be determined. 2.1. The Promised Land as an Element of the Covenant The overview of Israel’s history in Ezek 20 begins with Israel’s stay in Egypt. A similar starting point for the presentation of Israel’s history is noticeable in ch. 23, which begins with an allusion to the Israelites’ unfaithfulness during the Egyptian captivity. It does not mean, however, that Ezekiel is unaware of his nation’s past, as the beginning of his narration in ch. 16 shows. The Canaanite origin of Jerusalem mentioned in v. 3 (“Your origin and your birth are from the land of the Canaanite, your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite”) refers to Israel’s historical credo mentioned in Deut 26:5–10 and Josh 24:2–13. Ezekiel’s reference to Jerusalem’s pagan roots serves to question the commendable beginnings of the city, which, as a matter of fact, have nothing to do with Abraham or Israel’s departure from Egypt.12 The personification of Jerusalem in Ezek 16 as a new-born “wallowing in his blood” before being saved by Yahweh (cf. 16:4–7) may allude to the history of Israel’s persecution in Egypt and their subsequent salvation by God. The turning point in this history is the beginning of God’s relationship of covenant with Jerusalem, metaphorically presented in 16:8 as a conjugal relation termed ‫( ברית‬16:8). This event takes place “in the days of your [Jerusalem’s] 12.  The association of Jerusalem with the Amorites and Hittites may be explained by the fact that alongside the Canaanites these were the most populous ethnic groups in Palestine prior to the land’s occupation by the tribes of Israel. What is more, these two nations are for Ezekiel symbols of “human depravity at its worst” (cf. Ezek 16:44–45) (cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 474–75).

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

79

youth” (16:60; cf. 16:22, 43), that is, during the first exodus. In ch. 20 Ezekiel introduces a significant modification to this vision of the beginnings of the chosen nation, situating the moment of making the covenant during the Israelites’ stay in Egypt when God “chooses Israel” (the verb ‫ בחר‬in v. 5). The object and character of this covenant become clear when one takes into consideration the parallel structure of Ezek 20:5–6: Say to them: Thus said the Lord Yahweh:

5

On the day when I chose Israel, I lifted my hand to the descendants of the house of Jacob

and made myself known to them in the land of Egypt

and I lifted up my hand to them,

saying: I am Yahweh, your God.

6

On that day I lifted up my hand to them

to bring them out of the land of Egypt

to a land

I have searched out for them,

flowing with milk and honey,

a jewel among all lands.

The parallels between these two verses include the adverbials of time used as initial terms (“on the day,” “on that day”) as well as the expression “I lifted up my hand” employed as a gesture of oath. Even though expressed in the sentence functioning as the protasis (subordinate clause), Yahweh’s choice of Israel indicates God’s prior and fundamental act, a source of his two correlated initiatives aimed at Israel. Both seem to be God’s voluntary obligations and are expressed as an oath signalled by the gesture of the lifted hand (‫)יד נׂשא‬.13 The first of these (v. 5b) is an act of God’s self-manifestation in the form of entering the relation of covenant. Yahweh’s name is from this point onwards connected with the fate of Israel, for whom Yahweh is “their God.” A part of the formula of mutual belonging (“I will be their God and they will be my people”) emphasizes not only the bilateral character of the covenant but also the mutual involvement and intimacy of both partners (cf. Ezek 34:30–31). Before Israel’s obligations are voiced, God solemnly confirms his choice of and his obligations towards his people. God’s second act (v. 6) stems from his self-manifestation: as “their God,” Yahweh solemnly promises to lead his people out of the land of Egypt into the land that he himself has prepared for them. The gift of the land thus functions as a sign of the covenant, thereby bringing Yahweh’s ultimate manifestation as “their God.” 13.  The same expression is used in Ezek 20:15, 23, 28, 42; 36:7; 44:12; 47:14 and in other books of the Hebrew Bible in Exod 6:8; Num 14:30; Deut 32:40; Neh 9:15.

80

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

As argued above, Ezekiel begins his account of Israel’s history in ch. 20 with the covenant made in Egypt, which he connects to the promise of the land (vv. 5–6). This does not mean, however, that the prophet is unaware of the tradition of the covenant and the promise of the land in the Pentateuch. His reference to Israel as “the house of Jacob” in v. 5 is in itself proof of his familiarity with the Pentateuch’s tradition. Therefore, it is important to find out the reason for Ezekiel’s reluctance in ch. 20 to refer directly to the tradition of the land promised to the fathers, which he does only indirectly through the mention of Jacob’s name. Within the whole book, both Abraham and Jacob are mentioned with reference to the Promised Land, yet Israel’s future return from exile is justified by the promise of the land given only to Jacob. Why does Ezekiel seem to prefer Jacob to Abraham? According to some scholars, Ezekiel’s omission of Abraham may be explained by the fact that the patriarch is evoked by the Judeans remaining in the country after Jerusalem’s fall in 586 BCE. The prophet quotes in 33:24 their statement in which they argue for their entitlement to the deserted lands: “Abraham was only one man, yet he got possession of the land; but we are many; the land is surely given us as a possession.” Such an abuse of Abraham’s tradition,14 which will be discussed in more detail in the final part of this chapter, makes Ezekiel overlook the patriarch in his oracles so as not to support the Israelites’ instrumental treatment of God’s promises. There is no doubt that in his allusions to God’s promises of the land given to the patriarchs, Ezekiel prefers Jacob. The oracles foretelling Israel’s restoration mention twice the fact that the people returning from exile “will live in their land which I [God] gave to my servant Jacob” is mentioned twice in the oracles foretelling Israel’s restoration (28:25; 37:25). In Bethel God promises to give the land to Jacob twice: first, on Jacob’s way to Haran, to where he escapes from Canaan after extorting his father’s blessing meant for Esau as the firstborn (cf. Gen 28:13), and, secondly, after Jacob returns from Haran and settles in Bethel (cf. Gen 35:12). Jacob himself recalls the promise of the land on his deathbed when he is about to bless his own sons (cf. Gen 48:4). Alongside these direct references to God’s promise of the land given to Jacob, Ezekiel mentions Jacob’s name twice more, invariably while predicting the future entrance into the land: in 20:5 the prophet refers to “the descendants of the house of Jacob” living in the land of Egypt, while in 39:25 he 14.  Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 418; Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 269.

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

81

speaks to “the whole house of Israel,” called “Jacob,” now in exile. Ezekiel’s reference to the promise of the land Yahweh gave to Jacob may be explained first and foremost by a certain ascendency of Jacob over Abraham and Isaac. Not all the sons of Abraham and Isaac partake of the promise of the land: Abraham’s son Ishmael (cf. Gen 16) and Isaac’s son Esau (cf. Gen 27) are excluded from the promise. To compare the scope of the promise given, on the one hand, to Jacob and, on the other, to Abraham and Isaac, only Jacob is promised the land without any restrictions of its boundaries (cf. Gen 28:14). Speaking of Jacob, Ezekiel refers to the patriarch who is the eponym of the chosen nation. God changes his name to Israel (cf. Gen 32:29; 35:10), which later begins to function as the name of an ethnic group comprising Jacob-Israel’s descendants, traditionally understood as the twelve tribes descending from his twelve sons. The memory of Jacob-Israel is crucial to the identity formation of those Hebrews who are affected by the Babylonian exile. The recreation of identity in its national and religious aspects is noticeable particularly in Deutero-Isaiah’s prophecy, which posits Yahweh’s creation (cf. Isa 43:1; 44:2; 45:11) and selection (cf. Isa 41:8; 43:10; 44:1, 2; 45:4) of the community deriving from Jacob-Israel as the foundation of its identity. Even though Ezekiel’s view of the ethnic aspect of Jacob-Israel’s name is not as comprehensive as Deutero-Isaiah’s,15 his reference to the name in the context of the future return from exile serves to emphasize the fact that the promise is addressed to the whole united nation. What Ezekiel’s contemporaries share with Jacob is the experience of forced deportation from the land promised to their fathers. After many years spent in Haran, Jacob finally returned to the land Yahweh had promised him. For this reason, Jacob is a symbol of hope for the exiles living in the sixth century BCE, who – as his descendants – partake of the promise of the land given to him by God. The promise has not been nullified, as God declares that they “will live in their land which I [God] gave to my servant Jacob” (Ezek 28:25). The chosen nation just needs to emulate Jacob and show trust in the word of promise. Ezekiel’s proclivity for mentioning only Jacob while speaking of the promise of the land given to the patriarchs is not, however, clearly noticeable in ch. 20. Scholars explain Ezekiel’s reticence in this chapter in a number of ways. As already noted above, some maintain that it stems 15.  Both Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah refer to Jacob as Yahweh’s servant (“my servant” in Isa 41:8; 43:10; 44:1, 2, 21; 45:4; 48:20 and in Ezek 28:25; 37:24), thereby extending the concept of chosenness to the whole nation (it is no longer only the king who is God’s “servant”).

82

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

from the misinterpretation of Abraham’s tradition by those Israelites who remained in the Promised Land after 586 BCE (cf. Ezek 33:24). Apart from that, some exegetes posit that the patriarchs, who are for Ezekiel archetypes of piety blessed by God, simply do not fit in Ezekiel’s concept of Israel’s history presented in Ezek 20 as a history of human desertion of God.16 Yet other scholars point to Ezekiel’s tendency for perceiving Israel as a collectivity, without concentrating on individuals.17 It seems, however, that rhetorical reasons might have played a decisive role in Ezekiel’s overlooking the patriarchs in ch. 20. By virtue of situating the beginning of Israel’s history and the making of the covenant in Egypt, Ezekiel succeeds in emphasizing stark contrast between God’s generosity and love and Israel’s rebellion and unfaithfulness.18 When it comes to the promise of the land given to the “fathers” of Ezekiel’s listeners, the term “fathers” signifies previous generations of the Israelites, starting with the one in Egypt.19 As references to the “fathers” in 37:25 and 47:14 show, the patriarchs do not belong to this group. In the former verse, the deportees are promised that “they will live on the land that I [God] gave to Jacob my servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons’ sons, forever.” The sentence distinguishes between Jacob and the “fathers” who belong to Jacob’s offspring and experience the realization of the promise given to him by God. The 16.  Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 364; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 628. 17.  Cf. C. T. Begg, “Berit in Ezekiel,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Division A. The Period of the Bible, ed. D. Assaf (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), 77–84 (81). 18.  As Ezekiel sees it, the promise of the land is an important element of the covenant Yahweh made with Israel in Egypt (20:5–6). The promise is prior to any requirements that Yahweh sets for Israel. Thus, at the outset of Israel’s history, the gift of the land is an unconditional act of God’s kindness and generosity towards his people. Hence, it seems debatable that, as Baruch J. Schwartz claims, “in Ezekiel’s view the restoration of Israel is completely devoid of love, because as he understands it the relationship between God and Israel has nothing to do with love” (“Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration,” 66). Such a viewpoint needs rethinking not only with reference to the beginning of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel but also to current and future history of Israel, as Daniel I. Block argues in his essay in which he questions Schwartz’s position: “The God Ezekiel Wants Us to Meet: Theological Perspectives on the Book of Ezekiel,” in The God Ezekiel Creates, ed. P. M. Joyce and D. Rom-Shiloni, LHBOTS 607 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 162–92, especially 171–91. 19.  Hutchens in “Although Yahweh Was There,” 273, differs in this respect for he believes the category of the “fathers” in Ezek 20 to include also the patriarchs.

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

83

latter text – Ezek 47:14 – confirms the promise of the land given to the fathers and strengthens it with a sign of oath (the gesture of the lifted hand; cf. 20:28, 42). As the context of the verse shows, the “fathers” denote Jacob’s descendants who gave rise to the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. 47:13). As in other oracles in the book of Ezekiel, the description of the fathers in ch. 20 is a negative one. Ezekiel’s historical narrative in ch. 20 serves to show “the abominations of the fathers” (v. 4). The term ‫ תועבת‬is used in the oracles foretelling the punishment for the land of Israel either to refer to various types of cultic offences or as an umbrella term for all the transgressions of cultic and social nature (cf. §II.2.1). Such a meaning of the term is confirmed in Ezek 20: whenever the fathers are mentioned, their deeds – especially in the sphere of cult – are denounced as treachery against Yahweh (cf. 20:18, 24, 26, 27, 30). They rebel against Yahweh (cf. 20:8, 13, 21), which Ezekiel finds out when he is called to prophesy and when “the fathers” are mentioned for the very first time: Ezekiel is sent to the “nation of rebels, who have rebelled against me [Yahweh]. They and their fathers have transgressed against me to this very day.” Ezekiel’s contemporaries try to shift the blame for their conduct onto their fathers, as the proverb opening the dispute in ch. 18 shows: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (v. 2). The prophet questions his listeners’ conviction that the guilt of the forebears is inheritable, but at the same time he enumerates the transgressions of both fathers and sons which need to be abandoned to enter the path of repentance. Yahweh’s promise of the land given to the Israelites in Egypt thus reveals his love for his people. Israel’s unfaithfulness cannot thwart God’s plans, even though it causes the postponing of the realization of the promise (cf. 20:15, 23). Ezekiel’s omission of the promise of the land given to the patriarchs in his vision of Israel’s history presented in ch. 20 stems from rhetorical reasons. Concentrating on the promise of the land given to “the fathers,” the prophet indicates a dialectical tension between God’s faithfulness and people’s unfaithfulness, which has been part of Israel’s history since the very beginning. At the same time, the expression “the offspring of the house of Jacob” (20:5) used to denote the Israelites in Egypt alludes to the promise of the land given to Jacob. The reference to this patriarch is for the exiles a source of hope for the ultimate entrance into the Promised Land. The fate of Jacob-Israel serves, after all, as proof of the reliability of God’s promise of the land.

84

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

2.2. The Obstacles to the Fulfilment of the Promise of the Land The oracles of the punishment for the land of Israel show the Babylonian exile to be caused by the land’s pollution due to cultic and social transgressions (cf. §II.2.2). As far as idolatry is concerned, Ezekiel mentions also the land’s co-responsibility for this sin (cf. §II.2.1). Such an assessment of the situation is modified to some extent in Ezek 20’s account of Israel’s history, in which the prophet puts the blame for the exile on people, not on the land. What is more, even though acts of idolatry abound after entering the land (cf. vv. 27–29), with Israel’s declaration of apostasy in v. 32 being the apex of their unfaithfulness, the people’s dispersal is predicted already during the first exodus in the desert (cf. v. 23). That ch. 20 presents an attitude to the land’s participation in Israel’s idolatry different from the ones voiced elsewhere in the book is also borne out by the etiological commentary on the term ‫ במה‬in v. 29. In the cultic context, the noun signifies “high places,” and its deployment to refer to naturally or artificially elevated places of idolatrous cult stems from its geomorphological meaning of “a hill’s ridge, elevation” (cf. §I.2.1). The question posed with reference to high places in Ezek 20:29, however, invites an interpretation of this term that stems not from its etymology, but from its sound, based on word play: ‫ במה‬is a combination of the question word ‫“( מה‬what”) and the gerund form of the verb ‫“( בוא‬to go”): ‫מה הבמה‬ ‫“( אׁשר־אתם הבאים ׁשם‬What is the high place to which you go?”). In this way, high places are no longer accused of hosting idolatrous cult, which makes use of their natural topography. The blame is shifted onto the people whose behaviour ruins God’s original intention towards the gift of the land. Israel breaks its ties with Yahweh even before entering the Promised Land. The acts of idolatry perpetrated already in the Promised Land are a continuation of the sins committed during Israel’s stay in Egypt and during their wandering through the desert. In this context, the account of Israel’s history presented in Ezek 20 leads to the question why the promise of the land is still awaiting its future realization. The answer to this question is given already in the oracles of the punishment of the land of Israel. Even so, while denouncing the sin of idolatry in ch. 20, Ezekiel does not focus only on the external description of people’s apostasy, as is typical of the oracles of punishment, but he strives as well to show its internal – anthropological – conditioning. The attitude of the idolatrous Israelites is depicted as rebellion and disobedience of Yahweh. The triple repetition of the verb ‫ מרה‬in hiphil in the schematic presentation of the first exodus (vv. 8, 13, 21) indicates a characteristic feature of the Israelites – namely, that they “do not want to listen to” Yahweh (v. 8). If in Egypt Israel refused to listen to the calls to abandon Egyptian deities, in the desert they refused to follow a two-part

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

85

command: the order to obey the laws and Sabbaths was ignored by the first (“fathers”) and second (“sons”) generation of exodus (vv. 13, 21). This corresponds to the depiction of Ezekiel’s listeners in his prophetic call, in which they are termed ‫“( בית מרי‬a rebellious house”), refusing to heed God’s word (2:5, 6, 8; 3:9). The syntagma “a rebellious house” replaces the expression “the house of Israel” and begins to function in Ezekiel’s oracles as Israel’s proper name (cf. 3:26, 27; 12:2, 3, 9, 25; 17:12; 24:3; 44:6). Hence, Israel’s rebellious attitude is not a thing of the past, merely the feature of “the fathers,” for God foretells that during the new exodus of the current generation of exile he will “purge from you [Israel] the rebels and those who transgress against” him (20:38: ‫המרדים‬ ‫)והפוׁשעים בי‬. Both verbs – ‫ מרד‬and ‫ – פׁשע‬are used in Ezek 2:3 to characterize Israel as “a rebellious house.”20 Israel’s rebellion, which is an obstacle to the realization of the promise of the land, has anthropological foundations. Manifesting itself in a refusal to heed Yahweh’s word (cf. 20:8), rebellion has its roots in human heart, which Ezekiel finds out when he is called to prophesy: “But the house of Israel will not listen to you, for they are not willing to listen to me; because all the house of Israel have a hard forehead and a stubborn heart (‫( ”)חזקי־מצח וקׁשי־לב‬3:7). The dyad “forehead–heart” is a variant of an earlier characterization of Israel as a “stubborn-faced and hardhearted” nation (‫ ;קׁשי פנים וחזקי־לב‬2:4). The phrase is a merism that serves to describe a whole person. When it comes to Israel, its “face” reveals its inside, which is determined to remain indifferent and insensitive to the word. Such a deformation is caused by a “hardened” heart, which has lost the ability to listen, obey God and understand the outside world.21 Such a heart defect signifies in this case not only intellectual but also emotional and volitive problems. Israel has “an adulterous heart” (‫)לבם הזונה‬, which has deserted Yahweh to follow idols (6:9). They are in need of “one heart” (11:19) – a heart devoted exclusively to Yahweh and not to idols (cf. 14:3; 20:16). The condition of their heart is reflected in 20.  These two verbs belong to the terminology of international reports: ‫מרד‬ depicts a vassal’s rebellion against his master (cf. 2 Kgs 24:20; 2 Chr 36:13; Neh 2:19; Isa 36:5; Jer 52:3; Ezek 17:15), a refusal to serve him (cf. Gen 14:4; 2 Kgs 18:7; 24:1; 2 Chr 13:6), while ‫ פׁשע‬is used in the context of the breach of the obligations stipulated by the covenant (cf. 1 Kgs 12:19 = 2 Chr 10:19; 2 Kgs 1:1; 3:5, 7; 8:20, 22 = 2 Chr 21:10[×2]). 21.  Israel is ultimately diagnosed as having “a heart of stone” (11:19; 36:26), a heart which is dead. The phrase was used with reference to Nabal’s heart, which remained in this condition for ten days (cf. 1 Sam 25:37). The metaphor might refer to a heart attack that caused Nabal’s death; cf. W. Pikor, “Rola ‘serca’ w nowym przymierzu (Jr 31,31–34; Ez 36,24–28),” VV 4 (2003): 53–77 (60).

86

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Israel’s gaze, which reveals a person’s inner disposition.22 Hence, Ezekiel describes also the eyes of Israel as “whor[ing]” (6:9) after “their idols” (20:24) and “lifted up to” them (18:6, 12, 15; 23:27; 33:25; cf. 23:16). The apex of Israel’s rebellion against Yahweh is the declaration Ezekiel cites in ch. 20 to conclude the description of idolatry committed by the current house of Israel: “We will be like the nations, like the tribes of the lands, serving wood and stone” (v. 32). These words originate from the Israelites’ “inside,” termed ‫רוח‬, which functions as a synonym of “the heart,” as in Ezek 11:5; 13:3.23 The manifested desire of their hearts to break their relationship with Yahweh shows how they perceive God and his gift of the land. First of all, Israel negates its identity as the chosen nation. God explains that Ezekiel’s first sign-acts are to refer to Jerusalem. Located “at the centre of the nations, with lands around her” (5:5), the city has a mission of manifesting Yahweh among them. Yahweh reveals himself in history, acting as “their God” – the God of Israel (cf. 20:5). Israel’s wish to “be like the nations, like the tribes of the lands” expresses their rejection of the gift of being chosen by God, their negation of their special relationship with Yahweh and their abandonment of the role they need to play on account of their having been chosen by God. Secondly, the Israelites do not know Yahweh and treat him in exactly the same way as pagan deities. This is proved by child sacrifice as the realization of “laws that were not good” (cf. 20:25), which in reality warp God’s commandment that all the firstborn were to be sacrificed to him (cf. Exod 13:12; 22:28–29; 34:19).24 The declaration of the house of Israel in 20:32 goes even further, however, for it is an act of apostasy realized through the worship of the material representations of pagan deities.25 Thirdly, Israel’s rejection of Yahweh stems from their failure to acknowledge him as “their God.” Israel’s heart is incapable of understanding their own history, of discerning God’s activity in this history and 22.  Cf. F. J. Stendebach, “‫‘ ַעיִ ן‬ajin,” ThWAT 6:35. 23.  Cf. S. T. Tengström and H.-J. Fabry, “‫רּוח‬ ַ rûaÊ,” ThWAT 7:397. 24.  Cf. W. Chrostowski, Prorok wobec dziejów: Interpretacje dziejów Izraela w Księdze Ezechiela 16, 20 i 23 oraz ich reinterpretacja w Septuagincie (Warsaw: ATK, 1991), 138–39. 25.  The dyad “wood and stone” is a typical Deuteronomistic expression (cf. Deut 4:28; 28:36, 64; 29:16; 2 Kgs 19:18). Unlike Deuteronomy, however, Ezekiel does not view the worship of “wood and stone” in terms of the punishment befalling Israel in exile, but rather sees it as their conscious decision. For this reason, Israel’s change of heart is impossible without God’s intervention (cf. Pons, “Le vocabulaire d’Ézéchiel 20,” 227).

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

87

of interpreting the impact of Yahweh’s faithfulness on their past. God’s loyalty proves that he stands by his earlier choices, through which he intends to manifest his name in front of the whole world (cf. 20:9, 14, 22). Finally, Israel’s hardened heart remains indifferent not only to the gift of the land, but also to its giver. Ezekiel emphasizes God’s particular involvement in the search and choice of the land for his people with the use of the verb ‫ תור‬in 20:6. In the Pentateuch the verb is used with reference to God’s journey at the forefront of his people to find a proper place for their stay (cf. Num 10:33; Deut 1:33) as well as to the twelve spies’ reconnaissance of Canaan before Israel’s entry (cf. Num 13:2, 16, 17 etc.; altogether twelve occurrences of the verb in Num 13–14). It is not any land, but “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Ezek 20:6, 15), capable of securing affluent life for its inhabitants. This traditional description of the Promised Land, familiar from the Pentateuch,26 is here enriched with the phrase “a jewel among all lands” (‫)צבי היא לכל־הארצות‬. The term ‫ צבי‬is formed from the root ‫צבה‬, which expresses the idea of desire or liking.27 Therefore, it is a land that Yahweh is emotionally tied to, a land whose beauty invokes in him awe and desire, a land which he calls ‫צפוני‬, “my treasure” (7:22). Israel, however, does not notice Yahweh’s involvement. To make matters worse, through their acts of idolatry reminiscent of the Canaanite fertility cults – whose elements may be noticed in Ezek 20:2828 – the Israelites attribute the land’s fertility and abundance not to Yahweh, but to the Canaanite deities. The fruits of the land given to them by Yahweh are used as sacrificial matter in idolatrous cult and in the production of the material representations of the idols (cf. 7:20). It is thus Israel itself that hampers the realization of the promise of the land. The geopolitical conditions do not affect Israel’s position in the world to such an extent as the condition of the nation’s heart does. Israel is “a rebellious house” with its heart indifferent to Yahweh’s words and actions, through which he shows he is “their God.” The defect of their hearts makes the Israelites blind to the theophanic character of the Promised Land, which is supposed to be not only the basis of their material existence and national identity, but also the space in which they should experience the communion of covenant with Yahweh. 26.  Cf. Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev 20:24; Num 13:27; 14:8; Deut 6:3; 11:9; 26:9, 15; 31:20. 27.  Cf. HALAT 2:936. The semantic analysis of the terms ‫ צבי‬and ‫ צפוני‬has been carried out in §II.1.2.1. 28.  Cf. the discussion of cult on high places in §II.2.1.

88

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

2.3. The Soteriological Gift of the Land The theological vision of Israel’s history in Ezek 20 ends with a description of their return from exile to the Promised Land, which constitutes the climax of the second exodus and a frame for the history of the covenant oriented from the very beginning towards the gift of the land. Ezekiel follows the Pentateuch’s tradition in emphasizing the uniqueness of the land as one “flowing with milk and honey” (Ezek 20:6, 15). Being a land of abundance, the Promised Land appears a true treasure when compared to other lands (cf. 7:20; 20:6, 15). It is Yahweh’s gift for Israel, which will satisfy all the needs of its inhabitants. The significance of the Promised Land, however, exceeds its cultural aspect; the land of Israel is also a geomorphological entity, which may experience natural disasters resulting in famine (cf. 14:13, 21; 34:29; 36:29, 30). Geopolitically speaking, the land is an essential component of the nation’s autonomy and political identity, being a guarantee of its subject position in the world. In his depiction of the land of Israel, Ezekiel represents the Hebrew perspective, whereby the land of Israel is the hub of the universe, a reference point for other nations and lands (cf. 5:5; 38:12). Nevertheless, in his historical narrative, Ezekiel is a sensible observer of Israel’s fate, cognizant of Israel’s failures on the international arena due to, among other things, the incompetence of its rulers (cf. chs. 17 and 19). It is, finally, the theological perspective that clarifies the significance of the land of Israel as it acknowledges the role the land plays in forging relations between Yahweh and Israel. The Babylonian exile questions Israel’s axiomatic belief in Yahweh’s inextricable relationship with the land of Israel, reflected in the Jerusalem temple as a material sign of God’s presence among his people. The vision of Yahweh’s Glory in the land of exile at the outset of Ezekiel’s prophetic mission (Ezek 1) shows that God’s presence is not limited by any boundaries as his primary aim is to be among his people. The desertion of the Jerusalem temple by Yahweh’s Glory (cf. Ezek 10; 11:22–25) enables its manifestation in exile. Thus, the prophet seems more inclined to follow the Priestly tradition’s belief in the mobility of Yahweh’s Glory – symbolized by the tent of meeting accompanying people during their journey through the desert – and links Yahweh’s presence to the community of cult.29 Even though Ezekiel does not question the actual presence of Yahweh’s Glory in the Jerusalem temple, he shows that it is not of an exclusive or 29.  The analysis of the differences between the understanding of Yahweh’s Glory in the Priestly theology and the Zion theology may be found in Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 83–87.

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

89

permanent character.30 The historical overview of Israel’s history in Ezek 20 shows that, as was the case with the first exodus, Yahweh continues to accompany his people during the new exodus, which will culminate in the final entrance into the Promised Land. Ezekiel’s description corresponds to some extent to Deutero-Isaiah’s vision of the new exodus, during which Yahweh precedes his people during their journey through the desert (cf. Isa 40:11; 42:13; 52:12) and is the first to enter Zion to welcome those who return from exile (cf. Isa 40:9–10; 52:8). By a similar token, in 20:41 Ezekiel foretells Yahweh’s welcoming his people, whose dispersal among the nations has ended. This happens on Yahweh’s “holy mountain,” “the high mountain of Israel” (v. 40).31 The first expression is typically used in the Zion theology to refer to the temple mountain in Jerusalem.32 The second expression is employed by Ezekiel already in 17:22, 23 with reference to Jerusalem.33 Therefore, the prophet assumes Yahweh’s earlier return to Jerusalem, which will be revealed later in the final “divine vision” in chs. 40–48 (cf. 43:1–9). The Promised Land remains the place of meeting God; it is there that the initiative of choosing Israel will find its fulfilment. Israel was chosen by God to be led out of the land of Egypt and into the land promised to their fathers. In this way, the project of the covenant – whereby Israel is Yahweh’s people – will be brought to completion. The community of covenant in the Promised Land is characterized on the basis of the activities undertaken by both sides on “the holy mountain.” Typically, scholars emphasize the cultic character of the images in 20:40–41a, suggested by the parallels between vv. 27–28 and 39–41.34 In the description of the future occupation of the land, emphasis is shifted from the cultic aspect of Yahweh’s relation with his people to the personal aspect of this relationship. 30.  Cf. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 99. 31.  This adverbial of place appears only in v. 40, but the use of the verb ‫ רצה‬to describe Yahweh welcoming his people both in v. 40 and v. 41 indicates that the two verses refer to the same place. 32.  Cf. Isa 27:13; 56:7; 65:11; 66:20; Jer 31:23; Dan 9:16, 20; Joel 2:1; Zeph 3:11; Zech 8:3. In Isa 11:9; 57:13; 65:25 the expression denotes the whole land of Israel. Ezek 20:40 distinguishes between Mount Zion and the land of Israel – the former is the place of people’s welcome, while the latter is the place of their abode. 33.  What is more, Ezek 40:2 specifies Jerusalem’s location with reference to “a very high mountain.” 34.  Cf. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 281–82; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 375; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 14–15; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 656–57; Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 303; Joyce, Ezekiel, 158.

90

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

First of all, it is emphasized that “the whole house of Israel, all of them, will serve” God on his holy mountain (v. 40a). The deployment of the verb ‫ עבד‬in its cultic meaning is only possible here in light of its occurrence in the previous verse to call for idol worship. Other texts in which Ezekiel uses this verb indicate that this act is an expression of one’s acknowledgment of one’s dependence on someone more powerful, an act of surrendering to his rule, of deciding to serve him (cf. 29:18, 20; 34:27). Both Jacob (cf. 28:25; 37:25) and David (cf. 34:23, 24; 37:24, 25) are called God’s “servants” in the context of their covenants with Yahweh. The expression suggests that they were elected by God (cf. a similar expression in 38:17 in the plural form used with reference to the prophets) and that they subordinate themselves to God and carry out his commands.35 The new exodus will thus generate a new quality of the communion with Yahweh, in which all Israel living in the Promised Land will partake. Unlike their fathers in Egypt, the future house of Israel will recognize that Yahweh is their God, their only Lord. Secondly, a new quality of the people is presupposed by the use of the verb ‫רצה‬, whose subject in vv. 40, 41a is God. The verb expresses Yahweh’s acceptance of the house of Israel, a sign of his pleasure, love and friendship.36 Ezekiel again introduces a semantic innovation here, for the verb ‫ רצה‬belongs to the Priestly terminology, where it denotes an acceptance of an offering (cf. Lev 1:4; 7:18; 19:7; 22:23; Deut 33:11; 2 Sam 24:23).37 In Ezek 20:40–41, however, the object of acceptance are the Israelites themselves – a “pleasing aroma” (‫ )ריח ניחח‬for God – which constitutes a reversal of idolatrous offerings made on high places (cf. 20:28). God “take[s] pleasure (‫ )רצה‬in uprightness” (cf. 1 Chr 29:17), in those who “fear him” (cf. Ps 147:11) and do not “walk with wicked men” (cf. Job 34:9). Yahweh will thus welcome on his holy mountain an Israel completely different from the one before the Babylonian exile, whose wickedness and sins caused God’s displeasure (cf. Jer 14:10). The exile is experienced by Israel as a punishment, the completion of which brings about God’s forgiveness and acceptance (cf. ‫ רצה‬in Isa 40:2). Israel’s return to a complete communion with Yahweh will lead to the realization of the covenant as the basis for Israel’s existence and identity since the nation’s very beginning. 35.  Cf. H. Ringgren, U. Rüterswörden and H. Simian-Yofre, “‫‘ ָע ַבד‬āḇaḏ,” ThWAT 5:1011. See also their discussion of the cultic deployment of the verb in the Hebrew Bible on pp. 991–94. 36.  The synonyms of the verb ‫ רצה‬include the verbs ‫( חפץ‬Ps 147:10), ‫( אהב‬Prov 3:12) and ‫( ברך‬Deut 33:11, 24), while its antonym is the verb ‫( זנח‬Ps 77:8). 37.  Cf. J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 706.

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

91

What is more, the announcement that Yahweh will “require (‫ )דרׁש‬your contributions and the choicest of your gifts, with all your holy things” (20:40) brings to mind the reason for the visit the elders pay to Ezekiel – namely, to consult (‫ )דרׁש‬Yahweh (cf. 20:3, 31). God rejects their request on account of “the abominations of the fathers” (20:4), which are likewise committed by Ezekiel’s contemporaries (cf. 20:30). The new exodus will result in the creation of a new community, whose sacrifices will be awaited by Yahweh. The verb ‫ דרׁש‬used in this context carries legal undertones, suggesting the acquittal of the accused in the wake of their questioning.38 Therefore, the verb expresses in 20:40 Yahweh’s concern and care for his people, foretold with the use of the same verb in 34:11.39 Israel’s entrance into the Promised Land will ultimately serve as Yahweh’s manifestation of his holiness, achieved through the cooperation of his people. The preposition ‫ ב‬accompanying the verb ‫ קדׁש‬in niphal (“I will manifest my holiness among/through you in the sight of the nations”) in 20:41 indicates that the community of Israel is a space within which God will manifest his holiness in the sight of the nations, but it is also a tool through which this holiness will be revealed to the world. The new exodus will culminate in Yahweh’s sanctification of Israel after they re-possess the land (cf. Ezek 37:28; also 36:38). Israel’s reconciliation with God will be more than a mere formal and legal act; it will influence and transform the whole existence of the nation, who will partake of Yahweh’s holiness. In this way, God’s plan for Israel as the chosen nation will be completed: they will truly be “his people” – a people belonging to “Yahweh, their God” (cf. Ezek 20:5). The analysis of the soteriological significance of the land in Ezekiel’s overview of Israel’s history in ch. 20 corroborates the indissoluble link between Yahweh, Israel and the land, which is based upon the covenant. The prophet, however, does not treat the Promised Land as a guarantee of the covenant’s continuity; rather, in his historico-theological perspective the land remains the aim of the covenant, which is a crucial component of Israel’s identity as a people belonging to Yahweh. God experiences the covenant as a personal relationship with his people; the covenant will be realized – both in the context of the past and current experience of exile – through the new exodus which will result in the communion of life with Yahweh in the land promised to the fathers. Israel’s exile does not negate Yahweh’s ties to “his holy mountain” – a metonymical expression

38.  Cf. Bovati, Ristabilire la giustzia, 220–21. 39.  Cf. S. Wagner, “‫ ָּד ַרׁש‬dāraš,” ThWAT 2:326.

92

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

denoting Jerusalem together with its temple. This notwithstanding, Ezekiel emphasizes that what confirms the relation of the covenant is Yahweh’s life-sustaining presence among the people he has chosen and loves, and not his presence in the material temple. In this way, the prophet enables the discussion of the modality of God’s presence in Israel, which is to a large extent caused by the debate concerning the entitlement to the Promised Land during the Babylonian exile. 3. Problematic Ownership of the Promised Land during the Babylonian Exile Israel’s history presented in Ezek 20 situates the Promised Land in the context of exodus – both its past and future variants – while at the same time shedding light on the reasons for the people of the covenant’s exile in Babylonia. Deserted by the deportees, the land becomes the subject of three disputes concerning its ownership. The first two disputes – presented in 11:14–21 and 33:23–29 – are to some extent of a similar character, since both occur within Israel, one fraction of which is in exile, while the other remains in the Promised Land. The two disputes differ in terms of their temporal setting, though: the first one takes place before and the other one after Jerusalem’s fall in 586 BCE. The third dispute stems from the claims to the land of Israel put forward by the nations after 586 BCE and cited in 35:10, 12; 36:2. The following analysis of these texts will attempt to determine Ezekiel’s understanding of the entitlement to the Promised Land as well as to clarify Yahweh’s relation to the land. To this end, it is necessary to first sketch the historical context of the dispute in question to subsequently present the arguments behind the claims as well as Yahweh’s response, in which he manifests his attitude to the land of Israel. 3.1. The Dispute over the Land in Ezekiel 11:14–21 The first dispute is related as part of Ezekiel’s vision of the departure of Yahweh’s Glory from the Jerusalem temple (Ezek 8–11). To interpret the debate over the land, it is first essential to determine the identity of its participants, which is connected with the redaction of Ezek 11:14–21. 3.1.1. The Historical Context of the Dispute. The text of Ezek 11:14–21 constitutes an independent literary unit, as is made clear by the wordevent formula at its outset (v. 11) and the concluding formula ‫נאם אדני יהוה‬ (v. 21). Because of that – even though the text formally belongs within the narrative of the vision in chs. 8–11 – it seems an autonomous literary

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

93

unit, which may have originally been placed elsewhere in the book.40 Its inclusion in the vision dated to August 592 BCE (cf. 8:1) indicates that the dispute over the land related in the oracle occurred before 586 BCE. Hence, it must have involved the Jerusalemites and the group of Judeans deported to Babylonia in 597 BCE. Some exegetes maintain, however, that the oracle could not have been produced before the fall of Jerusalem due to several reasons:41 (1) the form and content of the dispute in 11:14–21 correspond to the one after 586 BCE, related in 33:23–29; (2) the dating of Ezek 11:14–21 to the pre-exilic period is also questionable in view of Jeremiah’s silence on the issue of the Jerusalemites’ alleged negative attitudes towards the first group of the deportees from 597 BCE. On the contrary, the prophet emphasizes Yahweh’s positive opinion of the community of exiles (cf. Jer 29); (3) in light of the character of Ezekiel’s prophetic activity, words of salvation – especially the prediction of a return from exile (cf. 11:17–20) – seem inappropriate in the first phase of his activity before the destruction of Jerusalem. The scholars who support the dating of Ezek 11:14–21 to the period before 586 BCE42 question the above-mentioned arguments, pointing to the following issues: (1) the exiles’ entitlement to the land of Israel is questioned by two different subjects: by “the inhabitants of Jerusalem” in 11:15 and by “the inhabitants of these ruins in the land of Israel” in 33:24 (cf. 33:27). It is thus made clear that the first dispute takes place before the Babylonians’ conquest of Jerusalem, while the other arose in its wake since the account mentions “ruins” resultant from military activity; (2) Ezekiel’s opinion concerning the exiles from 597 BCE differs from Jeremiah’s not only due to the former’s belonging to this group (he is himself “removed” from Jerusalem) but also due to his critical assessment of the exiles who refuse to acknowledge their moral responsibility for the exile; (3) the oracle of salvation appears in the book of Ezekiel also within the oracle of punishment for Israel, situated within the structure 40.  Cf. F.-L. Hossfeld, “Die Tempelvision Ezek 8–11 im Licht unterschiedlicher Methodischer Zugänge,” in Lust, ed., Ezekiel and His Book, 151–61 (155); Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 204; Hals, Ezekiel, 69; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 342; Joyce, Ezekiel, 109. 41.  Cf. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 143; E. Vogt, Untersuchungen zum Buch Ezechiel, AnBib 95 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981), 49; Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 163; Hossfeld, “Die Tempelvision Ezek 8–11,” 155; Krüger, Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch, 323; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 136. 42.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 263; Wevers, Ezekiel, 78–79; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 204; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 343.

94

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

of the book before Jerusalem’s fall (cf. 6:8–10; 14:11, 21–23; 16:59–63; 17:22–24; 20:40–44).43 In light of the above, it may safely be claimed that Ezek 11:14–21 might have originated before Jerusalem’s fall, which does not mean, however, that in its current version the text was authored exclusively by Ezekiel. Any reconstruction of the “original” component of the oracle is, by definition, hypothetical, yet most scholars exclude vv. 17, 18, 21 from the original version of the text.44 In its final form, the text of Ezek 11:14–21 constitutes an integral part of the vision of Ezek 8–11.45 It needs to be remembered, however, that the account of the dispute over the land of Israel was originally a separate literary unit in the form of a prophetic oracle. It should be dated to the period before 586 BCE, which means that the sides of the dispute are the Judeans deported to Babylonia in 597 BCE and the Jerusalemites who were spared the first relocation. 3.1.2. Problematic Claims to the Land. The dispute over the entitlement to the land of Israel is generated by the arguments the Jerusalemites use to prove to the exiles in Babylonia their right to possess the land in 11:15b: “They are far away46

from Yahweh,

to us has been given

this land

as a possession.”

43.  Naturally, the origin of each of these texts needs a separate redaction-critical analysis, yet the claim that Ezek 1–24 may not contain the oracle of salvation is an a priori assumption, illustrative of scholarship which desires “to decide what Ezekiel could or could not have said” (cf. Hals, Ezekiel, 70). The thesis that prior to 586 BCE Ezekiel could only utter oracles of punishment is called by Paul M. Joyce “a dogmatic assumption” (Joyce, Ezekiel, 110). 44.  The redaction criticism undertaken by several scholars results in several hypotheses concerning the original content of the text of Ezek 11:14–21: vv. 14–17 (Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People, 48; Krüger, Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch, 321); vv. 14–16, 19–20 (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 263; Fuhs, Ezechiel 1–24, 62); vv. 14, 15*, 16a, 17*, 19–20 (Fohrer and Galling, Ezechiel, 61); vv. 15, 16bα, 17, 19, 20b (Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel/Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–19, 169); vv. 14–16, 19–20, 21bβ (Wevers, Ezekiel, 78). 45.  Cf. the analysis of the structure of Ezek 8–11 conducted by Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 192–95, who argues for the parallels between 8:5–10:7 and 11:1–21 (including the parallels between 9:1–10:7 and 11:14–21). 46.  The imperative ‫ רחקו‬present in MT should be re-vocalized to perfectum on account of the verb’s parallel position to ‫( נתנה‬niphal perf.) in the second part of the sentence. Such a correction of the vocalization is also suggested by v. 16, which presents Israel’s removal from the land as a past event (‫)הרחקתים‬.

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

95

The staircase parallelism, on which the structure of this statement is based, emphasizes the notion of “possession” (‫ )מורׁשה‬as the complement of the parallel elements of the sentence: “Yahweh” and “the land” as well as “to be far away” and “to give.” The argument is developed in two ways, both of which share the conviction that Yahweh is related to the land of Israel. Such a viewpoint does not differ from the belief prevalent throughout the ancient Near East in the connection between the land inhabited by a given nation and its patron-deity. As a result, an area inhabited by a given people is a space of the patron-deity’s activity, a space of its jurisdiction (including the right to manage the land), within which it is worshiped by its people and takes care of them.47 Traces of such a way of thinking are visible in several fragments of the Hebrew Bible, yet what needs to be pointed out is the cultic aspect of Yahweh’s relation to the Promised Land. Any other (foreign) land is unclean and polluted with idolatry (cf. Josh 22:19; Hos 9:3; Amos 7:17; Ezek 4:13). Since Yahwistic cult is possible only in Yahweh’s land, following his being healed of leprosy the Syrian ruler Naaman asks Elisha to let him take some soil loaded on a few mules to offer on it sacrifices to Yahweh in his fatherland (cf. 2 Kgs 5:17). To give another example, when Saul expels David from the land which is “the inheritance of Yahweh,” the king tells the younger man to “serve other gods” on “the earth away from the presence of Yahweh” (‫( )ארץ מנגד פני יהוה‬cf. 1 Sam 26:19–20). It is in this context that the decision of the Transjordanian tribes should be understood: following their settlement they raise an altar on the other side of the Jordan as a “witness” (‫ )עד‬that they wish “to perform the service of Yahweh before him” (Josh 22:26–27). They do not intend to offer Yahweh sacrifices on this altar, but rather treat it as a sign of their desire to worship Yahweh in Shiloh, the main sanctuary for all the tribes of Israel at that time.48 The dispute over the land of Israel, therefore, does not have a strictly economic basis,49 but becomes a theological debate concerning 47.  Various aspects of a deity’s ties to the land are discussed in Block’s study, The God of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology, EThSMS 2 (Jackson, MS: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988), 88–92. 48.  The historical value of the text of Josh 22, including a discussion of its etiological character in the presentation of the Yahwistic cult performed outside the land of Israel, is synthesized in J. L. Sicre Díaz, Giosuè, trans. P. Bernardini and M. Bernardini, Commenti biblici (Rome: Borla, 2004), 366–76. 49.  Scholars who treat the dispute solely in economic terms include: C. Levin, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt, FRLANT 137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 208; Krüger, Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch, 322.

96

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Yahweh’s relation to the land of Israel and the people who inhabit it. As a consequence, the claims made by the Jerusalemites who avoided deportation to Babylonia have a religious – rather than a legal50 – character. The Babylonian exile entails a removal from the fatherland and for this reason it is treated by the Jerusalemites remaining in the land as a breach of the ties with Yahweh. The physical distance seems a consequence of the spiritual distance caused by sins, especially the sin of idolatry. Those sins result in people’s “going far from” their God (cf. Ezek 44:10) and make Yahweh “go far away from [his] sanctuary” (cf. Ezek 8:6). The temple is a material manifestation of God’s personal presence (cf. Ps 46:6), which the city’s safety and well-being as well as its inhabitants’ salvation and existence are contingent upon (cf. Isa 33:20–22). It is in the temple that God’s face may be seen (Ps 42:3), that Yahweh’s salvific presence – which aids one in need – may be felt (cf. Pss 67:2; 80:4, 8, 20). The impossibility of seeing the face of God means one’s desertion by God, a breach of the covenant with God that may lead to death (cf. Pss 27:9; 30:8; 88:15). One’s removal from God’s face leads to the exclusion from the communion with God, whose material proof is residence in the Promised Land. Walther Zimmerli thus argues that “the land was the sacramental assurance of the favor of Yahweh.”51 One’s residence in the land confirms Yahweh’s grace, the blessing and welfare he offers to his people. The passive voice employed in the Jerusalemites’ statement – “to us has been given this land as a possession” – may be interpreted as passivum theologicum. Their possession of the land is in their opinion a sign of Yahweh’s will and a confirmation of his closeness to them.52 3.1.3. The Status of the Land of Israel. The way in which the parties in the dispute over the entitlement to the land are presented indicates that the discussion essentially comes down to the character of the true Israel, defined by means of its ties to Yahweh and the land. This is made clear not only by the Jerusalemites’ statement quoted in Ezek 11:15, but also by the description of the other party in this verse as ‫אחיך‬ ‫“( אחיך אנׁשי גאלתך וכל־בית יׂשראל כלה‬your brothers, your kinsmen, the 50.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 261; Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People, 50. 51.  Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 261. 52.  This interpretation is corroborated by the analysis of all the occurrences of the syntagma ‫( נתן הארץ למורׁשה‬Exod 6:8; Ezek 11:15; 33:24; 36:5; cf. 36:2, where the verb ‫ היה‬is used). The giver of the land is clarified in Exod 6:8, where God promises to Israel that he will give the Promised Land to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as their possession (cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2 [New York: Doubleday, 1999], 266–68).

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

97

whole house of Israel, all of them”). As Waldemar Chrostowski argues, the Jerusalemites’ claims are directed to all the exiles: not only to the group of Judeans deported in 597 BCE, but also to the descendants of the Israelites abducted from Samaria by the Assyrians after 722 BCE.53 Following the opinion of Rabbi Kimchi (†1235), Chrostowski writes that while enumerating three groups of the recipients of his prophecy in 11:15 (literally, “your brothers, your brothers, your kinsmen”) Ezekiel was thinking of three waves of deportation: of the Gadite and Reubenite Transjordanian tribes (after 734 BCE), of the inhabitants of Samaria (after 722 BCE) and of the Judeans led by King Jehoiachin (597 BCE), all the three groups then combined into one called “the whole house of Israel, all of them.”54 The problem, however, is way broader, since it pertains to the existence of the Assyrian diaspora of the Israelites, which may be discussed also on the basis of Ezek 11:15.55 As far as Kimchi’s interpretation is concerned, it is not necessary from the syntactical point of view to treat the repeated expression “your brothers” as denoting two different groups. Repetition here serves to signify totality (“the whole of, all of”) or intensification.56 By the same token, the third expression “the whole house of Israel” is repeated as “all of them.”57 These three expressions seem to expand the group of Ezekiel’s listeners (from brothers to more distant kinsmen to the house of Israel),58 yet the asyndetic association of “brothers” and “kinsmen” suggests synonymy of these terms, which are later identified exclusively with “Israel.”59 Such an interpretation raises two questions: Why does Ezekiel 53.  Cf. W. Chrostowski, “Ezechiel jako świadek asyryjskiej diaspory Izraelitów,” in Asyryjska diaspora Izraelitów i inne studia, RSB 10 (Warsaw: Vocatio, 2003), 62. 54.  Cf. Chrostowski, “Ezechiel jako świadek asyryjskiej diaspory Izraelitów,” 63. This suggestion was earlier voiced by Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 124, while Kimchi’s statement was quoted directly by Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 189. 55.  The problem of the Assyrian diaspora of the Israelites in the book of Ezekiel, postulated by Chrostowski, is analysed in W. Pikor, “W poszukiwaniu asyryjskiej diaspory Izraelitów w Księdze Ezechiela,” BibAn 2 (2012): 27–74 (the text of Ezek 11:14–21 is discussed on pp. 34–36). 56.  Cf. GKC, §123c.e. 57.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 229; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 341. 58.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 261; Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People, 49. 59.  Cf. F. Sedlmeier, “ ‘Deine Brüder, deine Brüder…’ Die Beziehung von Ezek 11,14–21 zur dtn-dtr Theologie,” in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung,” ed. W. Groß, BBB 98 (Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 304–5; Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel/Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–19, 166; Joyce, Ezekiel, 111.

98

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

stress the exiles’ ties of blood? Why does he identify the exiles with “the whole house of Israel” and what is the semantic scope of this expression? It cannot be ruled out that during the exile Ezekiel was accompanied by his close kin – described as “your brothers, your kinsmen” – yet it seems unlikely that such a narrow group functioned as the addressee of the oracles of Israel’s restoration in Ezek 11:17–20. The expression is rather used to emphasize the character of the community of exiles as a clan linked through ties of blood whose members are obliged to act toward one another as ‫גאל‬. The phrase “your kinsmen” is formed from the root ‫גאל‬, which refers to a person bound by the responsibility of the levirate, encompassing the duty to buy out the land of a relative (cf. Lev 25:25–26, 29–32). It is precisely this right that the Jerusalemites deprive the exiles of by taking over the land left by them. However, Yahweh himself will assume the function of the deportees’ ‫גאל‬: not only will he question the Jerusalemites’ entitlement to the land but he will also revoke their right to call themselves “Israel.” To establish the meaning of the term “Israel” in Ezek 11:15, its occurrences in other parts of the book of Ezekiel need to be taken into consideration. The name is used to refer to the whole people of the covenant, identified either with Judah and Jerusalem (cf. 11:5, 10, 11), with the deportees to Babylonia (cf. 11:13) or with some sinful people living in the past, without further geographical or political specification (cf. 20:5, 27). To distinguish parts of Israel, the prophet either singles out Judah (cf. 9:9; 27:17) or uses the name of the patriarchs – Judah and Joseph – to refer to the two separate kingdoms comprising the chosen nation (cf. 37:16). What is significant in Ezek 11:15 is that the phrase “the whole house of Israel” is clarified and intensified through the expression ‫“( כלה‬all of them”). The same construction appears once more in the book of Ezekiel, in 20:40, to define the new Israel gathered on top of Yahweh’s holy mountain after entering the Promised Land. The exiles are, therefore, called “the new house of Israel, all of them” in light of the new exodus, which will confirm their right to the Promised Land. The Jerusalemites’ claims are questioned through the revision of Yahweh’s ties to the land of Israel. Ezekiel emphasizes that Yahweh’s presence and activity cannot be restricted to this land only. The exile is indeed a sign of the deportees’ distance from the Promised Land, yet in Ezek 11:16 Yahweh confesses that he himself is responsible for the exile and that it does not erase his relationship with the deportees: “I will be for them ‫ מקדׁש מעט‬in the countries to which they have come.” The temple is no longer a limited, closed space; the temple is Yahweh himself, his presence not restricted in any way. Specifying the character of the divine

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

99

“sanctuary,” the term ‫ מעט‬does not seem to downgrade this new form of access to God in Babylonia. The exegetes who argue for the deprecating character of ‫ מעט‬cite the expression ‫ עזר מעט‬in Dan 11:34, which calls for the translation of the Ezekielian syntagma as a “little sanctuary,”60 or recall the texts of 2 Kgs 10:18 and Zech 1:15, where ‫ מעט‬is an adverb translated as “in small measure, to some extent.”61 However, drawing on the direct context of Ezek 11:16, it seems appropriate to argue in favour of the temporal meaning of ‫מעט‬: “for a little while, transitorily.”62 This translation is supported by Ezek 11:17, where God proclaims the new exodus, which will put an end to the Babylonian exile. Without explaining the precise character of Yahweh’s presence among the exiles as ‫מקדׁש מעט‬,63 Ezekiel proceeds to corroborate the deportees’ entitlement to the Promised Land. The prophet’s prediction of the new exodus ends with a new promise of the land (Ezek 11:17). God’s pledge to “give [them] the land of Israel” (v. 17b) shows that the right to the land 60.  Meaning “the shadow of the one before,” as in Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 186, 190. 61.  Cf. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 125; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 126; Fuhs, Ezechiel 1–24, 61–62; Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–24, 161; Joyce, Ezekiel, 113; E. Keck, “Beside the Chebar River: The Glory of Yahweh Name Theology, and Ezekiel’s Understanding of Divine Presence” (Ph.D. diss., Boston College, 2011), 113, 117–18. 62.  Cf. Wevers, Ezekiel, 78; Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People, 51; Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 164; R. W. Klein, Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message, SPOT (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 66; A. Ruwe, “Die Veränderung tempeltheologischer Konzepte in Ezechiel 8–11,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. B. Ego, A. Lange and P. Pilhofer, WUNT 118 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 10; Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 98. 63.  Scholarly explanations either refer to the Targumic reading, whereby the expression in question is understood as a sign of the creation of the synagogue during the Babylonian exile (cf. S. H. Levey, ed., The Targum of Ezekiel: Translated with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes, The Aramaic Bible 13 [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987], 41) or support the existence of forms of worship restricted to gatherings or prayers (cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 262; Hals, Ezekiel, 71–72). Such cultic activity of the exiles is mentioned in Jer 29:12–14. If, however, through his prophetic activity Ezekiel personifies God’s presence in exile, it is possible to link God’s promise to be ‫ מקדׁש מעט‬with the person of the prophet (cf. S. S. Tuell, “Divine Presence and Absence in Ezekiel’s Prophecy,” in Odell and Strong, eds., The Book of Ezekiel, 108; C. L. Patton, “Priest, Prophet and Exile: Ezekiel as a Literary Construct,” in SBLSP 39 [Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000], 725–26).

100

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

does not stem from its actual possession but from an appropriate attitude to God. The subsequent part of the oracle foretells in vv. 18–21 the inner regeneration of the exiles, thanks to which they will partake of the covenant with Yahweh as “his people” (cf. the formula of the covenant in v. 20b). The deportees returning from exile will cleanse the land of Israel of traces of idolatry, which the Jerusalemites polluted despite their claims to be the true Israel (cf. v. 18). Hence, the relationship of the covenant determines God’s presence in the nation’s life, whereby God’s blessing may be experienced also outside the land of Israel. The Promised Land can by no means substitute the one who gives it. 3.2. The Dispute over the Land in Ezekiel 33:23–29 The dynamics of the dispute over the land in Ezek 33:23–29 corresponds to the course of the debate presented in Ezek 11:14–21. Its starting point is the quotation of the statement made by those remaining in the land of Israel who argue for their right to possess the land (v. 24). God’s response includes the refutation of this claim (vv. 25–26; both verses end with the question: “would you possess the land?”), followed by the prediction of the punishment in the form of ultimate devastation and depopulation of the land (vv. 27–29). 3.2.1. The Historical Context of the Dispute. The second dispute concerning the land of Israel is related in ch. 33, which constitutes a caesura chronologically dividing Ezekiel’s oracles into those produced before Jerusalem’s fall and the ones uttered after the capital’s destruction.64 Chapter 33 has a concentric structure, with God’s speeches addressing Ezekiel’s communicative role functioning as the first and last elements (vv. 1–9, 30–33). The dispute over the land begins in vv. 23–29, which formally correspond to vv. 10–20. The core of the chapter are vv. 21–22, dealing with the arrival of a fugitive from Jerusalem. The meeting with the fugitive marks the end of Ezekiel’s silence, which has lasted since his wife’s death (24:15–27; cf. the prediction of this silence in 3:26–27). The significance of this event is emphasized by the only date mentioned in the chapter: it happened “in the twelfth year of our exile, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month” (33:21), that is in January 585 BCE, six months after the conquest of Judah’s capital. The concentric structure of Ezek 33 leads to two conclusions: first, the events described in ch. 33 should not be perceived as presented in the chronological order, but as simply happening after January 585 BCE, and, secondly, the parallel 64.  Cf. §I.3.2.

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

101

disputes of vv. 10–20 and vv. 23–29 show the contrast between the attitudes of the exiles in Babylonia and of the people still living in the land of Israel. The former, cited in v. 10, acknowledge their sins that deprive them of any hopes for the future, while the latter, quoted in v. 24, do not admit their guilt as they think of their future in the land of Israel. Hence, the reference to the deportees, allegedly absent in the second dispute, is in fact made by the very structure of ch. 33. The dispute analysed here can thus be situated as occurring after the exiles in Babylonia learn of Jerusalem’s fall. The pride, even arrogance, emanating from the words of those still living in the land of Israel shows that the first shock at the events of 586 BCE has already subsided. The country must still be devastated if those who lay claims to the land are called “the inhabitants of these ruins in the land of Israel” (33:24). It may be deduced that the people who fled from Judah in the wake of military activities are still dispersed since the punishment is to befall those who seek shelter in open fields, caves and strongholds (cf. Jer 40:7; Ezek 33:27). The process of returning and repopulating the land ravaged by the war has already started with the consent of the Babylonians (cf. 2 Kgs 25:12; Jer 39:10; 52:16), who designate Gedaliah to be Judah’s administrator. It is he who assigns to “the poor country people” the fields and vineyards abandoned by the exiles (cf. Jer 40:7–12; especially vv. 10, 12). The second dispute over the land may be situated before Gedaliah’s death and the ensuing third wave of deportation in 582 BCE. After these events, the Babylonian persecution of the remaining Judeans intensifies, as confirmed by Lam 5:4–5. 3.2.2. Problematic Claims to the Land. It seems possible that the problem of land ownership is raised in Ezek 33:23–29 not on account of the Judeans in exile, but because of those who remained in the land and who wanted to prove their right to take over the possessions of the deportees. If the first dispute (11:14–21) emphasizes the tension between the exiles and the Jerusalemites, in the second one (33:23–29) attention is restricted to “the inhabitants of these ruins in the land of Israel,” their identity and their relation to the land. Their reference to Abraham seems to serve as a confirmation of their status as Abraham’s offspring, legitimizing their position as sole heirs of God’s promises given to the patriarch. The argument used by those who remain in the land makes use of the a minori ad maius (qal wahomer)65 argumentation, typical of later rabbinical tradition. Ezekiel 33:24 reads as follows: 65.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 351.

102

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel “Abraham was only one man, yet he got possession of the land; but we are many;

the land has been given us as a possession.”

The way of thinking that this statement evinces is only seemingly theological. Even though the premise on which the conclusion is based refers indirectly to God’s promise of the land given to Abraham, the patriarch is presented as a precedent for the claims made by the “many” who survived the disaster. The Judeans remaining in the land of Israel do not view their survival as an act of God’s grace but rather as a basis for their claims towards God:66 if he was loyal towards “one,” then he must be even more so towards “many.” Pointing to Abraham as a guarantee of the continuity of God’s promise of the land, “the inhabitants of these ruins” reduce the tradition of the patriarch to one element only – to his being “one” – at the same time resolving the problem of land ownership on the basis of the law of the strongest.67 Even though references to Abraham’s tradition during exile are nothing extraordinary, the rendition of the tradition here functions as a corrective to the Judeans’ convictions expressed in Ezek 33:24.68 A similar attention to numbers is noticeable in the reference to Abraham’s history made in Isa 51:2, where God encourages the deportees to Babylonia to “look to Abraham… When he was but one I called him, then I blessed him and multiplied him.” The memory of this event should make the Israelites trust God, who “will comfort Zion” and “her wilderness he will make like Eden, and her desert like the garden of Yahweh” (Isa 51:3). What can clearly be noticed in this fragment is a shift of God’s blessing from the person of the patriarch onto the land promised to him. The circumstances of Abraham’s call are clarified in Isa 41:8, where Yahweh addresses the deportees, mentioning “Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, descendant of Abraham ‫אהבי‬.” The reference to Abraham as ‫ אהבי‬is typically interpreted in this text as an instance of the passive voice, with 66.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 199; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 689. 67.  Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 260. 68.  Cf. B. Gosse, “Les traditions sur Abraham et sur le jardin d’Éden en rapport avec Is 51,2–3 et avec le livre d’Ézéchiel,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History, ed. A. Wénin, BETL 155 (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 421–27, esp. 421–23; J. van Seters, “In the Babylonian Exile with J: Between Judgment in Ezekiel and Salvation in Second Isaiah,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times, ed. B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel, OtSt 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 71–89, esp. 80–81, 88–89; D. M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 252, 288.

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

103

Yahweh functioning as the subject of the verb ‫אהב‬: “my friend.” As a matter of fact, however, the active gerund form of the verb suggests that another translation would be more accurate – namely, “the one who loves me,” which presupposes Abraham’s involvement in his relationship with God.69 The blessing promised the patriarch is an act of grace, yet it is contingent upon Abraham’s and his offspring’s moral stance.70 “The inhabitants of these ruins” who lay claims to the land overlook God’s role in the realization of the promise of the land given to Abraham and reduce God’s blessings to a mere mathematical calculation. 3.2.3. The Status of the Land of Israel. Ezekiel questions the entitlement to the land justified in this way in a manner different from the one used in 11:14–21. Rather than exposing the logical limitations of their argumentation, the prophet concentrates in 33:25–26 on the Jerusalemites’ actual attitudes, which from a theological point of view exclude them from Abraham’s offspring and, by inference, preclude any claims they may lay to the land of Israel. The disqualifying actions of “the inhabitants of these ruins” are presented as triads of transgressions – of a cultic character in v. 25 and of a social character in v. 2671 – followed by a rhetorical question: “shall you then possess the land” (‫)והארץ תירׁשו‬. The charges levelled at the capital’s inhabitants correspond to a large extent to their earlier religious and social evaluation from before 586 BCE presented in chs. 18 and 22.72 The realization of God’s promises given to Abraham depended on the attitudes of the patriarch and his descendants, who were to “keep the way of Yahweh by doing righteousness and justice” (Gen 18:19). While Abraham’s conduct was impeccable (‫ ;תמים‬Gen 17:1), “the inhabitants of these ruins” seem “the antithesis to the patriarch”73 in their faithlessness and immorality. 69.  Cf. J. L. Koole, Isaiah III: Chapters 40–48, HCOT (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997), 155; J. Goldingay and D. Payne, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, ICC, 2 vols. (London: T&T Clark International, 2006), 1:161–62. 70.  Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 690. 71.  Cf. §II.2.2.2. The cultic sense of “eating over blood” in v. 25 is discussed there as well as the ethico-social interpretation of the ‫ עׂשה תועבה‬charge in v. 26. 72.  Compare the expressions “to eat (flesh) with the blood” (v. 25) to 24:7; “to lift up your eyes towards your idols” (v. 25) to 18:6, 12, 15; “to shed blood” (v. 25) to 18:10; 22:3–4; “to commit abominations” (v. 26) to 18:6–7, 12–13; and “to defile your neighbour’s wife” (v. 26) to 18:6, 11, 15; 22:11. The expression “to rely on the sword” (‫ )עמד על־חרב‬in v. 25 is a hapax legomenon describing violence perpetrated in Judah after Jerusalem’s fall (cf. Jer 41). 73.  Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 262.

104

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

In the subsequent part of the chapter, the dispute changes into the oracle of punishment. The transgressions committed by those the Babylonians leave in the land of Israel will be punished by three messengers of God’s wrath, familiar from earlier oracles: the sword, wild animals and plague (v. 27). Some modifications have been introduced, however, as far as those brought to death by these messengers are concerned. In earlier oracles the sword was connected with open spaces (cf. 7:15), while now it is a tool bringing death to those seeking shelter in ruins, which may be explained by the prophet’s wish to make use of the assonance between ‫ בחרבות‬and ‫בחרב‬.74 The omission of hunger as a cause of death (cf. 6:12; 7:15) seems reasonable in light of the situation after the end of military activities: following the Babylonians’ conquest of Jerusalem after a siege lasting a year and a half, it was again possible to cultivate fields and vineyards. What is novel about this chapter is the scope of the punishment, which will bring complete destruction of both people and the land. Thus, the land’s relationship to its inhabitants is confirmed. The consequences of Israel’s sin befall the land, which will become “desolation and waste” (33:28, 29). As argued earlier (cf. §II.3.2), the typical Ezekielian dyad of the nouns ‫ ׁשממה ומׁשמה‬foretells two aspects of the ultimate desolation of the land: the destruction of its inhabitants and of its material aspect resulting from human activity. Historically speaking, this prediction may be related to the third wave of deportation in 582 BCE. When it comes to its theological aspect, however, the punishment may denote Yahweh’s ultimate purification of the land of Israel. It is God who will turn the land into “desolation and waste” (33:28), which proves that the land always remains dependent on Yahweh. What Ezekiel questions, therefore, is the belief of the ruins’ inhabitants in their high number as a guarantee of land possession. As Ezekiel claims, however, as a consequence of God’s punishment “the mountains of Israel will be desolate so that no one will pass through” (v. 28). Unlike Abraham – who was “one” but left numerous descendants – the Israelites are “many” yet will leave no one in their wake. Furthermore, the land’s destruction will constitute the end of “the pride of her power” (‫)גאון עזה‬. Before 586 BCE the expression was used exclusively with reference to the Jerusalem temple (24:21) but after its destruction it began to signify the land of Israel (33:28; cf. the expression in 30:6, 18 used with reference to the land of Egypt). In this way, the Jerusalemites will lose the land they have laid claims to.

74.  Cf. Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People, 82.

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

105

The second dispute over the land of Israel corroborates the fact that the gift of the land is based on the promise given to the fathers. Ezekiel corrects the misinterpretation of God’s blessing of Abraham, which “the inhabitants of these ruins” treat not as an act of grace but as God’s unconditional obligation. They completely overlook Abraham’s faith and obedience, which were necessary for the promise of the land to be fulfilled in his lifetime. Rather, those who remain in Judah cite their number as an argument supporting their claims to land ownership. Disqualifying their claims, their acts will bring about the ultimate destruction of the land. In light of Israel’s future restoration, however, this is a vital prerequisite for the cleansing of the land, which will then be given to the new Israel, gathered from dispersal. In this way, Yahweh will confirm his right to the land of Israel. 3.3. The Nations’ Claims to the Land of Israel The disputes over the land of Israel related in Ezek 11:14–21 and 33:23–29 resulted from the claims made by those Israelites who had not been deported to Babylonia. Saying that “the land has been given (‫)נתנה‬ [them] as a possession (‫)למורׁשה‬,” they try to prove their right to possess the land both to the first group of exiles from 597 BCE (11:15) and to the second one, deported after Jerusalem’s fall (33:24). An almost identical expression appears in Ezek 36:5 in Yahweh’s utterance “against the rest of the nations and against all Edom, who gave (‫[ )נתנו‬his] land to themselves as a possession (‫)למורׁשה‬.” The nations themselves express their claims to the land of Israel in Ezek 36:2: “Aha! The ancient heights have become our possession (‫ ”!)למורׁשה היתה‬These statements cited in ch. 36 correspond to Edom’s words included in ch. 35, where Edom expresses its claims to the land of Israel with the use of the verbs ‫( ירׁש‬v. 10) and ‫ נתן‬in niphal (v. 12). Despite significant differences between the oracles in 35:1–15 and 36:1–15 – the former directed against Mount Seir, the latter foretelling the restoration of the mountains of Israel – they remain strictly connected by matters of form and content, which is indicated also by the statements of the nations usurping the right to possess the land of Israel. Hence, it seems reasonable to analyse the two texts side by side to determine the time and subject of the claims and to find out Yahweh’s response to them. 3.3.1. The Historical Context of the Dispute. The agent laying claims to the land of Israel is presented in Ezek 36:2 as an “enemy.” It is Judah’s neighbouring nations (cf. “the nations which are around” in 36:4, 7), only one of which is specified in 36:5: “the rest of the nations and Edom.” As may be deduced from earlier oracles against the nations (Ezek 25:1–28:23), “the rest of the nations” includes “Ammon, Moab, Philistia,

106

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Tyre and Sidon.” Singling out Edom not only serves rhetorical purposes, linking Ezek 36:1–15 to an earlier oracle against Mount Seir, but also stems from the perception of Edom as a prototype of Israel’s enemy during exile. Even though the expression “the rest of the nations” suggests that Judah’s neighbours survived Jerusalem’s fall, they were destroyed during Nebuchadnezzar’s subsequent military campaign in Palestine and the Transjordan in 582/581 BCE.75 The sole exception was Edom, which since 586 BCE collaborated with the Babylonians and was spared by them. Its demise was brought about much later by the military expeditions in Arabia and the Transjordan of the last Babylonian king Nabonidus after 552 BCE. In the oracles included in chs. 35 and 36 Edom thus symbolizes the nations’ enmity towards Israel. Edom’s hatred of Judah is mentioned directly in Ezek 35:5, where the prophet speaks of the former’s “eternal enmity” (‫ )איבת עולם‬towards the latter. The conflict between Israel and Edom originated at the very beginning of the two nations, which derive from Jacob and Esau, respectively. According to the biblical tradition, Edom’s hatred was started by the nation’s protoplast, who “hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him” (Gen 27:41). The conflict between the two brothers explains later tensions between the two neighbouring countries, marked by repeatedly shed brotherly blood.76 Speaking of Edom’s enmity towards Judah exhibited during the Babylonian invasion, Ezekiel alludes to the history of the two nations fraught with prejudice and violence (including bloodshed), which culminates in the events of 586 BCE.77 Nevertheless, the prophet does not accuse the Edomites of murdering the Judeans. The accusation of “deliver[ing] the sons of Israel to the power (literally, pouring into the hands) of the sword” (‫ )תגר את־בני־יׂשראל על־ידי־חרב‬in Ezek 35:5 does not refer to actual killing by sword. The same expression is used in Ps 63:11 and Jer 18:21 to express the wish to see the enemy treated in 75.  Cf. G. W. Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine (Minneapolis, MN: Academic Press, 1993), 801–2. Tyre was under Babylonian siege until 571 BCE. Even though the city was not conquered, the Babylonians’ replacement of the rebellious king Ittobaal III with the loyal ruler Baal II indicates Tyre’s capitulation. 76.  A synthetic overview of Israel’s and Edom’s relations may be found in J. R. Bartlett, “Edom,” ABD 2:289–93. 77.  The biblical texts present Edom’s role in the events of 586 BCE in an unequivocally negative light. The Edomites took active part in the conquest of Jerusalem (cf. Ps 137:7) and after the city’s fall they captured fugitives (cf. Obad 14) to murder them (cf. Joel 4:19) or sell into slavery (cf. Obad 11, 14), and plundered the possessions left by the Jerusalemites (cf. Obad 5, 13).

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

107

this way, even though the speaker is not entitled to use the sword himself. With the use of this expression, Ezekiel accuses the Edomites of handing the captured Judeans over to the Babylonians.78 By the same token, the prediction of the punishment in Ezek 35:6 – “I will make you blood and blood will pursue you, surely, you hate blood (‫)אם־לא דם ׂשנאת‬, so blood shall pursue you” – is not a sufficient basis for the conclusion that the Edomites exterminated the fugitives from Jerusalem. The statement of Edom’s hatred of blood, standing out from the context, reads in LXX as εἰ μὴν εἰς αἷμα ἥμαρτες (“you have made yourself guilty of blood”; a similar expression is used in Ezek 22:4; 25:12). Even though the Greek wording is accepted by most exegetes, if the wording of MT was to be retained, “blood” could also signify a relative. Edom “hate[s] blood,” that is to say it hates its brother, Israel.79 In what period are Edom’s plans for the land of Israel to be situated? Scholars draw attention to the links between the oracles discussed here, Ezek 35:1–15; 36:1–15, and the prophecy against Edom in 25:12–14.80 In the latter text, Edom, alongside Judah’s other neighbouring countries, is accused of deriding Judah on account of the doom that befalls it (cf. the use of the exclamation ‫האח‬, “Aha!,” to express their joy at the fate of the land of Israel in 25:3; 26:2; 36:2). These texts were created around the year 586 BCE, while Edom’s claims to the land of Israel must have been expressed after Jerusalem’s fall. What seems particularly telling is the location of the exiles’ return in the near future in Ezek 36:8. Even though it is impossible to date the texts in a more precise way due to, among other things, the redactional character of both oracles,81 it is obvious that 78.  Cf. Wevers, Ezekiel, 186; Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 378. 79.  Cf. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 3:286–88. A similar interpretation is offered by Greenberg and Block, who support the revocalization of ‫ ׂשנאת‬from śānētā to śina’t and translate the expression as “bloody hatred.” Such a wording corresponds to Ezek 35:11, where the same term “hatred” (‫ )ׂשנאה‬is used with reference to the Edomites (cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 713; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 312). 80.  Cf. Wevers, Ezekiel, 186; Hals, Ezekiel, 259–60; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 171 81.  When it comes to the redactional character of Ezek 35:1–15 and 36:1–15, it needs to be emphasized that most scholars do not see any evidence that would rule out Ezekiel’s exclusive authorship of these texts. Ezek 35:1–15 probably resulted from the joining of smaller oracles, which were originally independent from one another (vv. 3–4, 5–9, 10–13, 14–15). In Ezek 36:1–15, vv. 3–6, 12–15 are typically considered a secondary extension, yet these are characterized by the style and diction typical of Ezekiel (cf. the summary of the opinions concerning the redaction of the two oracles in A. Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ezek 34–39, BZAW 391 [Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2008], 309).

108

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

in the hope of the exile’s end drawing near the deportees became more interested in what happened to their possessions left in Judah. These were appropriated by “the inhabitants of these ruins” remaining in Judah (cf. Ezek 33:24), but also, particularly to the south of Jerusalem and the Dead Sea, they fell into the hands of the Edomites. 3.3.2. Problematic Claims to the Land. While laying claims to the land of Israel, Edom does not even try to justify its demands. It assumes the position of an aggressor and haughtily announces what it possesses: “Aha! The ancient heights have become our possession (‫”!)למורׁשה היתה לנו‬ (Ezek 36:2). The sentence bears similarity to the claims to the land of Israel voiced in 11:15 and 33:24 by those Judeans who were not deported to Babylonia. They likewise call the land their “possession” (‫)למורׁשה‬, yet believe it “was given” (‫ )נתנה‬to them by Yahweh. The Edomites, on the other hand, view themselves as the only owners of the land of Israel, thereby displacing Yahweh, as is made clear by their statement quoted in Ezek 35:10: “The two nations and the two lands will be mine, and I will possess them, although Yahweh was there (‫)וירׁשנוה ויהוה ׁשם היה‬.” As has already been mentioned, the Edomite settlements in Judah were circumscribed to the areas located to the south of Jerusalem. Hence, the desire to possess the lands of the erstwhile Northern Kingdom should be treated as an expression of Edom’s ambitions rather than its actual abilities to conquer the land of Israel. It has to be remembered as well that it is the deportees, with Ezekiel as their spokesman, who formulate Edom’s territorial aspirations in such a way. When they learn of the Edomites’ penetration of Judah, they treat it as a threat to the whole land of Israel.82 What is significant is the theological aspect of the Edomites’ statement. Claiming ownership of the land of Israel, they express their belief in Yahweh’s – the God of Israel’s – weakness, visible in his failure to protect his people and his possessions. Yahweh’s presence in the land of Israel is a thing of the past, for with the arrival of the Edomites, Yahweh no longer dwells there.83

82.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 235. 83.  Yahweh’s past presence in the land of Israel is expressed with the perfect form ‫ היה‬in the second half of the sentence quoted in Ezek 35:10: “although Yahweh was there.” LXX uses here the form ἐστιν (ind. pres. act.), anticipating the name given to Jerusalem at the end of the book: “Yahweh is there” (48:35). As Greenberg argues, the translator of LXX may have thought of the text of Jer 41:5, which mentions the Israelites from the North making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem after the temple’s destruction in the belief that Yahweh was still present there. Hence, the claim made

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

109

God’s assessment of the actions of “the rest of the nations and Edom” in 36:5 is very similar to the one voiced by the exiles: “They gave my land to themselves as a possession (‫ )נתנו־את־ארצי להם למורׁשה‬with wholehearted joy and with scorn of soul, so that her pastureland be prey (‫למען מגרׁשה‬ ‫)לבז‬.”84 The above interpretation of the term ‫ מגרׁשה‬as a noun is based on the assumption that its meaning is analogous to the noun ‫מגרׁש‬, which in Ezek 45:2 and 48:15, 17 denotes pasture areas adjacent to the city walls (cf. Num 35:2; Lev 25:34 etc.). Despite their location outside the city walls, these areas remain the possession of the city. Thus, the Edomites seem to perceive their country as a city controlling adjacent lands. Edom’s attitude to the land of Israel is ultimately clarified by their words quoted in Ezek 35:12: the mountains of Israel lay “desolate; they are given us to devour (‫)נתנו לאכלה‬.” The passive voice (niphal) of the verb ‫נתן‬, striking in this context, may suggest God’s permission for Edom’s actions. In fact, this statement expresses derision of God and his land. The Edomites liken themselves to a wild animal and the desolate land – to easy prey.85 3.3.3. The Status of the Land of Israel. By laying claims to the land of Israel Edom violates Yahweh’s property. Yahweh’s response to the Edomites’ claims employs the human logic of linking an area to its patron deity. In this way, Yahweh confirms his involvement on behalf of the land of Israel, at the same time manifesting himself as the Lord of the whole earth, including the land of Edom.

in the Greek version of Ezek 35:10 about Yahweh’s presence in the land desired by the Edomites serves to emphasize the gravity of their transgressions (cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 715). 84.  The expression ‫ למען מגרׁשה לבז‬in Ezek 36:5 can be understood in two different ways. Some exegetes believe this phrase to be a damaged gloss (cf. Fohrer and Galling, Ezechiel, 201; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 168), while others interpret ‫מגרׁשה‬ as a noun similar to ‫ – מגרׁש‬a term denoting pasture areas adjacent to a city in Ezek 45:2; 48:15, 17, and thus translate the phrase as “so that its pastures become loot” (cf. Wevers, Ezekiel, 189; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 711; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 326). Still others treat ‫ מגרׁשה‬as an infinitus constructus assuming the meaning of the Aramaic verb ‫גרׁש‬, “to destroy,” and suggest the following translation: “to plunder the loot” (cf. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 394; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 229). 85.  Cf. a similar image expressed through the phrase ‫ לאכלה‬in Ezek 29:5; 34:5, 8, 10.

110

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Judah’s neighbouring countries misinterpret the Babylonian captivity as a sign of Yahweh’s weakness. The destruction and depopulation of the land of Israel is indeed a tool of punishment, yet it is essential in order to cleanse the land and renew the relationship of the covenant. The deserted land has not been given as prey to Edom and other countries, but remains Yahweh’s land. Granted, Yahweh’s Glory has abandoned the Jerusalem temple, yet it does not mean that Yahweh is absent from his land. His presence is confirmed by his reaction to the Edomites’ expression of their claims to the mountains of Israel. Not only does God “hear” the Edomites’ words (Ezek 35:12) but he treats them as a sign of pride and arrogance (cf. Ezek 35:13). Yahweh is personally involved in the well-being of his land. He assures the desolate mountains of Israel of his presence and promises he “will turn to” them (36:9: ‫)הנני אליכם ופניתי אליכם‬. This time he will turn to the mountains not to punish them, as was the case with an identical movement Ezekiel made towards Jerusalem (cf. 4:3). On the contrary, Yahweh will “turn to” his land with generosity and blessing to cause its restoration (cf. 36:8–11). The land of Israel remains Yahweh’s land, which he calls “my land” (‫ ארצי‬in 36:5). Jerusalem’s fall and the Babylonian exile do not change Yahweh’s fundamental stance in this respect nor do they nullify the promise of the land given to the fathers. It was on account of that promise that the land became “the inheritance of the house of Israel” (Ezek 35:15). As Yahweh assures “[his] people Israel,” the restored land of Israel will again become their “inheritance” and they will “possess” it (36:12). Alongside the root ‫ ירׁש‬typical of the Ezekielian terminology employed in the disputes over the land, the two sentences make use of the noun ‫“( נחלה‬inheritance”). The discussion of the word’s meaning centres to a large extent on the sociological conditions of the ownership of ‫נחלה‬. The majority of exegetes claim that ‫ נחלה‬signifies non-transferable land owned by families or clans as a result of inheritance, casting lots or allotment.86 The land of Israel termed ‫ נחלה‬would then constitute Yahweh’s gift to his son, Israel. Such an understanding of the word is characteristic primarily

86.  Cf., among others, G. von Rad, “Verheißenes Land und Yahwehs Land im Hexateuch,” in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, TB 8 (Munich: Kaiser, 1965), 87–100; F. Horst, “Zwei Begriffe für Eigentum (Besitz): ‫ נַ ֲח ָלה‬und ‫א ֻחּזָ ה‬,” ֲ in Verbannung und Heimkehr: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Wilhelm Rudolph zum 70. Geburtstage, ed. A. Kuschke (Tübingen: Paul Siebeck, 1961), 139–41; E. Lipiński, “‫ נָ ַחל‬nāÊal,” ThWAT 5:353–56. C. J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 15–22.

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

111

of Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 4:21, 38; 12:9, 10; 15:4; 19:3 etc.), which several times mentions Israel’s status as God’s son (cf. Deut 1:31; 8:5; 14:1). Some scholars, however, posit that initially the term ‫ נחלה‬denoted land received from one’s master as a reward for loyal service (especially military one).87 Such a reading treats Yahweh as the land’s owner, who gives it as fief to his vassal, Israel. Ezekiel’s view of the land of Israel as “inheritance” given by Yahweh to his people is, however, based on the notion of the land inherited by the son from his father as well as on the promise of the land given to the fathers, which resonates most clearly in Ezek 47:14.88 Yahweh’s loyalty to the land is an expression of his loyalty to those who received the promise of the land. Confirming his ownership of the land of Israel, Yahweh acknowledges Israel as “my people” (‫ עמי‬in Ezek 36:8, 12) and corroborates having given Israel his land as ‫( נחלה‬Ezek 36:12). Yahweh’s covenant with the house of Israel does not mean that his power is restricted to the land of Canaan only. This problem already raised in the first dispute (Ezek 11:14–21) is now articulated in a novel way. The parallel character of chs. 35 and 36 is visible already in the introduction of the addressees of the two oracles: in 35:1 it is “Mount Seir,” while in 36:1 it is “the mountains of Israel.” The subsequent speeches relate Yahweh’s actions with respect to the two recipients, which bring very different results. Mount Seir will be destroyed, which is emphasized by the repetition of the root ‫( ׁשמם‬35:3[×2], 4, 7[×2], 14, 15). The root ultimately serves to predict the turning of Edom into “eternal desolation” (‫ ׁשממות עולם‬in 35:9). Having derided the land of Israel as that which “devour[s] people and deprive[s] [its] nation of children,” it is now Edom that will be deprived of the people traversing its land (cf. 35:7). Its territory will be covered with victims of sword (cf. 35:8), and its cities will become depopulated (cf. 35:9). As is the case with the punishment

87.  This suggestion was first formulated by H. O. Forsey, “The Hebrew Root NḤL and Its Semitic Cognates” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1973), and later expounded on by Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 321–22. Forsey’s argument seems problematic as it links the Hebrew term ‫ נחלה‬to the Old South Arabian word nÊlt, which refers to “feudal grants of land to loyal servants.” Yet in the texts of Mari, which “has far closer links with the Israelite tribal structure of society than does South Arabia,” there appears the verb naḫâlum to denote the transfer of unsellable land belonging to the king or clan to another party, to whom it is given as a possession (cf. Horst, “Zwei Begriffe für Eigentum [Besitz],” 152; Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 19–20). 88.  Cf. Lipiński, “‫ נָ ַחל‬nāÊal,” 354.

112

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

of the house of Israel, Yahweh’s destructive actions towards Edom are to lead the Edomites to acknowledge his reign not only within the land of Israel, but also outside its limits.89 The third dispute over the entitlement to the land of Israel involves the foreign nations, with Edom – as Israel’s “eternal enemy” – at their forefront. The selection of Edom as a side of this debate seems to have stemmed from the expansion of the Edomite settlements in Negeb starting in the seventh century BCE. Edom’s claims to the land, expressed in Ezek 35:1–15 and 36:1–15, however, evince the viewpoint of the exiles in Babylonia, who, hoping to return to Judah, raise the question of land ownership, crucial from their perspective. Edom’s claims are rejected on the grounds that the land of Israel remains the possession of Yahweh, who gave it to his people as an inheritance. Israel’s unfaithfulness towards the gift of the land does not nullify God’s ownership of the land nor does it revoke his personal involvement for the sake of the land’s welfare. At the same time, the oracle under study here stresses the universality of Yahweh’s reign, which cannot be restricted to Israel’s territory only. God’s blessing and curse are a gift for – and, by inference, a choice of – every people and every land, which both Israel and Edom have a chance to see in their histories. To conclude the analysis of the disputes over the land of Israel in the book of Ezekiel, it is necessary to resort to Ezekiel’s view of the role of the land in Israel’s history. The prophet is familiar with the promise of the land given to the patriarchs, yet in his theological vision of the Promised Land’s history in ch. 20 the concept of the promise gives way to the tradition of exodus. The omission of Abraham in this context seems to derive from the misinterpretation of the promise of the land given to him by God prevalent among the Judeans remaining in the land of Israel after Jerusalem’s fall, who refer to the person of the patriarch to justify their claims (cf. Ezek 33:24). Ezekiel, in turn, refers to the gift of the land promised to Jacob, who is mentioned directly in Ezek 28:25 and 37:25, and indirectly in 20:5 and 39:25. The memory of Jacob fosters the creation of the national and religious identity for the Hebrews in the Babylonian exile while simultaneously constituting a basis for their hopes of eventually returning to the land, just as Jacob returned to it after many years spent in Haran.

89.  Cf. Yahweh’s recognition formula in 35:4, 9, 12, 15. In light of Deut 2:1–8, it may be assumed that Edom’s acknowledgment of Yahweh will make them accept “Mount Seir” as land given to them by God as their “possession” (‫ירׁשה‬, v. 5).

III. The History of Israel Written from the Perspective of the Land

113

The experience of the Babylonian exile plays a crucial role in the account of the Promised Land’s history in Ezek 20. Ezekiel constructs a typological analogy between Israel’s current captivity in Babylonia and their fathers’ stay in Egypt in the past. In this way, the exodus becomes a key structuring device of Israel’s history, which begins with the promise of the land given to the Israelites in Egypt and ends with the future re-possession of the Promised Land by the returnees from the Babylonian exile. The gift of the land manifests Yahweh as the God of Israel (cf. 20:5), faithful to his promise despite his people’s unfaithfulness and idolatry. Because of people’s conduct the first exodus was not successful, even if it resulted in a formal entrance into the land. It is already during Israel’s journey through the desert that Yahweh, faced with their repeated acts of idolatry, takes a decision to disperse Israel in the future (cf. 20:23). This prediction has become fact for Ezekiel’s listeners in Babylonia. What is more, the fathers who entered the land after forty years of wandering through the desert chose high places as their destination (cf. 20:28–29), thereby refusing to treat the Promised Land as a space of meeting and communion with God (cf. 20:32). In this context, the new exodus seems more than just the culmination of the first one. The climax of the new exodus – namely, God’s generous welcome of the house of Israel on his holy mountain (cf. 20:40–41) – evinces the real function of the Promised Land in Yahweh’s covenant with his people. The land is neither a sign nor a guarantee of the covenant’s continuity but constitutes the aim of the covenant, which is people’s participation in Yahweh’s sanctity. The “sacramental” character of the land of Israel, mentioned by Walther Zimmerli,90 may be understood as the unifying, sacralizing and revitalizing role of the land in Israel’s relationship with Yahweh. The new exodus is contingent upon the new covenant, signalled in 20:37 as “lead[ing] you into the bond of the covenant” in “the wilderness of the peoples.” The meaning of this event will be elaborated on in later oracles of Israel’s salvation, which will shed light on the anthropological dimension of the new covenant as a new act of creation not only of the land of Israel but primarily of the people who will inhabit the land (cf. 36:16–38). The communion with Yahweh is possible not only within the land of Israel. The misconceived notion of God’s exclusive relationship with the land of Israel gave rise to the claims to land ownership laid by the Judeans who had been spared relocation to Babylonia in 597 and 586 BCE. As they see it, their residence in the land is in itself proof of God’s 90.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 261.

114

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

blessing – guaranteed by Yahweh’s presence in the Jerusalem temple (cf. 11:15) – as well as proof of being Abraham’s offspring (cf. 33:24). “Such theological naivety”91 of Israel is exposed in the prophet’s polemics. God is no hostage to the land of Israel nor to the Jerusalem temple. His Glory, after all, abandons the sanctuary (Ezek 8–11) to accompany the exiles in the unclean land of Babylonia (cf. 4:13). Hence, God’s presence is not tied to the materiality of the temple and the country, and their loss need not mean the breach of the relationship with God. This relation depends on one’s obedience to God’s will and is an outcome of one’s willingness to accept God’s gift of heart and spirit (11:19; 36:26–28; cf. 18:31). In this way, the prophetic account personalizes the temple: Yahweh himself wishes to be the sanctuary for the deportees. This is not meant, however, as the substitution of the material dimension of a person’s contact with God. Rather, people’s communion with God is presented as contingent upon their inner disposition: permeated with God’s spirit, a person’s inner world becomes his temple. At the same time, however, the Promised Land continues to be “the inheritance of the house of Israel” (35:15; cf. 36:12), which means that Yahweh remains the owner of both the land of Israel and the land of the foreign nations. Despite the land’s destruction and the forced relocation of its people, Yahweh is still present in the land: he reacts to the attempts made by the neighbouring countries, especially Edom, to annex it (cf. 35:12–13), he shows concern about the land’s material and demographic situation (cf. 36:9–14) and is consistent in his treatment of the land as a gift to the house of Israel, his people (cf. 36:8, 12). In this way, Yahweh realizes his plan for the land of Israel as a space of his manifestation in the world.

91.  Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 153.

Chapter IV T he L a n d of t h e N ew C ove nant

Chapter 4 will concentrate on the salvation oracles included in Ezek 34–39. The analysis of their rhetorical structure will serve to pinpoint essential aspects of the future restoration of the land of Israel. The subsequent part of the chapter will attempt to establish the role of the land’s revitalization in Yahweh’s new covenant with Israel, termed in these oracles the covenant of peace. Finally, the temporal perspectives of the foretold restoration will be taken into consideration. The key concern here will be the character of the eschatology in the oracle against Gog (chs. 38–39), whose defeat by Yahweh will bring a definitive salvation of the land of Israel. 1. The Position of the Land of Israel in Salvation Oracles The analysis of the structure of the book of Ezekiel conducted in the previous chapters proves that a traditional division of Ezekiel’s oracles into those of punishment and those of salvation, with the caesura in ch. 33 – coinciding with the exiles’ learning of the fall of Jerusalem (cf. Ezek 33:21–22) – fails to take into account the mechanism of resumptive exposition. Hence, the interpretation of the salvation oracles included in ch. 34 and the subsequent chapters needs to incorporate not only earlier predictions of the punishment of the land of Israel (e.g. Ezek 6), but also promises of salvation which appear in some oracles of punishment (e.g. Ezek 11:17–20; 20:40–44). The starting point for this part of the book, which is devoted to the study of chs. 34–39, will be the analysis of the chapters’ composition, including the motif of the land and mountains of Israel present there. Subsequently, the mountains of Israel will be discussed as the addressee of salvation oracles. The section will end with an overview of various aspects of the future restoration of the land of Israel.

116

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

1.1. The Rhetoric of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 34–39 Within the final shape of the book of Ezekiel, the chapters from 33 onwards are typically perceived as the script of the final events that were to transpire after Israel’s return from exile (ch. 36):1 ch. 37, Israel’s ultimate restoration (resurrection); chs. 38–39, the final battle; chs. 40–48, the ultimate kingdom. Such an interpretation posits the linear (chronological) order of the foretold events, ignoring relations of form and content between the chapters. As far as the question of the text’s literary genre is concerned, chs. 34–36 contain oracles that are interrupted in ch. 37 first by the account of the vision (vv. 1–14) and later by the account of the sign-act (vv. 15–28). The oracle is resumed in chs. 38–39, followed again by the account of the vision (chs. 40–48). This generates the question of the rhetorical relations of ch. 37 within Ezek 34–39, especially with earlier oracles that address the issue of the land of Israel. The narrative of joining two sticks labelled “Judah” and “Joseph,” which predicts the reunification of Israel and Judah, contains numerous lexical and thematic references to the oracle addressed to the shepherds of Israel in ch. 34, particularly in the explanation of the prophet’s actions (37:21–28). In both texts God announces the appearance of “[his] servant David” (34:23, 24; 37:24, 25), who would rule as “one shepherd” (34:23; 37:24). He is called “the ruler” (‫ )נׂשיא‬in 34:24 and 37:24. He would govern the people gathered and brought to “their land” (‫)אדמתם‬, identified as “the mountains of Israel” (34:13; 37:22). Speaking of the reign of the new David, Yahweh foretells the making of “the covenant of peace” (‫ברית‬ ‫ ׁשלום‬in 34:25; 37:26). In 37:26 the covenant of peace is further specified as “the eternal covenant” (‫)ברית עולם‬. The term ‫ עולם‬is used in this context to characterize not only the covenant but also Israel’s residence in their land (37:25), David’s rule (37:25) and the tabernacle’s presence among them (‫ ;מקדׁשי‬37:26, 28). The links between the account of joining two sticks, together with its explanation (37:15–28), and the oracle in ch. 34 make it possible to perceive the two texts as a sort of a frame for Ezek 34–37. At the same time, the text of 37:15–28 emphasizes the finality and irrevocability of the predictions of restoration expressed in this fragment of the book of Ezekiel through the numerous repetitions in the final verses of ch. 37 of the noun ‫עולם‬, which is literally the last word in the sequence of chs. 34–37. 1.  Cf., e.g., Hals, Ezekiel, 230–31; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 271–72; F. Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel: Kapitel 25–48, NSKAT 21/2 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013), 126–28.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

117

The vision in Ezek 37:1–14 concentrates on the restoration of Israel as the nation returning to its land (cf. the identification of the dry bones with the house of Israel in v. 11). The metaphors employed in the vision are unprecedented in the Hebrew Bible, yet the prediction of Yahweh’s gift of his spirit appears not only in 37:14, but also in 36:27, in the same context of Israel’s return from exile. In light of the fact that the second part of 36:27, expressing the people’s future compliance with Yahweh’s laws, is repeated verbatim in 37:24b, it may be assumed that ch. 37 does not relate any new events, but rather reiterates certain motifs from earlier oracles, thereby constituting their conclusion.2 At the same time, the question Yahweh asks the prophet in 37:3 – whether the dry bones may live again (‫ – )התחיינה‬echoes the question posed by the exiles in Babylonia in 33:10 – whether they shall survive (‫)איך נחיה‬. The exiles’ uncertainty in this respect stems from their recognition of themselves as being in the state of decomposition (cf. the verb ‫ מקק‬in niphal in 33:10); hence, in the context of the vision they admit to being “dry bones” (37:11). These formal and thematic links between chs. 33 and 37 may suggest that the chapters act as a sort of a frame. Israel’s initial situation delineated in ch. 33, serving as an impetus for the oracles of salvation in chs. 34–36, is clearly reversed in ch. 37, which functions as the recapitulating conclusion. Do, then, the oracles foretelling Israel’s restoration in Ezek 34–36 render the process of salvation in a progressive, linear manner? The answer must be negative if one is to analyse the motifs recurring in all the four oracles comprising the sequence: 34:1–31; 35:1–15; 36:1–15; 36:16–38. All of these texts employ the motif of the land or mountains of Israel that undergo revival on account of Israel’s return from exile (cf. 34:26–27; 36:8–11; 36:29b–30, 33–38). The only exception is the oracle against Edom (Mount Seir) in ch. 35, yet it presupposes a similar change of the desolate land of Israel at the time of Edom’s punishment. For this reason, it is impossible to treat the oracles in Ezek 34–36 as a linear account of the future restoration of Israel. On the contrary, these oracles constitute an example of resumptive exposition in the book of Ezekiel (cf. §I.3.2), whereby a particular theme – here, the restoration of the land of Israel – recurs in subsequent oracles to gain a more profound treatment. The motif of the new land of Israel is presented in a broader context of the prediction of Israel’s return from exile, hence, the prophecies included in Ezek 34–36 may be interpreted as the explanation of the process of the land of Israel’s restoration outlined in the theological account of Israel’s history in ch. 20, particularly in its second part depicting the new exodus 2.  Cf. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 177.

118

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

(vv. 33–44).3 Read in this way, the oracle addressed to the shepherds of Israel (Ezek 34) develops Yahweh’s announcement of his reign over the house of Israel (cf. 20:33), which was a reaction to Israel’s rejection of Yahweh’s dominion (cf. 20:32). At the same time, the oracle lays the foundations for a new quality of leadership in the revived community (cf. 34:23–24). Yahweh’s words against Mount Seir (Ezek 35) are rhetorically connected with the oracle to the mountains of Israel (Ezek 36:1–15), primarily through the question of the entitlement to the land of Israel raised in both texts (cf. §III.3.3). Confirming the status of the land of Israel as his possession (cf. 20:40), Yahweh manifests his reign over the nations, which are to acknowledge him through the restoration of the land he gave to Israel. Finally, ch. 20 is expounded on in Ezek 36:16–38, which in vv. 16–19 recapitulates the history of Israel’s unfaithfulness in the Promised Land and their subsequent punishment to later develop the motif of Yahweh’s concern for the holiness of his name as the reason for Israel’s restoration (cf. 20:41, 44 and 36:20–23), described in detail in 36:24–38. The vision of the land’s restoration presented in Ezek 36:16–38, with its anthology of Ezekielian salvation oracles for the land of Israel,4 seems in the structure of the book to be a sort of a climax of the predictions of Israel’s and its land’s restoration. Bringing the period of judgment to a close, the prophecy of Ezek 36:16–38 opens a new epoch in Israel’s history, when the new people of the covenant already inhabit the finally restored Promised Land.5 Therefore, the oracles of salvation of the land of Israel grouped in Ezek 34–37 should be interpreted in a complementary way as shedding light on various aspects of the new land of Israel. Within this excerpt, the text of Ezek 36:1–15 is worthy of particular attention as an oracle addressed directly to the mountains of Israel, which – like the oracle of punishment in Ezek 6 – acknowledges the subjecthood of the mountains (land) of Israel. Another text with a significant rhetorical function is Ezek 36:16–38, whose anthological character makes it an apt conclusion of the predictions of the restoration of Israel’s land, situating them in the context of the new covenant. In the rhetorical structure of Ezek 34–37 ch. 37 plays the role of the conclusion, which confirms – through vision and sign-act – earlier oracles of salvation, thus emphasizing the irrevocable and permanent 3.  Cf. Boadt, “The Function of the Salvation Oracles in Ezekiel 33 to 37,” 16. 4.  There are noticeable links between Ezek 36:16–38 and 11:17–20, ch. 20 and 34:1–36:15. 5.  Cf. Rendtorff, “Ez 20 und 36:16ff im Rahmen der Komposition des Buches Ezechiel,” 262–63; I. E. Lilly, The Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Edition, VTSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 129.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

119

character of Israel’s restoration. The new temporal perspective is present in the Gog oracle in chs. 38–39, which refers to events transpiring already after Israel’s return from exile (cf. 38:8), when they live safely (‫ )לבטח‬in the land (cf. 38:8, 11, 14), in accord with the promise made in 34:25, 27, 28. The chronological differences between chs. 34–37 and 38–39, as well as the differences with respect to the situation of the land of Israel they describe, indicate the necessity of analysing the Gog oracle separately from others. 1.2. The Recovered Subjecthood of the Mountains of Israel (Ezekiel 36:1–15) The mechanism of resumptive exposition in Ezek 34–37 is most clearly noticeable in the oracle addressed to the mountains of Israel in 36:1–15, whose form and content allude to the oracle of punishment for the mountains of Israel in ch. 6. The punishment of the mountains of Israel was a consequence of its co-responsibility for the cultic sins committed by their inhabitants, the people of the covenant (cf. §II.1.1). The mountains of Israel are thus presented as a subject in their relation to Yahweh and his people. The mountains’ subjecthood is lost in the wake of Jerusalem’s fall, war-related destruction and people’s deportation to Babylonia. Desolate and deserted by people, the land is treated as an object in the debates concerning its ownership, claimed both by the Judeans remaining in the country (cf. 11:15; 33:24) and the foreign nations, who wish to take advantage of Judah’s fall to expand their territories (cf. 35:10, 12; 36:2, 13).6 Read in this context, the oracle addressed to the mountains in 36:1–15 confirms their belonging to Yahweh as well as restores their lost subjecthood. The subjecthood of the mountains of Israel is based on their relationship with Yahweh, which was breached on account of idolatrous cult performed in high places. The relationship will be restored due to Yahweh’s decision expressed in 36:9: ‫“( הנני אליכם ופניתי אליכם‬behold, I am for you, and I will turn to you”). This two-part declaration of assistance emphasizes Yahweh’s initiative and willingness to shape the relationship with the mountains of Israel as an autonomous subject – here referred to as “you.” It is Yahweh who approaches the mountains: the particle ‫ הנה‬indicates that Yahweh shortens the distance, which allows for direct contact and leads to closeness. Yahweh’s intention to “turn to” the mountains of Israel sounds even more strongly. The verb ‫ פנה‬signals an earlier turning of one’s back on someone else, a breach of contact. “Turning to” that person 6.  Cf. §III.3.2.2; III.3.3.2.

120

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

again is an expression of acknowledging one’s guilt, of converting and acting to restore the lost relationship. Here, however, the restoration of the mountains of Israel does not result from the repentance of the sinner, but of the person who the sinner has sinned against. The time of punishment makes it possible to experience God’s hidden face (cf. 39:29): now God turns to the mountains of Israel in an act of generosity and blessing (cf. the Priestly blessing in Num 6:24–26). In Ezekiel’s narrative it is the land of Israel – not the returnees from exile, as the Priestly tradition would have it (cf. Lev 26:9) – that is the first to benefit from God’s saving action and termination of punishment. The end of the mountains’ material destruction and their repopulation is a tangible proof of their restoration. If the loss of subjecthood turned the mountains into “desolate ruins and abandoned cites” (36:4), its recovery thanks to Yahweh will result in “the cities inhabited and the ruined sites rebuilt” (36:10b). It is Yahweh who “multipl[ies]” people and animals on the mountains of Israel (cf. 36:10a, 11a). The passive voice employed in the prediction of the mountains’ being “cultivated” and “sowed” (36:9b) may be interpreted as passivum theologicum, especially since it follows directly Yahweh’s words on his “turn[ing] to” the mountains of Israel (36:9a). God’s revitalization of the land of Israel is not a mere return to its previous state. Yahweh does not merely wish to restore the mountains to their condition in “former times” (‫)קדמותיכם‬, but rather to “do more good to [them] than ever before” (‫( )הטבתי מראׁשתיכם‬36:11). The statement expresses the idea of returning the mountains to their state prior to human existence, which brings to mind the narrative of the garden of Eden and its depiction of the land as ready for human habitation due to God’s acts of creation.7 Even before the mountains of Israel can again be cultivated by the returnees, they “will put forth [their] branches and bear [their] fruit” for Yahweh’s people (36:8). The recovery of the subjecthood of the mountains of Israel will also be visible in their relationship with the people of the covenant. Even though Israel as God’s people will “possess” (‫ )וירׁשוך‬the mountains of Israel as “their inheritance” (36:12( )‫)נחלה‬, the mountains will not cease to be an autonomous agent of moral action. If, according to the nations, the Judeans killed or deported to Babylonia are proof that the land of Israel orphans and “devour[s]” its people (cf. 36:13), Yahweh promises that such a situation will never again take place in the future. The mountains 7.  Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 719; J. E. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel, BZAW 301 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2000), 163.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

121

of Israel will be a source of life – and not death – for those returning from exile, as expressed through an evocative metaphor of the mountains as trees “put[ting] forth [their] branches and bear[ing] [their] fruit” (36:8). The metaphor has a two-fold foundation. On the one hand, it is an allusion to the trees growing in the garden of Eden (cf. Gen 2:9), whose fruit feeds people while the trees themselves draw life from their relation with Yahweh.8 On the other hand, the meaning of the metaphor is based on the opposition to the use of “every green tree” and “every leafy oak” in idolatrous fertility cults (cf. Ezek 6:13; 20:28). These practices turned the trees into sources of death, and not life. The restoration of the mountains’ original life-sustaining function will make it impossible for them “to cause [their] nation to stumble” (36:15). The semantic analysis of the verb ‫ כׁשל‬in hiphil used in this sentence conducted in §II.2.1 links “caus[ing] to stumble” to the mountains’ use of their territory for the practice of idolatrous cult. By contrast, the renewed land of Israel will constitute the place of people’s communion with Yahweh while its topography and its fruit will manifest Yahweh’s generosity for Israel (cf. 36:11). The fact that Yahweh treats the mountains of Israel as the recipient of the oracle of salvation in 36:1–15 serves to foreshadow the restoration of their subjecthood in their relationships with Yahweh, Israel and the nations. In this way, Yahweh will return to his original intention for the land promised to Israel: during the process of salvation the land will undergo restoration, thanks to which its quality will surpass any it has had so far (cf. 36:11). 1.3. The Dynamics of the Restoration of the Land of Israel The restoration of the land of Israel is predicted as a reversal of the punishment which resulted in the land’s desolation. In the oracle addressed to the mountains of Israel in ch. 36 the phrase “desolate ruins and abandoned cites” is added to the typical Ezekielian four-part characterization of the mountains’ geomorphological structure as “mountains, hills, ravines, valleys” (v. 4). This additional phrase signals not only the land’s depopulation and its material destruction, but also the loss of its political and religious autonomy, which is made clear by the foreign nations’ words directed to the land of Israel and its inhabitants after 586 BCE (cf. 35:10; 36:20). The analysis of the oracles of salvation in Ezek 34–37 will thus focus on four aspects of the revitalization of the land of 8.  This fruit-growing metaphor is fused in Ezek 47:12 with an aquatic metaphor, whereby the trees’ vitality and fruit-bearing is guaranteed by the water flowing from the sanctuary (cf. Ps 1:3; Jer 17:8).

122

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Israel: demographic, material, political and religious ones. Due to the inextricable link between the land, its people and Yahweh these four facets need to be discussed in a complementary manner. 1.3.1. The Demographic Dimension. The oracles in Ezek 34–37 address the motif of the repopulation of the land of Israel in the context of the new exodus, shown in ch. 20 to be the primary structural element of Israel’s history. Since Ezekiel’s salvation oracles refer also to the acts of creation as presented in the book of Genesis, the repopulation of the land of Israel will result not only from the return from exile. Even though Ezekiel speaks to the exiles in Babylonia, the return to the land of Israel he predicts is not restricted only to the exiled Jews. The process of returning comprises three activities, with Yahweh as their subject: gathering those dispersed in exile (cf. ‫ קבץ‬in piel in 34:13; 36:24; 37:21),9 leading them out of exile (cf. ‫ יצא‬in hiphil in 34:13;10 ‫לקח‬in 36:24; 37:21) and into the land (cf. ‫ בוא‬in hiphil in 34:13; 36:24; 37:12, 21).11 The starting point for the new exodus is always referred to in the plural form, hence some exegetes believe that these texts are an outcome of later redaction of the book of Ezekiel reflecting the point of view of the Jewish diaspora during the Persian period.12 The prospect of return is, nevertheless, expressed by Ezekiel himself, who believes it will happen in the near future (cf. 36:8). The plural forms ‫( עמים‬11:17; 20:34, 41; 28:25; 34:13; 39:27), ‫( גוים‬36:24; 37:21) and ‫( ארצות‬11:17; 20:24, 41; 34:13; 36:24) undoubtedly refer to various locations “all over the surface of the earth” (34:6), yet they need to be read in the context of all the relocations Israel and Judah have experienced throughout their history. This notion is most clearly articulated in the explanation of Ezekiel’s joining two wooden sticks with inscriptions alluding to the history of the divided monarchy (cf. 37:16–20). The unification of Israel – which will be discussed in more detail in the context of the political restoration of the land of Israel – is made possible by the return of “the sons of Israel” foretold in 37:21. If the description of the sign-acts through which Israel’s future unification is declared makes use of the tribal expressions 9.  The same verb is used in an identical context in 11:17; 20:34, 41; 28:25; 38:8; 39:27 (cf. also ‫ אסף‬in 11:17). 10.  The same idea is expressed with the use of this verb in 20:34, 38, 41; 38:8 (cf. also ‫ ׁשוב‬in poel in 39:27). 11.  The same usage in 20:42; 28:25; 39:27. 12.  Cf. J. Lust, “Exile and Diaspora: Gathering from Dispersion in Ezekiel,” in Lectures et relectures de la Bible: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert, ed. J. M. Auwers and A. Wénin, BETL 144 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 99–122 (120–21).

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

123

denoting the divided monarchies (Judah, on the one hand, and Joseph, identified with Ephraim, on the other; cf. 36:16, 19), the phrase “sons of Israel” in 37:21 eradicates those ethnic divisions, emphasizing instead the common – albeit chronologically distinct – experience of exile befalling people originating from the same protoplast: Israel/Jacob.13 It is thanks to the returnees from exile that Yahweh will “populate” (‫יׁשב‬ in hiphil) “the mountains of Israel” (36:11) and the “abandoned cities” (36:33; cf. 36:10). The repopulation of the land of Israel predicted in the salvation oracles of Ezek 34–37 does not occur only as an outcome of the new exodus. In the oracle addressed to the mountains of Israel (Ezek 36:1–15) analysed earlier (cf. §IV.1.2) as well as in subsequent prophecies, Ezekiel alludes to the terminology of creation typical of the Priestly tradition. The verb ‫רבה‬ in hiphil is an especially noticeable example; it is with the use of this verb that Yahweh promises to “multiply” those who will return from exile, and, what is more, in each usage of the verb the uncountable character of this act of creation is emphasized: • • •

•

in 36:10 the object of the verb ‫ רבה‬in hiphil is “people, the whole house of Israel, all of it”; in 36:11 it is “people and animals,” further characterized as “numerous and fruitful” (‫;)רבו ופרו‬ 36:37 makes use of the metaphor of “flocks of people” (‫)צאן אדם‬ that will be multiplied to resemble “the flock at Jerusalem during her appointed feasts” (36:38), which brings to mind enormous numbers of animals sacrificed in the Jerusalem temple during pilgrimage feasts.14 Filled to capacity with these animals, Jerusalem foreshadows “the ruined towns [to] be filled with flocks of people” (36:38). What is more, Yahweh will allow his people to ask (‫ )דרׁש‬for their further multiplication (cf. 36:37);15 as 37:25 makes clear, the multiplication of the united Israel mentioned in 37:26 has a linear character that will also affect subsequent generations: “they and their children and their children’s children shall live there forever.”

13.  Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 410. 14.  According to 2 Chr 35:7–9, during the Passover celebrated under King Josiah’s reign 37,600 of small cattle (‫ )צאן‬were sacrificed: this was indeed a flock filling the streets of Jerusalem to capacity (cf. Mic 6:7); cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 733. 15.  This comes as a contrast to Yahweh’s refusal of the elders’ request for inquiry (‫ )דרׁש‬in Ezek 20:3, 31.

124

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

In the Priestly tradition, the verb ‫ רבה‬is used in a dyad with the verb ‫פרה‬ (cf. Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7), just as in the prediction of the repopulation of the land of Israel in Ezek 36:11. It proves again that in his depiction of the restoration of the land of Israel Ezekiel makes use of the diction of the biblical creatio prima.16 The repopulation as an act of new creation seems to be God’s gift for the land, which is signalled in 37:26 with the verb ‫נתן‬, untypical in the context of the land’s population. Thereby, it is not only the people of Israel who will benefit from the return to their land, but the land itself will likewise be given a chance to develop as a life-giving place. 1.3.2. The Material Dimension. The depopulation of the land of Israel has consequences for various aspects of culture resultant from human activity, especially agriculture and construction.17 As far as the former is concerned, it has to be remembered that famine, one of God’s messengers of death (cf. Ezek 6:11, 12; 7:15; 14:13), stems first and foremost from lack of rainfall, which is contingent on God solely. For this reason, the restoration of the land of Israel as farmland is only secondarily an outcome of human activity, which is alluded to in the salvation oracles of Ezek 34–37 only indirectly. The primary source of restoration for the land of Israel is rainfall sent by Yahweh, shown in Ezek 34:26 to be a sign of God’s blessing. “The showers of blessing” mentioned there refer to rain given by God in their “season.” Jeremiah 5:24 distinguishes in this context between “early rain” (‫)גׁשם יורה‬, falling in Palestine between the end of October and the beginning of December, and “late rain” (‫ )מלקוׁש‬of March and April. Palestine’s particular hydrological and geo-climatic situation (lack of bigger rivers whose overflow would irrigate the land, more intensive rainfall on the coast and in the mountains accompanied by the evaporation of approximately 60–70 percent of rainfall and an uneven spread of rainy days throughout the year) made rainfall (and also dew) a genuine sign of God’s blessing for the land.18 Due to the rainfall “the trees of the field 16.  Cf. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 131. One cannot agree with Madhavi Nevader’s statement (“Creating a Deus Non Creator: Divine Sovereignty and Creation in Ezekiel,” in Joyce and Rom-Shiloni, eds., The God Ezekiel Creates, 55–70 [63]), that Israel’s creation traditions are completely absent from the book of Ezekiel. In his article, Nevader focuses primarily on the Eden-Creation tradition (Gen 2–3), overlooking the above-argued presence in Ezek 36–37 of Priestly terminology of creation employed in Gen 1. 17.  Cf. §II.3.2. 18.  A detailed analysis of Palestine’s hydrological and geo-climatic conditions may be found in Pikor, Soteriologiczna metafora wody w Księdze Izajasza, 58–61.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

125

shall yield their fruit, and the land shall yield her produce” (Ezek 34:27). God not only gives the land the rain crucial for vegetation, but is also the source of the land’s fertility and abundant crops. It is Yahweh who “summon[s] the grain and make[s] it abundant” (36:29). The verb ‫קרא‬ used in this sentence appears in the Hebrew Bible also in the phrase “to summon famine,” which is a result of drought (cf. 2 Kgs 8:1; Ps 105:16). Thus, it is Yahweh who summons the rain with which he “multipl[ies]” the crops (Ezek 36:29) as well as “the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field” (36:30). Promising the restoration of the land of Israel, Yahweh even speaks of himself as a farmer who “plant[s] (‫ )נטעתי‬that which was desolate” (36:36). A similar image is used in 34:29, where Yahweh vows to “establish a splendid plantation” (‫)מטע לׁשם‬19 for his people in the land of Israel. The land’s magnificence stems from its substantial size as well as from abundant crops granted by God. What is more, the verb ‫נתן‬ employed in these two metaphorical depictions of Yahweh’s activities as regards the land emphasizes also the permanent character of its crops.20 Thanks to it, the land’s inhabitants will never again experience hunger, which has earlier caused the nations’ derision (cf. 34:29; 36:30). On the contrary, the restored land of Israel will appear to them “like the garden of Eden” (‫)כגן־עדן‬. Such an opinion voiced by the nations and quoted in 36:35 not only constitutes the reversal of their negative opinion concerning the material downfall of the land of Israel (cf. 35:12; 36:13) but also shows their acknowledgment of the land’s special relationship with Yahweh, as evinced by its comparison to Eden. The comparison of the land of Israel to “the garden of Eden” constitutes an apex of numerous references in chs. 34 and 36 to the book of Genesis, whereby the revitalization of the land given to Israel assumes the characteristics of an act of new creation.21 The expression “the garden 19.  The translation of the expression as “peaceful plantation” (φυτὸν εἰρήνης) in LXX, just like in Syr. and Targ., posits the metathesis in MT (such an interpretation is suggested by the editors of BHS). Nevertheless, the construction ‫ לׁשם‬appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible as a synonym of ‫ לתהלה‬and ‫( לתפארת‬cf. Jer 33:9), which suggests that the “plantation” mentioned in Ezek 34:29 is a “magnificent” one, bringing fame and pride to the house of Israel. The designatum of the noun ‫ מטע‬may be a fruit tree (cf. vine in 17:7) as well as any other tree growing in the woods or in the field (cf. trees of the field in 31:4). 20.  Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 704. 21.  Alongside the references stemming from the use of the verbs ‫ רבה‬and ‫פרה‬ mentioned above, the noun ‫( עבד‬cf. Ezek 36:9, 34 and Gen 2:5, 15), the root ‫( טוב‬cf. Ezek 36:11 and Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) and the adverbial of time ‫מראׁשתיכם‬ used in Ezek 36:11 as an echo of Gen 1:1 may also be mentioned (cf. S. Ohnesorge,

126

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

of Eden” appears in the Hebrew Bible in Gen 2:15; 3:23, 24 and in Joel 2:3 as well. Ezekiel himself uses the term “Eden” in the oracle against the king of Tyre (28:13) and against Egypt (31:9, 16, 18). In both cases Eden is also called “the garden of God” (‫ גן־אלהים‬in 28:13; 31:9). The key difference between the narration of the book of Genesis and Ezekiel’s prophetic oracles lies in the latter’s frequent deployment of mythological motifs, especially in the description of the king of Tyre’s characteristic features, while mythological aspects of Eden are absent in the book of Genesis. This notwithstanding, the narratives of the book of Genesis remain a point of reference for Ezekiel’s image of the garden of Eden, as proved by the way in which the motifs of creation are interwoven with the prophecies of the restoration of the land of Israel. The prophet engages here in a historicizing re-reading of the book of Genesis, pointing to the land of Israel as fulfilling or even surpassing (cf. Ezek 36:11) the ideal picture of Eden as a paradisiacal garden.22 It is the land of Israel that turns out to be the real paradisiacal garden planted by Yahweh, with the restored people of the covenant cast as the new human placed in the garden.23 The image of the new land of Israel as the garden of Eden is resumed in the vision of the spring flowing from the Jerusalem temple, whose waters cover the whole land of Israel, transforming it into a paradisiacal garden (Ezek 47:1–12). As the analysis of this text in the final chapter of the book will show, the aquatic motif dominating the vision in ch. 47 serves not so much to develop further the image of the land’s revitalization but rather to clarify Yahweh’s role in the process in the context of the return of his Glory to the Jerusalem temple. The vegetative and agrarian restoration of the land of Israel is accompanied in the book of Ezekiel by the promise of the rebuilding of the destroyed places of residence, especially the cities which were turned into ruin.24 The repopulation of the cities (‫ ערים‬+ the verb ‫ )יׁשב‬foretold in Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu: Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11,14–21; 20:1–44; 36:16–38; 37:1–14.15–28, FB 64 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1991), 251; Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth, 130–31. 22.  Cf. W. Berg, “Israels Land, der Garten Gottes: Der Garten als Bild des Heils im Alten Testament,” BZ 32 (1988): 35–51 (47); M. Ottosson, “Eden and the Land of Promise,” in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 177–88 (187). A similarly innovative interpretation of Eden in the context of the return from the Babylonian exile may be found in Isa 51:3, yet Eden is identified there with Zion (Jerusalem) – the aim of the new exodus (cf. Isa 52:7–9). 23.  Cf. Granados García, La nueva alianza como recreación, 219. 24.  Cf. §II.3.2, especially the analysis of the root ‫ חרב‬employed in the book of Ezekiel to describe the devastation of the land of Israel.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

127

Ezek 36:10, 33 is strictly connected with the rebuilding of the ruins (‫חרבות‬ + the verb ‫)בנה‬. The cities which were “waste, desolate and ruined” are presented in 36:35 as ideal cities, whose perfection is symbolized by the walls surrounding them. The city fortified with walls is presented in the Hebrew Bible as an ideal place to live, a place of safe shelter, a symbol even of eschatological salvation (cf. Isa 26:1, 3; 60:18).25 Yet another time it is Yahweh who causes this material restoration. He will thus become known to the neighbouring nations as he who has “rebuilt the ruined places and replanted that which was desolate” (Ezek 36:36). This anthropomorphizing image has its source in the predictions of 36:10, 33, which show the rebuilding of the ruins as contingent upon Yahweh’s repopulation of the hitherto abandoned cities. Returning its inhabitants to the land of Israel, Yahweh is the source of the land’s material revival. 1.3.3. The Political Dimension. The relationship between the land of Israel and the people inhabiting it has some political connotations as well. Even if the lack of land does not translate into the lack of separate ethnic, cultural or religious identity, it nevertheless leads to the loss of subjecthood in the international arena. This is what happens to the land of Israel in the wake of Jerusalem’s fall in 586 BCE, when it becomes the object of claims put forward by the nations. Arguing for its entitlement to the land, Edom employs political categories: “The two nations and the two lands (‫ )את־ׁשני הגוים ואת־ׁשתי הארצות‬will be mine, and I will possess them” (Ezek 35:10). Regardless of the claims to the land of Israel voiced by Edom, the Babylonian exile put an end to the political autonomy of the land Yahweh had given to his people as an inheritance. The restoration of the land of Israel foretold by Ezekiel will have a clear political dimension, indicated first in the oracle against the shepherds of Israel in ch. 34 and further elaborated on and confirmed in the sign-act described in 37:15–28. Ezekiel depicts there the joining of two wooden sticks whose inscriptions (vv. 16, 19) symbolically refer to the divided monarchy and the land of Israel. With the end of Solomon’s reign the latter became the foundation for the political autonomy of the Northern Kingdom, inhabited by “Joseph (the stick of Ephraim) and all the house of Israel associated with him” and the Southern Kingdom, that is “Judah, and the Israelites associated with him.”26 In the restored land of Israel 25.  Its antithesis is the wall-less city (cf. Isa 25:2; Jer 50:15; Ezek 26:4, 12; 38:20; Lam 2:8), a sign of curse (cf. Deut 28:52) and a source of disgrace (cf. Neh 2:17). 26.  “Joseph” is the protoplast of two northern tribes: Ephraim and Manasseh, the first of which held the dominant position vis-à-vis other tribes comprising the Northern Kingdom, referred to as “all the house of Israel associated with him”

128

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Yahweh’s people “shall no longer be two nations (‫)לׁשני גוים‬, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again (‫( ”)לׁשתי ממלכות‬37:22b), for Yahweh will “make them one nation (‫ )לגוי אחד‬in the land, on the mountains of Israel” (37:22a). The political unity of the people returning from exile stems from Yahweh’s own initiative: he will make them “one in [his] hand” (37:19). The new political structure will translate into a new institution of power, which Yahweh will consign to “his servant David” (cf. 34:23, 24; 37:24, 25). Regardless of the scope of his power, expressed in these oracles as that of ‫“( רעה‬shepherd”) in 34:23[×2]; 37:24; ‫נׂשיא‬ (“ruler”) in 34:24; 37:25; or ‫“( מלך‬king”) in 37:22[×2], 23,27 what matters is that he will be “one shepherd” (34:23; 37:24) and “one king” (37:22). Even though the new ruler is called David, which points to Jerusalem as the location of the only legitimate power in the land of Israel, what is emphasized here is the new quality of that power in the united kingdom of Israel, which is clarified by the characterization of the new ruler as the shepherd of Israel. Yahweh’s role as a shepherd of his people remains a reference point and a model for this kind of dominion. Yahweh will himself take care of his sheep (cf. 34:11–16), abandoned and abused by evil shepherds (‫)חבריו‬. The expression ‫ חבריו‬used with reference to Judah encompasses “sons of Israel” from the tribes remaining in the Southern Kingdom after the monarchy’s division (2 Chr 11:12–14 mentions the tribe of Benjamin and the Levites; v. 16 refers to people belonging to yet other tribes). 27.  It remains the subject of scholarly debates why Ezekiel seems to prefer the term ‫ נׂשיא‬to ‫ מלך‬while speaking of the future ruler of the restored Israel. Such a tendency is noticeable particularly in chs. 40–48, where the ruler is referred to solely as ‫נׂשיא‬. The noun ‫ נׂשיא‬evokes the model of leadership prevalent in the pre-monarchical Israel (cf. Num 3:30, 32, 35; 16:2; Josh 9:15; 22:14 etc.), where the key role was played by ‫ – נׂשיאים‬tribe leaders, heads of patriarchal families (hence the common translation of the noun as “princes”) (cf. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, 12–18). It is generally assumed that Ezekiel’s predilection for the noun ‫נׂשיא‬ is a sign of his criticism of the institution of monarchy, which in the future will be completely subjugated to Yahweh’s will and the actual needs of his people. Power will take the form of service, as the expression “the ruler among his people” suggests (cf. ‫ נׂשיא בתוכם‬in 34:24) (cf. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, 32, 33, 48–49; P. M. Joyce, “King and Messiah in Ezekiel,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Day, JSOTSup 270 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], 323–37 [330–32]; Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile, 249–51). The reference to the institution of the “king” in Ezek 37:22, 24 may be understood as an intention to link the person of the ruler directly to the end of “two kingdoms” (37:22) (cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 275) or as a desire to emphasize the complete restoration of Israel as a monarchy (cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 414).

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

129

(cf. 34:2–10). Speaking of his pastoral care, Yahweh refers, on the one hand, to the activities performed by a good shepherd (cf. 34:12, 15–16) and, on the other, to those of a judge (cf. Yahweh as the subject of the verb ‫ ׁשפט‬in 34:17, 20, 22). It is the flock itself that will be judged on account of the abuse of the weaker by the stronger upon the mountains of Israel (cf. the conventional depiction of the new exodus in 34:13), visible in the latter’s refusal to give the former “good pastures” and “clear water” (cf. 34:18–19). This context clarifies Yahweh’s promise to “feed them with justice (‫( ”)במׁשפט‬34:16). Yahweh’s metaphorical predictions of the new shepherd in the united kingdom constitute a declaration that in the restored land of Israel justice will prevail in communal life.28 Thanks to Yahweh’s revitalizing activity, the mountains will truly become a “good pasture” (‫ מרעה־טוב‬in 34:14, 18; ‫ נוה טוב‬in 34:14), “a fat pasture” (‫ מרעה ׁשמן‬in 34:14) for all the sheep to take advantage of. The just ruler will see to it that no one is excluded from the community partaking of goods offered by the land of Israel (cf. 34:21). Each and every Israelite will be able to experience God’s blessing of the land (cf. 34:26). The ruler will take care especially of the socially disabled: people overlooked during the division of goods or given only scraps maliciously damaged by those occupying higher positions on the social ladder (cf. 34:19). The new quality of leadership will thus be a guarantee of the just social order in the restored land of Israel. 1.3.4. The Religious Dimension. Finally, the restoration of the land of Israel has a religious dimension, signalled to some extent in earlier oracles of salvation for the land of Israel. To give an example, Ezek 11:18 mentions the removal from the land of “detestable things” (‫ )ׁשקוצים‬and “abominations” (‫ )תועבות‬by those returning from exile (cf. §III.3.1.3). Israel’s history presented in ch. 20 ends in 20:40–41a with a description of the finale of the new exodus: Yahweh’s welcome of his people on his holy mountain following their entrance into the Promised Land (cf. §III.2.3). The salvation oracles included in Ezek 34–37 corroborate the religious aspect of the restoration of the land of Israel, with two significant modifications. The first of these concerns the cleansing of the land of Israel. In light of Ezek 11:18, it may be assumed that the Israelites themselves will purify the land. Yet, in Ezek 37:23 Yahweh announces that the new people inhabiting the land of Israel, united under one Davidic ruler, “shall never again defile themselves with their idols and their detestable things, or with their 28.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 439.

130

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

rebellious actions” (v. 23a). It may be assumed at first glance that this will be an outcome of the act of Israel’s new creation (cf. 36:26–27a), but the following sentence makes it clear that it is Yahweh who will “deliver29 them from all their dwelling places (‫ )מוׁשבתיהם‬in which they have sinned and will cleanse them” (v. 23b). The term ‫ מוׁשב‬used here to denote the “tool” of sin refers not so much to “dwelling places” per se but rather to installations and objects of idolatrous cult, which in the past could be found in the chosen nation’s ‫ מׁשבת‬upon the mountains of Israel, as Ezek 6:6 points out. The oracle of the punishment for the mountains of Israel in ch. 6 discloses their participation in idolatry, visible in the use of their natural topography to house “high places.” Delivering his land of the places of idolatrous cult, Yahweh will restore the mountains and the land of Israel to their original state, turning them again into the space of contact with himself and into a source of his blessing. In this way, the second aspect of the religious revival of the land of Israel is revealed. In Ezek 34 Israel’s shepherds are accused of contributing to the scattering of the sheep “through all the mountains and on every high hill (‫…)כל־גבעה רמה‬over all the surface of the earth” (v. 6). The scattering mentioned in the verse is an allusion not only to the experience of exile, but also to people’s spiritual straying, as signalled by one of the places mentioned, namely “high hills.” This adverbial of place appears twice in the texts denouncing acts of idolatry performed in “high places” (cf. 6:13; 20:28). Such negative characterization of “high places” gives way in 34:26 to the blessing Yahweh wishes to give “them and the places around [his] hill” (‫)אותם וסביבות גבעתי ברכה‬. The context makes it clear that it is the land of Israel that benefits from God’s blessing; thereby, God’s centrally located “hill” is Jerusalem’s temple mountain. Yahweh points this way to his “hill” as a source of life and blessing for the whole land and its inhabitants. The vision of the new exodus in Ezek 20 ends with Yahweh’s welcome of those returning from exile “on his holy mountain, the high mountain of Israel.” It is Yahweh’s presence there that becomes a source of blessing for the land of Israel. Even though Ezek 34–37 does not mention the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple,30 it is assumed by the concluding sign-act of joining two wooden sticks (37:15–28). Yahweh is the ultimate guarantee 29.  The object of the verb ‫ יׁשע‬in hiphil are places of idolatrous cult in Ezek 37:23 and “impurity” in 36:29. Both verses thus refer to an enemy from whom the land is delivered by Yahweh (cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 357). 30.  The predictions of Yahweh’s presence as a source of blessing for the land of Israel, which are analysed here, will be further elaborated on in the vision of the water flowing from the Jerusalem temple in Ezek 47:1–12 (cf. §V.1.3).

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

131

of the existence of the united nation governed by a Davidic ruler in the united land; he promises in 37:26, 28 to be present “forevermore” (‫)לעולם‬ in his material “sanctuary.” The term ‫ מקדׁשי‬refers here to the Jerusalem temple,31 which will again be “in their midst” (‫)בתוכם‬. At the same time, in 37:27 Yahweh speaks of his “dwelling place” (‫)מׁשכני‬, which brings to mind the Priestly tradition of the tabernacle (‫ )מׁשכן‬as the tent of meeting (‫ )אהל מועד‬during Israel’s journey through the desert (cf. Exod 40:34–38). The presence of Yahweh’s Glory in it manifested itself in the cloud or fire shrouding the tabernacle. This idea is evoked in Ezek 37:27, which points out that Yahweh’s dwelling place will be situated “over them” (‫)עליהם‬. In this way, Yahweh not only foretells his presence in the land of Israel but also emphasizes the protective character of his presence for the land and its inhabitants. Thus, Isaiah’s vision of Yahweh’s Glory shielding Zion (cf. Isa 4:5–6) is extended to encompass the whole land of Israel.32 The restored land of Israel resumes its status as the space of Yahweh’s communion with his people. It is made possible by God, who restores the land’s subject position, lost on account of exile, and makes the land the basis of the new Israel’s material, political and religious existence. Due to Yahweh’s revitalizing activity the land returns to its original state intended by its creator: that of a source of life for its inhabitants. The key aspect of this revival is, however, not the land’s fertility and abundance, but the presence of Yahweh as God bound to his people through the relationship of the covenant, in which the land also participates. 2. The Role of the Land in the New Covenant The Promised Land is presented in the theological overview of Israel’s history as an element of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel (cf. Ezek 20:5–6). Speaking of the new exodus, whose aim is people’s repossession of the land given by Yahweh, God promises to bring the Israelites “into the bond of the covenant” (20:37). The analysis of Ezek 20 conducted in Chapter III raised the question of the relationship between these two different covenants.33 In what way can the future covenant be considered new? What is the relationship between the restored land of Israel and the people who are the subject of the new covenant with Yahweh? To what extent is it the restoration of the land of Israel that makes the covenant new? 31.  Cf. Ezek 5:11; 8:6; 9:6; 23:38, 39; 25:3; 44:7, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16. 32.  Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 757–58; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 421. 33.  Cf. §III.1.3.

132

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

These three questions mark the three stages of analysis in the present section: first, the novel character of the new covenant will be determined; subsequently, the anthropological aspect of this novelty will be taken into consideration; and, finally, the characterization of the land in the context of the covenant of peace will be attempted. 2.1. The Position of the Land in the Structure of the New Covenant Even though the book of Ezekiel never mentions “the new covenant” (‫)ברית חדׁשה‬, an expression familiar from Jer 31:31, it frequently foretells a future covenant either contrasted with the past one (cf. ‫ ברית‬in 16:60, 62) or further clarified with the use of an attribute pointing to its specific character (cf. ‫ ברית עולם‬in 16:60; 37:26; ‫ ברית ׁשלום‬in 34:25; 37:26). The future covenant is also foretold indirectly through the covenant formula of mutuality, which defines covenant as Yahweh’s communion with his people (cf. 11:20; 14:11; 34:30; 36:28; 37:23, 27). The presence of this formula seems particularly noteworthy in 36:28, for it constitutes there the apex of Yahweh’s actions for Israel’s sake. One of such actions involves the prediction of the gift of “a new heart and a new spirit” (36:26), evocative of a similar prophecy in 11:19 (“a single heart and a new spirit”). It is thus essential to consider the novel character of the future covenant in the context of the restoration of the land of Israel. 2.1.1. The Continuity of the Covenant and the New Land of Israel. The theological reflection on Israel’s history in Ezek 16 makes use of a conjugal metaphor to depict the history of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. Four stages of this history may be distinguished: the making of the covenant (vv. 1–14), its breaking (vv. 15–34), the punishment for breaking the covenant (vv. 35–58) and the promise of the new covenant (vv. 59–63).34 Even though some scholars treat the prophecy of the future covenant (vv. 59–63) as a later redactional addition,35 the fragment’s style

34.  This distinction does not do justice to the rhetorical structure of ch. 16, but merely refers schematically to the stages of the covenant’s history clarified by the promise of the new covenant made in Jer 31:31–34. The analysis of the composition of Ezek 16 focusing on structural elements of both form and content may be found, among others, in Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 292–97; Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 232–35; Hals, Ezekiel, 100–108. 35.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 352; Krüger, Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch, 329; Pohlmann, Der Prophet Hesekiel/Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–19, 235; B. Renaud, Nouvelle ou éternelle Alliance? Le message des prophètes, LD 189 (Paris: Cerf, 2002), 115.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

133

and diction do not rule out Ezekiel’s authorship of the text.36 Marking the beginnings of the chosen nation, the covenant is situated “in the days of [Jerusalem’s] youth” (16:60). It coincided with Jerusalem’s infancy and childhood, when she was “naked and bare, wallowing in [her] blood” (16:22; cf. 16:43) until Yahweh “pledged [himself] to [her] and entered into a covenant with” her (16:8). Since in Israel’s case “the days of youth” is a conventional prophetic expression denoting the exodus from Egypt (cf. Hos 2:17; Jer 2:2; 3:4), the covenant Ezekiel refers to must be understood as one made during the exodus – that is, the Sinaitic covenant.37 Presented in Ezek 16:6–14 as God’s own initiative, it is of a conditional and bilateral character. As Ezek 16:59 makes clear, Yahweh’s punishment will be a reaction to the conduct of the people who “have despised the oath by breaking the covenant.” The expression is used also in the excerpt relating Zedekiah’s breach of the covenant made with Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Ezek 17:18). Even though rejected by Jerusalem, the covenant is still “remembered” by Yahweh (Ezek 16:60). Jerusalem’s unfaithfulness led to the suspension of the blessing and brought about the punishment stipulated by the covenant. God’s punishment, however, is not permanent or irrevocable, for God remembers his covenant and remains faithful to it. It is God’s memory that makes the covenant irreversible. The future covenant will not replace the first one, but will function as its continuation, confirming its validity and constituting its fulfilment. The continuity of the covenant is emphasized semantically in Ezek 16:60, 62 by the verb ‫ קום‬in hiphil complemented by the noun ‫ברית‬. This expression, typical of the Priestly tradition (cf. Gen 17:19, 21; Lev 26:9; Deut 8:18), posits not so much the making of a new covenant (in such a context Ezekiel tends to use the verb ‫כרת‬, cf. Ezek 17:13), but rather the confirmation, continuation and completion of an earlier covenant.38

36.  Cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 304; Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 243–44; Hals, Ezekiel, 110–11. 37.  Due to rhetorical and theological reasons, it is presented in Ezek 20:5–6 as occurring during the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt (cf. §III.1.3). 38.  Cf. Reventlow, Wächter über Israel, 91; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 216; A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem, CahRB 20 (Paris: Gabalda, 1982), 33–34, 97; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 291; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 516–17; T. Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel, VTSup 76 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 166–67; Renaud, Nouvelle ou éternelle Alliance?, 130–131.

134

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

In the theological reflection on Yahweh’s covenant with Israel in Ezek 16 the motif of the land is of secondary importance, albeit it is not altogether absent. The question of the new land of Israel is raised, for example, in the prediction of Jerusalem’s welcome of her two sisters – Samaria and Sodom – that Yahweh “gives [her] as daughters ‫”ולא מבריתך‬ (16:61). Scholars are not unanimous when it comes to the meaning of the preposition ‫ מן‬in this sentence.39 Conventionally, the preposition is translated in a causal or instrumental way (“not because of my covenant with you” or “not by my covenant with you,” respectively). The first suggestion would, however, require the use of the preposition ‫ מפני‬in a nominal construction (here with the noun ‫( )ברית‬cf. Ezek 16:63).40 The second option, in turn, seems problematic on account of the context which makes it clear that Yahweh acts out of his generosity and not because of Jerusalem’s (earlier) covenant with Samaria and Sodom. In light of that, ‫ מן‬needs to be interpreted as ‫ מן‬privativum: “not deprived of my covenant with you,” indicating that Yahweh will renew his eternal covenant with Jerusalem, in which Samaria and Sodom will also participate.41 The metaphor of three sisters was used already in Ezek 16:44–58. The reference to Samaria as “the older sister” and to Sodom as “the younger sister” does not stem from any chronological reasons, but rather takes into consideration questions of territory: the size of the Northern Kingdom is several times the area of Judah, which is still bigger than Sodom’s territory at the south-east end of the Dead Sea.42 Ezekiel foretells in this way one covenant in which various peoples will form one body, inhabiting one united land of Israel.43 Such a politico-territorial vision of Israel will be resumed in the project of the new land of Israel in Ezek 40–48, which will be analysed in the final chapter of this book. 2.1.2. The New Covenant and the Land’s Repopulation. The future repossession of the Promised Land is mentioned several times in the salvation oracles for Israel, two of which – in Ezek 11:17–20 and 36:24–28 – link this event directly to the concept of the covenant. In both texts Israel’s 39.  Cf. Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel, 169–71 (the analysis of various translations of the syntagma in question may be found there). 40.  The preposition ‫ מן‬in its causal meaning is used not with a noun but with a verb in its infinitive form (cf. Waltke – O’Connor, §11.2.11). 41.  Cf. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 199; Brownlee, Ezekiel 1–19, 251–52; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, 518; Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel, 171; Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–24, 220. 42.  Cf. Chrostowski, Prorok wobec dziejów, 81–82. 43.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 353.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

135

restoration finds its apex in the prediction of the community of the covenant through the covenant formula of mutuality: “they will be my people, and I shall be their God” (cf. 11:20; 36:28). This community is based on Israel’s inner renewal, which is explicitly called “new” through the gift of “a new heart” (‫ לב חדׁש‬in 36:26a) and “a new spirit” (‫רוח חדׁשה‬ in 11:19a; 36:26a). Such a characterization of the future heart of Israel inhabiting the Promised Land is echoed by Jeremiah’s predictions of the new heart for Israel (cf. Jer 24:7; 31:31–34; 32:37–41), which is one of the key elements of “the new covenant” (‫ברית חדׁשה‬, Jer 31:31).44 In Jeremiah’s tradition the motif of “the new heart” appears for the first time in Jer 24:7. Unlike Jeremiah, Ezekiel links people’s inner-renewal with their future residence in the Promised Land. From a diachronic point of view, this issue undergoes significant evolution in Ezekiel’s prophecies, which is illustrated by the structure of two parallel oracles – the pre-exilic one in 11:17–20 and the post-exilic one in 36:24–28 – schematically rendered below. In the first text the constitutive elements of the new covenant, expressed in 11:20b through the covenant formula of mutuality, are presented in a linear fashion: A v. 17 the gathering of the dispersed exiles and their return to their homeland

B



v. 18 C

the Israelites’ cleansing the land of idolatrous cult

v. 19

the gift of a single heart and a new spirit

D v. 20a obedience to the law bestowed upon the Israelites

The second oracle, by contrast, has a concentric structure, ending with the covenant formula of mutuality in 36:28b: A

v. 24



B v. 25



the exodus and return to the land Yahweh’s cleansing the Israelites of impurity

C vv. 26–27a

B′ v. 27b

A′ v. 28a

the gift of a new heart and a new spirit

obedience to the law bestowed upon the Israelites

the Israelites’ possession of the land

44.  As far as the texts on the new covenant in Jeremiah and Ezekiel are concerned, most exegetes posit Jeremiah’s dependence on Ezekiel; cf. H. Leene, “Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Promises of Inner Renewal in Diachronic Perspective,” in Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophet, ed. J. C. de Moor and H. F. von Rooy, OtSt 44 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 150–75, esp. 167–70, 174.

136

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

There are two significant differences in the oracles’ treatment of the land of Israel. Firstly, the Israelites’ residence in the land is presented in the first oracle as starting at the precise moment of their return from dispersion (cf. 11:17), while the second oracle clearly separates the two events (cf. 36:24, 28a). As a result, the later oracle shows that the land’s possession is impossible without a prior act of creating a new people, symbolized by “a new heart and a new spirit.” The gift of a new heart and a new spirit will enable people to accept the obligations of the covenant, which are a prerequisite for permanent residence in the land. Secondly, in the prediction of the new covenant in 36:25 it is the Israelites themselves who are the object of cleansing after their return from exile. In the earlier prophecy purification affected the land of Israel, which was cleansed of objects and installations of idolatrous cult by the Israelites returning from exile (cf. 11:18). Thus, it is the land which is presented as unclean, and not the people who are given the land as a gift from God. The later oracle, by contrast, shows the uncleanliness of the land to be caused by the acts of idolatry and social injustice committed by the Israelites (cf. 36:17–18). People returning from exile appear as a threat to the restored land. They would not be able to reside permanently in the land without Yahweh’s intervention in the form of their inner renewal. The central position occupied within the oracle by the prediction of a new heart and a new spirit (36:26–27a) suggests that it is this gift that constitutes the essence of the new covenant, whose aim is Israel’s communion with Yahweh in the restored land. In this way, the prediction of the new covenant in Ezek 36:24–28 ultimately answers the question posed during the analysis of the theological vision of Israel’s history in ch. 20 (cf. §III.2.2). The realization of the promise of the land is hampered by the Israelites themselves, with their hearts devoted to idolatry (cf. 20:16). The defect of their hearts is the cause of their rejection of Yahweh and, consequently, of their loss of the land. The new exodus will find its culmination in Israel’s communion with Yahweh upon his holy mountain (cf. 20:40–41a). This community of covenant will be possible due to a completely new institution of the covenant – “a new heart and a new spirit.” The future covenant will thus be the realization of the first one but will be based on a radically new anthropological foundation: that of Yahweh’s and people’s mutual belonging, which will guarantee the realization of the promise of the land. 2.1.3. The Novelty of the Covenant of Peace. The new covenant foretold in Ezek 16:60 is termed “eternal” (‫)ברית עולם‬. The same characterization of the covenant appears also in 37:26 but is accompanied there

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

137

by a synonymous expression “the covenant of peace” (‫)ברית ׁשלום‬, used already in 34:25. In both texts the making of the covenant of peace is expressed with the use of the verb ‫כרת‬, which emphasizes – as has already been argued with reference to Ezek 16:60, 62 – the making of a new covenant, and not merely the renewal or continuation of an existing one.45 Hence, the prophecies framing the salvation oracles for Israel in Ezek 34–37 ultimately confirm the novel character of the future covenant, which does not merely renew or modify Yahweh’s original relationship with Israel but makes it completely anew. The new land contributes to the aspect of novelty in being the space of Israel’s communion with Yahweh. Ezekiel’s prophecies of the covenant of peace belong within larger oracles: the first one (34:25–31) ends the prophecy against the shepherds of Israel in ch. 34, while the second one (37:26–28) concludes the explanation of the act of joining two wooden sticks as a prediction of the reunification of Israel and Judah under one ruler (37:15–28). As far as the content of the two promises of the covenant of peace is concerned, both link residence to the ideas of permanence and stability. On the one hand, the covenant of peace entails Israel’s “dwell[ing] safely” in the Promised Land (cf. 34:25, 28), while on the other, it emphasizes Yahweh’s “dwell[ing]” (cf. 37:27) forevermore in the material sanctuary in the land of Israel (cf. 37:26b, 28b). The analysis of the predictions of the future covenant in the context of the restoration of the land of Israel stresses both continuity and its lack between the first covenant (commencing the first exodus) and the second one (terminating the new exodus). The continuity is stressed by numerous elements of both form and content contributing to the parallel nature of the two covenants. For instance, both covenants are made on the basis of God’s initiative – the aim of both is expressed through the covenant formula of mutuality and there are semantic similarities in the depictions of both covenants. The continuity is, however, complicated by some traces of discontinuity which indicate that the new covenant will surpass the original one. One of these traces is the Promised Land presented as a space of the ultimate realization of the covenant. Remaining one of the key institutions of the covenant, the land will become the space of residence for the people of the covenant only due to Yahweh’s own initiative. God will create a new people by giving them “a new heart and a new spirit,” which will enable them to forge a permanent relation with God in the restored land. At the same time, the novel character of the covenant will stem from the revitalization of the Promised Land: restored 45.  Cf. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 217; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 303; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 516.

138

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

to its life-sustaining relationship with Yahweh, the land will constitute the basis for the covenant of peace, whose source is God’s presence among his people. 2.2. The New People in the Renewed Land Speaking of the new covenant, Ezekiel foretells an inner transformation of the chosen nation that can be termed “an anthropological turning point.”46 The new people who will inhabit the Promised Land will result not only from the negative selection during the new exodus (cf. Ezek 20:37–38). In light of Israel’s incapacity to make “a new heart and a new spirit” for themselves (cf. Ezek 18:31), without which it is impossible to live in the communion of covenant with Yahweh, God himself shows initiative and foretells an inner renewal of his partner in the covenant. The gift of a new heart and a new spirit necessitates the perception of this transformation as an act of new creation, which – in light of the concentric structure of Ezek 36:24–28 signalled above – includes two further parallel elements: the cleansing of sin (v. 25) and the bestowal of the ability to keep the law (v. 27b). God’s first act of creation involves the cleansing of Israel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you of all your uncleanness and of all your idols” (36:25). Even though the verse “exudes cultic atmosphere,”47 Ezekiel transcends here the boundaries of the ritual concept of cleansing. Out of 34 occurrences of the verb ‫זרק‬ (“to sprinkle”) in the Hebrew Bible, only here is the subject of the verb God and not a human (Moses, Aaron, king or priest).48 Yahweh is here a guarantee of the genuine – and not only declarative – effectiveness of the purifying sprinkling.49 The substance used to cleanse Israel during aspersion is ‫“( מים טהורים‬clean water”). This comes as a surprise since normally the verb ‫ זרק‬is linked to blood as materia magica. The 46.  F. Sedlmeier, “Transformationen: Zur Anthropologie Ezechiels,” in Anthropologische Aufbrüche: Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinäre Zugänge zur historischen Anthropologie, ed. A. Wagner, FRLANT 232 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 203–33 (231). 47.  F.-L. Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches, FB 20 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1977), 316. 48.  Cf. the list of all these human subjects with links to appropriate biblical texts in G. André, “‫ זָ ַרק‬zāraq,” ThWAT 2:687. 49.  When the activity of sprinkling is performed by a human subject, its effect is expressed with a typical declarative formula: “you are clean” (cf. Lev 13:11, 13, 15, 17 etc.). By contrast, Ezek 36:25 makes use of the construction wəqatal to emphasize that the foretold cleansing has already taken place.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

139

expression ‫ מי נדה‬is used only in Num 19:13, 20, but even there it is not clean spring water but water mixed with other ingredients, primarily the ashes of a burnt heifer (cf. Num 19:5–6, 9). Ezekiel’s “reduction” of the cleansing material to water may be understood not only in the purifying sense, but also in the revitalizing one if water’s reinvigorating function is taken into consideration.50 God’s actions do not simply entail the revision of ritual actions, but go deeper into an essential change in the ritual participants, as is made clear by the use in Ezek 36:25 of the verb ‫“( טהר‬to cleanse”) to refer to the effects of sprinkling. The verb in piel appears 39 times in the Hebrew Bible and on only seven occasions is its subject God.51 Ezekiel himself uses the verb in such a way three more times: in 24:13; 36:33; 37:23. The meaning of God’s actions is clarified by texts outside the book of Ezekiel.52 In Ps 51:4 the verb ‫ טהר‬is used in a collocation with the synonymous verb ‫ כבס‬in piel, while in Jer 33:8 the verb’s synonym is ‫סלח‬: the cleansing of guilt is thus identified with forgiving guilt. The new covenant foretold in Jer 31:31–34 entails, among others, forgiving Israel’s guilt, thanks to which their sins will no longer be remembered by God. God’s oblivion brings the nullification of sins, which are “blot[ted] out” (cf. the verb ‫מחה‬ as a synonym of ‫ לא זכר‬in Isa 43:25). What God forgives in Ezek 36:25 is Israel’s “all uncleanliness” (‫ )כל טמאותיכם‬and “all the idols” (‫)כל־גלוליכם‬. These are not only cultic transgressions since the term ‫ טמאות‬is used in the book of Ezekiel with reference to various cultic and social misdeeds (cf. 22:15; 24:13; 39:24). As the adverbial of time opening the text of Ezek 36:33 – ‫“( ביום טהרי אתכם‬on the day that I will cleanse you”) – suggests, Israel’s purification is to be a single, one-time event. Some exegetes see in this fragment an allusion to the Day of Atonement in Lev 16,53 yet unlike the purification on the Day of Atonement, which had to

50.  Cf. Granados García, La nueva alianza como recreación, 159–60. In this context the author mentions the text of Ezek 16:4, in which a failure to wash the new-born – the personification of Jerusalem – is presented as leading to its death, but the subsequent cleansing of the new-born by Yahweh, mentioned in Ezek 16:9, brings it back to life. 51.  Cf. F. Maass, “‫ טהר‬ṭhr rein sein,” THAT 1:647. 52.  Apart from Jer 33:8 and Ps 51:4, which are to be analysed later, the text of Mal 3:3 also needs to be mentioned. However, the interpretation of the verb ‫ טהר‬in the latter raises some difficulties on account of the fact that no direct object is used there. 53.  Cf. Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechiel­ buches, 316; Ohnesorge, Yahweh gestaltet sein Volk neu, 233; Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 730; Granados García, La nueva alianza como recreación, 160–61. Apart from

140

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

be celebrated annually (cf. Lev 16:34), God’s forgiveness, which forms the basis of the new covenant, seems a definitive, unconditional act that requires no repetition. The forgiveness which restores Israel to the communion of the covenant with Yahweh does not in itself guarantee the permanence of this relationship since the previous history of the covenant has been marked by people’s unfaithfulness. The covenant will be “new” due to the gift of “a new heart and a new spirit” foretold in Ezek 36:26–27a. The promise has a concentric structure: I will give you

a new heart

and a new spirit

will put within you.



I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh

and give you

a heart of flesh

I my spirit

will put within you.

Some scholars argue for the synonymous parallelism of “a new heart” and “a new spirit.”54 However, the concentric structure of the fragment shown above rules out such a possibility. First, the central position within the structure of the verse is occupied by the promise of the removal of “the heart of stone” (‫)לב האבן‬. In this way, the radical nature of God’s intervention is emphasized: rather than simply renewing it, God will replace the heart of stone with a completely new one. The fragment, however, does not mention the “transplantation” of the spirit. Secondly, the position of the new heart and the new spirit is signalled by different prepositions: ‫ ל‬in the first case and ‫ בקרב‬in the second. Finally, the two gifts have different origins: the heart has a human character (‫ )לב בׂשר‬while the spirit is connected with God (‫)רוחי‬. In the Bible the heart constitutes the cognitive, emotional and volitional centre of a human being.55 The evocative metaphor of “the heart of stone” brings to mind the image of a dead heart (cf. Nabal’s heart as a stone in the adverbial of time in Ezek 36:33 mentioned above, the analogous usage of the verb ‫ טהר‬in Lev 16:30 and Ezek 36:25 as well as the appearance of ‫ טמאה‬in the plural form only in Lev 16:16, 19 and Ezek 36:25, 29 are also discussed. 54.  Cf. R. Koch, “Il dono messianico del cuore nuovo (Ez 36:25–27),” StMor 26 (1988): 9; Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response, 111; idem, Ezekiel, 204; Lapsley, Can These Bones Live?, 103–4. 55.  Cf. H. W. Wolff, Antropologia dell’Antico Testamento, trans. E. Buli, BiBi[B] 12, 3rd ed. (Brescia: Editrice Queriniana, 1993), 79.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

141

1 Sam 25:37) or an animal’s heart (cf. Leviathan’s heart hard as a stone in Job 41:16). In the book of Ezekiel, “the heart of stone” appears to be a reference to the motif of “a hardened heart,” which God presents as a source of Israel’s rebellious character when he calls Ezekiel to prophesy (cf. ‫ חזקי־לב‬in 2:4; ‫ קׁשי־לב‬in 3:7). Such a heart not only refuses to listen to and heed God’s word, but is also a “whoring heart,” which forgets Yahweh (cf. ‫ לב הזונה‬in 6:9) and turns to idols (cf. 14:3, 4, 7; 20:16). Israel’s inner transformation is possible due to a gift of “a heart of flesh” (Ezek 36:26b). The new heart seems to fit human nature (“of flesh”), as intended in the original act of creation. As such, it signifies intellectual, volitional and emotional functions typical of a human being. The new heart will be “a single heart” (‫ לב אחד‬in 11:19), free of any hypocrisy or bifurcation in its relation to Yahweh (cf. 11:21). Thanks to “a heart of flesh,” a human being would regain a genuine capability of feeling, knowing and choosing that which is good and which benefits life. The new heart created by God will be able not only to obey the life-giving law (cf. 36:27b), but primarily to remember God as the source and giver of life (cf. 6:9). The new existence of God’s people will be guaranteed by “a new spirit” (‫רוח חדׁשה‬, 36:26). The meaning of the term ‫ רוח‬varies depending on context.56 What is significant, however, is that the identification of God’s gift as ‫“( רוחי‬my spirit”) in 36:27a makes it possible to interpret it in connection to the vision of the dry bones in 37:1–14. The spirit bringing the bones back to life (37:10) is not mere wind but God’s own spirit originating from him (‫ רוחי‬in 37:14). Granting Israel “spirit,” God brings it back to life (cf. the verb ‫ חיה‬in 37:5, 6, 9, 10). Therefore, Israel’s new life, potential and dynamism are a consequence of God’s generous offer to accompany Israel through his spirit among its midst.57 The final element of God’s creative activity with respect to the future Israel is the gift of following the law: “I will cause you to walk in my statutes, and you shall keep my laws and do them” (Ezek 36:27b). Unlike in the earlier prediction of the new covenant in Ezek 11:17–20, abiding by the law is not presented here as a result of the gift of a new heart and

56.  The sense of the word is very broad: from the meteorological meaning of wind through anthropological connotations (breath; the location of feelings and thoughts; inner impulse) to theological ones (the spirit of God). In the book of Ezekiel a person’s “heart” and “spirit” are treated as synonyms only once: according to 13:3, the prophets “follow their own spirit,” which corresponds to “prophesy[ing] from their own hearts” in 13:2. Such synonymy is, however, absent in Ezek 36:26–27a. 57.  Cf. J. Robson, Word and Spirit in Ezekiel, LHBOTS 447 (London: T&T Clark International, 2006), 249.

142

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

a new spirit (the relationship of cause and effect is signalled in Ezek 11 by the use of the conjunction ‫ למען‬at the beginning of v. 20), but rather it constitutes a separate act of creation due to which Israel will be made to obey the law. Yahweh’s prior relationship with Israel, forged during the first exodus, was contingent upon people’s obedience towards the Torah. The law constituted the basis of mutual belonging in the Sinaitic covenant (cf. Ezek 20:7), as was the keeping of commandments and rules that guaranteed people’s continuous participation in a life-giving relationship with Yahweh (cf. Ezek 18:9, 17; 20:11, 13, 21; 33:15). The Torah’s ability to bring back to life stemmed from God’s identification with the Torah as his gift.58 For this reason, the new covenant does not require a new law, but only obedience to the existing law shown by those to whom it was addressed in the first place. The triad of verbs conventionally used in such a context, ‫( עׂשה–ׁשמר–הלך‬cf. Ezek 18:9; 20:19, 21; 37:24), however, expresses more than a mere prediction of Israel’s future compliance with the law. This is signalled by the two occurrences of the verb ‫ עׂשה‬in Ezek 36:27b: first, it emphasizes that it is Yahweh who will make Israel obey the law, while in the second instance Israel’s obedience is described as “doing” the law. What God “does,” then, is re-creating Israel, who by doing the law get to resemble their Creator.59 The structure of the prediction of the new covenant in Ezek 36:24–28 indicates that an act of Israel’s re-creation is essential not only to enable Israel’s return to the Promised Land but, primarily, to make their residence in the Promised Land a permanent one. Israel’s stay in the restored land will be guaranteed by the new covenant, understood as the communion of the re-created Israel with their Creator. Even though described via the use of the conventional covenant formula of mutuality (cf. Ezek 36:28), the new community of the covenant is based on the new foundation: of God’s forgiveness leading Israel into God’s sanctity, of Yahweh’s gift of his spirit to revive Israel and, finally, of God’s gift of the ability to abide by the law and, consequently, to participate in God’s creative activity. In this way, the restored land of Israel will be the land of the new covenant. 2.3. The Land of the Covenant of Peace The novelty of the covenant foretold in the book of Ezekiel finds its ultimate expression in the promises of the covenant of peace (‫)ברית ׁשלום‬ in 34:25 and 37:26, which function as a frame for the oracles of salvation 58.  When read together, Ezek 5:6 and 20:21 lead to the conclusion that rebellion against the law essentially amounted to the rejection of Yahweh. 59.  Cf. Granados García, La nueva alianza como recreación, 179.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

143

for Israel included in chs. 34–37 (cf. §IV.2.1.3). The characterization of the covenant with the use of the noun ‫ ׁשלום‬requires an analysis of the foundation or essence of the covenant of peace. The term ‫ ׁשלום‬is polysemantic and its various renditions are based on its primary meaning of “wholeness, intactness”: prosperity, success, fortune, safety, peace (as lack of war), friendship, survival, or deliverance.60 The polysemantic noun ‫ ׁשלום‬thus encompasses all the nuances of the word “good” with reference to various subjects: (1) personal good, for example, health, longevity, deliverance from danger, auspiciousness and prosperity; (2) communal good, understood as harmony and order in political and social life, within and without the community; (3) the good of the land manifested in its fertility and natural resources.61 Such diverse meanings of the word ‫ׁשלום‬ make it one of the most basic terms used by the prophets in their depictions of the future messianic (cf. Isa 9:5–6; 53:5; Mic 5:4; Zech 9:10) and eschatological salvation (cf. Isa 45:7; 52:7; 57:19; 60:17; 66:12; Jer 29:7, 11; 33:6, 9). It is in such a context that the predictions of the covenant of peace in the book of Ezekiel need to be situated. 2.3.1. Ezekiel’s Predictions of the Covenant of Peace vis-à-vis Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions. The concept of the covenant of peace is not exclusively an Ezekielian – or, in general, a biblical – idea. Bernard F. Batto discusses the motif of the covenant of peace in the ancient Near Eastern texts concerning pre-historical times.62 The covenant of peace is understood as an outcome of a deity’s pledge to put aside his or her anger caused by people’s rebellion. The harmony between the deity and humanity manifests itself in the restoration of the paradisiacal conditions on the earth, whose permanence the deity confirms with some tangible sign. Batto notices a similar pattern in the Priestly account of the covenant Yahweh makes with Noah after the flood (Gen 9:8–17), although the expression “the covenant of peace” is not used there. Such 60.  The above list of the meanings of the term ‫ ׁשלום‬follows HALAT 2:1418– 24. Cf. the synthesis of the debate concerning the primary meaning of ‫ ׁשלום‬in K.-J. Illman, “‫ ָׁש ֵלם‬šālēm,” ThWAT 8:93–94. 61.  Cf. Renaud, Nouvelle ou éternelle Alliance?, 170. 62.  Cf. B. F. Batto, “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif,” JBL 49 (1987): 187–211. Batto notes the presence of the motif of the covenant of peace in the Old Babylonian myth of Atrahasis, the Egyptian myth “Destruction of Humankind” included in the book of the Cow of Heaven and in the Ugaritic Baal cycle (cf. pp. 192–201). In the Akkadian texts discovered at Ugarit the expression ri-kàl-ta ša-la-ma is used to refer to the covenant of peace (cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 301).

144

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

an understanding of this event, however, is suggested in Isa 54:10. In the perspective of the exile’s end, Deutero-Isaiah predicts “the covenant of peace” (‫ – )ברית ׁשלום‬which amounts to God’s love (‫ – )חסד‬whose sign is the immobility of hills and mountains. The covenant is a result of God’s oath, analogous to the one sworn to Noah (Isa 54:9), whereby God’s anger is overcome by his new act of generosity (cf. Isa 54:7–8). In this way, God’s covenant with Noah is “a model and prototype” of the covenant of peace, which in the context of the Babylonian exile signifies God’s new creative intervention.63 Ezekiel’s predictions of the covenant of peace transcend the literary convention sketched above, especially due to the connections between these prophecies with the final fragment of the Holiness Code (Lev 17– 26). Following the logic of the covenant, the Holiness Code ends with covenant blessings and curses; the former (Lev 26:3–13) have many things in common with the predictions of the covenant of peace in Ezek 34:25–30 and 37:26–28.64 The end of danger posed by wild animals is expressed in Ezek 34:25 in an identical way as in Lev 26:6 (‫הׁשבתי חיה‬ ‫)רעה מן־הארץ‬. Safe residence (‫ )לבטח‬in the land is mentioned both in Lev 26:5 and Ezek 34:25 (“wilderness” and “woods” are places of residence here), 27, 28. Both Lev 26:6 and Ezek 34:28 promise that there will be no one to frighten the people (‫)אין מחריד‬. What Lev 26:13 and Ezek 34:27 share is the deployment of the expression “to break the bars of their yoke” 63.  A. Borghino, La “nuova alleanza” in Is 54: Analisi esegetico-teologica, TGST 118 (Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2005), 269. One more occurrence of the expression “the covenant in peace” in Num 25:12 needs to be mentioned, even though it has nothing to do with pre-historical events. Rather, it refers to the privilege granted Phinehas and his offspring after his killing of the Israelite apostates in Baal-Peor, which quelled Yahweh’s anger (cf. Num 25:11). This covenant made out of Yahweh’s initiative is called “a covenant of perpetual priesthood” (‫)כהנת עולם ברית‬. 64.  Their synopsis may be found in D. Baltzer, Ezechiel und Deuterojesaja: Berührungen in der Heilserwartung der beiden großen Exilspropheten, BZAW 121 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1971), 156–57; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 304; Renaud, Nouvelle ou éternelle Alliance?, 152–53; M. A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, LHBOTS 507 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2009), 178–80, while a more descriptive analysis may be found in Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches, 274–76; J. Milgrom, “Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon, BInterpS 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 57–62 (58–59, 60); Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 444–46.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

145

(‫ )ׁשבר מטת על‬and words formed from the root ‫עבד‬.65 A somewhat unclear expression of the gift of rain in Ezek 34:26 is an allusion to Lev 26:4 (‫)גׁשמיכם בעתם‬. The trees of the field yielding fruit and the earth yielding its produce are mentioned both in Lev 26:4 and Ezek 34:27. Ezekiel 37:26–27 contains references to Lev 26:9 (the prediction of people’s multiplication: ‫ רבה‬in hiphil); 26:11a (Yahweh’s “dwelling” [‫]מׁשכני‬ among his people) and 26:12 (the formula of mutuality). Pointing to the parallels between Ezekiel’s predictions of the covenant of peace and Lev 26, one cannot forget about some substantial differences that exist between the two texts. For example, Ezekiel’s prophecies omit the threshing, grape gathering and sowing mentioned in Lev 26:5, the sword mentioned in Lev 26:6 as well as the prediction of the Israelites’ victory over their enemies mentioned in Lev 26:7–8. What is more, Ezekiel’s prophecy evinces a distinct understanding of the concept of the covenant: if in the Priestly tradition the covenant has a bilateral character, whereby God’s blessing is contingent on Israel’s prior repentance and obedience (cf. Lev 26:3), Ezekiel sees it as Yahweh’s one-sided, generous and unconditional initiative for the sake of his people. For this reason, Ezekiel does not mention the curses stipulated in Lev 26:14–15 that are to befall Israel in case of their disobedience. On top of that, Ezekiel innovatively links the concept of ‫ ׁשלום‬with that of ‫ברית‬, which exist as two separate entities in Lev 26: “peace” (26:6) is there one of the gifts guaranteed by the “covenant” (26:9). Ezekiel’s concept of “the covenant of peace” (34:25; 37:26), on the other hand, identifies ‫ ברית‬with ‫ׁשלום‬, pointing to “peace” as the gist and essence of the future “covenant.”66 Finally, in both of his texts Ezekiel employs the verb ‫ – כרת‬and not the verb ‫ קום‬in hiphil used in Lev 26:9 – to express the making of the covenant, which, as has already been argued above, shows that it is a completely new event and not merely a renewal of an earlier covenant. It seems impossible to determine the direction of the literary dependency of the texts on the covenant of peace in the Holiness Code and the book of Ezekiel. The key issue here is the dating of the Holiness Code, yet there is no unanimity among the scholars in this respect.67 Some scholars who posit the pre-exilic creation of the Holiness Code are positive 65.  The root appears in Lev 26:13 in the nominal form: ‫“( מהית להם עבדים‬so that you should be their slaves no longer”) and in the verbal form in Ezek 34:27: ‫מיד‬ ‫“( העבדים בהם‬I will deliver them from the hand of those who enslaved them”). 66.  Cf. Renaud, Nouvelle ou éternelle Alliance?, 162; Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch, 187–88. 67.  Cf. the discussion concerning the dating of Lev 17–26 in Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 29–35.

146

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

that Ezekiel or his disciples foretelling the covenant of peace (Ezek 34:25–30; 37:26–28) “had before their eyes”68 the text of Lev 26 as “their Vorlage.”69 Others maintain instead that the fragments of the book of Leviticus and the book of Ezekiel discussed here were based on the same source.70 Some exegetes, however, consider both Lev 26 and the Holiness Code to be post-exilic texts revising Ezekiel’s concept of the covenant.71 Notwithstanding the debate concerning the relation between Lev 26 and Ezekiel when it comes to the covenant of peace, it needs to be emphasized that the redactional character of Ezek 34:25–30 and 37:26–28 does not preclude Ezekiel’s authorship of these texts, especially since the present version of the oracle addressed to the shepherds of Israel seems to reflect the dynamics of an oral account.72 Undoubtedly, both prophecies constitute yet another example of resumptive exposition in the book of Ezekiel, since Ezek 37:26–28 complements an earlier oracle in Ezek 34:25–30, shifting the emphasis from the question of the land’s restoration and people’s safe residence there onto the issue of Yahweh’s future presence among his people. 2.3.2. Yahweh’s Presence as the Essence of the Covenant of Peace. Most exegetes opt for a complementary reading of Ezek 34:25–30 and 37:26–28 with the focus on the characteristic elements of the covenant of peace. As far as Ezek 34:25–30 is concerned, these elements are typically distinguished on the basis of the parallel structure of the text:73 68.  Such an opinion is presented in Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches, 276; Milgrom, “Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel,” 61. 69.  Such a status is attributed to Lev 26 by Baltzer, Ezechiel und Deuterojesaja, 158; Renaud, Nouvelle ou éternelle Alliance?, 154. A similar interpretation may be found in Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 192; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 303; Klein, Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch, 182–83; Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 123–27. 70.  Those scholars point either to the texts designed for the autumn Feast of Tabernacles (cf. K. Elliger, Leviticus, HAT 4 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966], 366) or to a conventional list of blessings and curses included in covenant documents (cf. Hals, Ezekiel, 252; Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 446). 71.  Cf. C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT II/25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 535–45; T. Hieke, Levitikus: Erster Teilband: 1–15, HTKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2014), 68–70, 1065–67. 72.  Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 274. 73.  Cf. the analysis of the structure of Ezek 34:25–30 in W. Pikor, “Dynamika ‘przymierza pokoju’ w Księdze Ezechiela,” VV 30 (2016): 63–65.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

147

Subheading: the introduction of the topic of the covenant of peace (v. 25a)

A peace with animals (v. 25b–d)



B fertility of the land (vv. 26–27c)



C

deliverance from oppression (vv. 27d–28a)

A′ peace with animals (v. 28b–d)



B′ fertility of the land (v. 29a–b)



C′

deliverance from oppression (v. 29c)

Conclusion: the covenant formula (v. 30)

First of all, the covenant of peace will bring to an end the threat posed by wild animals (cf. Ezek 34:25b–d, 28b–d), which in Ezekiel’s predictions of punishment are presented as tools of God’s judgment (cf. Ezek 5:17; 14:15, 21; 33:27). In the context of God’s covenant with Noah, wild animals may also be perceived as a symbol of chaos endangering human life (cf. Gen 9:2).74 Unlike in Hos 2:20, where animals are partners in the covenant, subjugated to God’s rule, in Ezek 34:25 the prophet does not foretell peace for the animals, but rather for people: no longer harassed by animals, they will be able to live safely in their land. Another aspect of the covenant of peace is the restoration of the Promised Land. Up until now “wilderness” and “woods” (34:25c–d), the land will be transformed by “the rain of blessings” into a land of fertility and abundance (34:26–27c). As a consequence, hunger – a tool of Yahweh’s punitive action (34:29a–b)75 – will disappear. The third aspect of the covenant of peace is Israel’s

74.  Cf. F. Sedlmeier, “ ‘Ich schließe für sie einen Bund des Friedens’ (Ez 34:24; 37:26): Visionen des Heils im Ezechielbuch,” in Inquire pacem: Beiträge zu einer Theologie des Friedens. Festschrift für Bischof Dr. Viktor Josef Dammertz OSB zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. F. Sedlmeier and T. Hausmanninger (Augsburg: Sankt Urlich, 2004), 42–69 (51). Some scholars (cf. I. M. C. Obinwa, “I Shall Feed Them with Good Pasture” [Ezek 34:1]: The Shepherd Motif in Ezekiel 34. Its Theological Import and Socio-Political Implications, FB 125 [Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2012], 390) maintain that “wild animals” should be understood as an allegory of foreign nations in Ezekiel’s predictions of the covenant of peace. They justify such a viewpoint with two earlier accusations of shepherds that because of their indifference their sheep “became food for all the wild animals” (34:5, 8). It has to be emphasized, however, that at least in 34:28 the prophet distinguishes between the dangers posed by wild animals and foreign nations, which corresponds to a similar distinction in Lev 26:6 and Hos 2:20. 75.  Hunger is presented as a tool of God’s punishment in Ezek 5:12, 16–17; 6:11–12; 7:15; 12:16; 14:13, 21.

148

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

liberation from the yoke of foreign nations (cf. 34:27d–28a), analogous to Israel’s release from the Egyptian captivity.76 Read in this context, the oracle of Ezek 37:26–28 constitutes a recapitulation of the prophecy of Ezek 34:25–30, whose content is evoked through the phrase “the covenant of peace” (37:26a). The characterization of this event is enriched through the addition of two elements. The first of these is the description of the covenant as “eternal covenant” (37:26b), with the term ‫ עולם‬functioning as a frame for this oracle (cf. 37:28b).77 The emphasis on the eternal continuity of the covenant stresses not so much the infinite duration of this contract – each covenant is after all made to last an indefinite period of time – but rather its definitive and irrevocable character. This is guaranteed by the second element enriching the understanding of the covenant of peace in Ezek 37:26–28: God’s presence among his people, which is reiterated in each of the three verses comprising the oracle. In light of the complexity of the covenant of peace presented in Ezek 34:25–30 and 37:26–28, the question of the covenant’s foundation or essence remains to be answered. The essence of the covenant is to be found in the elements the two prophecies share. One of them is, undoubtedly, the covenant formula of mutuality, which appears in 34:30 and 37:27. Therefore, the parallel structure of Ezek 34:25–30, repeatedly stressed by scholars and schematically presented above, requires a significant correction. The formula of mutuality is introduced in v. 30 by the divine recognition formula (“they shall know that I am Yahweh”), which appears earlier in v. 27d. If this concluding rhetorical element is taken into consideration, the oracle can be divided into the following pieces: vv. 25–27, 28–30.78 As a consequence, the covenant of peace is also characterized 76.  The allusions to the Egyptian captivity may be noticed in the expression “to break the yoke bars” (‫)את־מטות ׁשבר‬, which brings to mind the breaking of the yoke bars of Egypt in Ezek 30:18, and in the expression “to enslave them” (‫)עבד ב‬, which appears also in Exod 1:14 (cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 306). 77.  In the parallel structure of the three verses comprising Ezek 37:26–28, stemming from the repetition of the motif of God’s presence among Israel (“sanctuary,” “dwelling place”), the order of the elements of the covenant formula of mutuality is reversed in v. 27. The usual order – Israel as God’s people, Yahweh as their God – is reversed in v. 27 so that the verse ends with the expression ‫לי לעם‬, forming assonance with ‫ עולם‬at the end of vv. 26, 28. 78.  What is problematic in this context is the division of v. 28 into two parts (vv. 25b–28a, 28b–29). The divine recognition formula at the end of the first piece (v. 27d) introduces a temporal sentence with the protasis of ‫ ב‬+ inf. cstr. (“when I break the bars of their yoke,” v. 27e) and the apodosis containing the form wəqatal

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

149

by Yahweh’s personal relationship with his people, which should be interpreted in light of the parallel sentences introduced by the divine recognition formula in vv. 27, 30. Yahweh makes himself recognizable first through the deliverance of his people from the yoke of enslavement and oppression (v. 27e–f). Because of that, the Israelites are no longer subjugated by the nations and, being a free nation, they may participate in the relationship of the covenant with Yahweh as his people. This is expressed by means of the covenant formula of mutuality in v. 30, which, nevertheless, does not follow the conventional wording of the formula: “I shall be their God and they will be my people.” On the one hand, the two partners are identified as “Yahweh” and “the house of Israel,” which emphasizes Israel’s new status: no longer a “rebellious house,”79 they are a chosen nation, as the first covenant meant them to be (cf. Ezek 20:5). On the other hand, the first part of the covenant formula is extended to include the assistance formula: “I (‫)אני‬, Yahweh, their God, am with them (‫)אתם‬.” The covenant formula of mutuality is thus significantly modified, stressing now God’s involvement in his relationship with his people. God’s presence becomes for Israel a source of protection and support, of good fortune and salvation. In this way, the ‫ ׁשלום‬of the new covenant finds its concrete manifestation in Yahweh’s presence among his people. The covenant formula of mutuality lies at the heart of the oracle in Ezek 37:26–28. In each of the three verses of the prophecy Yahweh foretells his presence in Israel in the material form of the temple (‫ מקדׁשי‬in vv. 26, 28; ‫ מׁשכני‬in v. 27). This rhetorical strategy makes the covenant of peace (v. 26) appear as a communion of covenant (v. 27), through which Yahweh sanctifies Israel (v. 28). If earlier Yahweh intended to sanctify his people (‫ )מקדׁשם‬through the institution of the sabbath (20:12), he himself now becomes the source of Israel’s sanctity (‫ )מקדׁש את־יׂשראל‬on account of his presence among them (37:28). Yahweh will not only sanctify himself through his people (‫ קדׁש‬in niphal + ‫)ב‬, gathered from dispersion and led again into the Promised Land (cf. 20:41; 28:25; 38:23; 39:27), but will include his people in his own sanctity and transform them into a living proof of God’s holiness for the whole world to acknowledge. The (“deliver them from the hand of those who enslaved them,” v. 27f) (cf. the analysis of such temporal sentences in Niccacci, §108). The first two elements of v. 28, in turn, syntactically form a chiastic structure – ‫ לא‬+ yiqtol + “the nations” (v. 28a), “animals” + ‫ לא‬+ yiqtol (v. 28b) – which suggests that the second piece comprises vv. 28–30 (cf. Renaud, Nouvelle ou éternelle Alliance?, 140). Such a delimitation of the fragment is confirmed rhetorically by the repetition of ‫ גוים‬in vv. 28a, 29c and ‫ לא‬+ yiqtol + ‫ עוד‬in vv. 28a, 29b–c. 79.  Cf. the occurrences of ‫ בית המרי‬in Ezek 2:8; 12:2, 9, 25; 17:12; 24:3.

150

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

prediction of the covenant of peace in 37:26–28 lacks any reference to the material localization of God’s sanctuary. Rather, it is situated in God’s personal relationship with his people, which will be realized in the restored land. In this way, the Promised Land will become the place of “dwelling” not only of Israel (cf. ‫ יׁשבו‬in 34:25) but also of Yahweh himself (cf. ‫ מׁשכני‬in 37:27).80 Yahweh’s permanent and definitive presence among his people will be the source, essence and guarantee of the eternal covenant of peace. To conclude the analysis of the role of the land in the new covenant predicted in the book of Ezekiel, the prophet emphasizes the continuity between the first (Sinaitic) covenant and the new one that will lead to the land’s revitalization. In the context of the whole history of salvation, it is the renewed land of Israel that will constitute the space of the ultimate realization of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. The novelty of the covenant, translating into the definitive character of the land’s restoration, stems from a radically new anthropological basis – namely, Yahweh’s act of re-creating Israel (Ezek 34:24–28). This new community of covenant is an outcome of God’s forgiveness, through which he leads his people into the sphere of his sanctity. This community is based on the gift of a new heart and a new spirit, which not only enables people to persevere in the life-giving relationship with Yahweh but also to keep the law, which leads to their participation in God’s creative action. The novelty of the covenant essentially comes down to the new relationship between Yahweh and his people. It is in this context that the new quality of the covenant, termed “the covenant of peace” (Ezek 34:25; 37:26), is predicted. The essence of the new covenant is not peace understood as personal, communal or material good, but rather peace as God’s presence among his people, the only source of security, prosperity and salvation. The restored land of Israel will play a key role in the new covenant as the space of people’s communion with Yahweh. It is in the new land that the new Israel will act as a tangible sign of God’s sanctity manifested in front of the whole world. 3. The Eschatological Perspectives of the Restoration of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 38–39 Even though the Gog oracle in Ezek 38–39 belongs to the oracles of salvation for Israel included in from ch. 33 onwards, its content and form shed new light on the future fate of the land of Israel. As argued in the analysis of the rhetorical structure of the salvation oracles in chs. 34–39 conducted 80.  Cf. §IV.2.1.3.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

151

above (cf. §IV.1.1), ch. 37 constitutes a conclusion to earlier promises of salvation for Israel, confirming the irrevocable nature of the restoration of the land of Israel. This notwithstanding, in the Gog prophecy the restored land of Israel is presented once again as an object of the nations’ invasion under Gog’s leadership. The question of the eschatological dimension of the restoration of the land of Israel in Ezek 38–39 refers, on the one hand, to the temporal aspect of the events depicted in the oracle: do they belong within or do they transcend historical time, in the latter case foretelling ultimate events that will bring current history to its end? On the other hand, what needs to be taken into account is also the relationship between the eschatology presented in Ezek 38–39 and the events predicted in Ezek 34–37. If the salvation of the land of Israel proclaimed in Ezek 34–37 is supposed to be of a definitive character, how come the Gog oracle foretells one more danger in Israel’s history? How is this event connected with the future restoration of the land of Israel? To answer these questions, it is first necessary to pinpoint the specific character of Ezek 38–39 against the background of Ezekiel’s predictions of salvation for the land of Israel. The problem of the eschatological categories employed in the oracle remains strictly related to the question of the prophet’s authorship of the text and his role in shaping the apocalyptic literature of the Second Temple period. It is in this context that the subsequent analysis of the temporal and spatial dimension of the Gog oracle – and the restoration of the land it foretells – will be situated. 3.1. Ezekiel 38–39 against the Backdrop of Ezekiel’s Salvation Oracles for Israel The placement of the Gog oracle after the salvation oracles for Israel (Ezek 34–37) indicates that the process of the restoration of the land of Israel does not end with the Israelites’ return from exile and their repossession of the land. The events presented in Ezek 38–39 seem to some extent to question the definitive character of the salvation predicted in earlier chapters. Hence, it seems legitimate to address not only the aim of the Gog oracle within the structure of the book but also its connection with Ezekiel. 3.1.1. Ezekiel’s Authorship of the Gog Oracle. As far as the form and content of the Gog oracle is concerned, the delimitation of the prophecy poses no problems whatsoever: its beginning is marked by the word-event formula in Ezek 38:1, while its end in Ezek 39:29 is made clear by the fact that the subsequent vision in chs. 40–48 is preceded by the narrative introduction in Ezek 40:1–2, including precise chronological data. The

152

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Gog oracle depicts Gog and his allies’ invasion of the land of Israel and their subsequent annihilation by Yahweh. The rhetorical structure of the Gog oracle is complex due to the recurrence of numerous conventional formulas employed in the prophetic communication, which make it possible to delimit smaller rhetorical units: the commission formula (38:2–3, 14; 39:1), the messenger formula (38:3, 14, 17; 39:1, 17, 25), the expression “son of man” used in an introductory position (38:2, 14; 39:1, 17), the ‫ נאם אדני יהוה‬formula (38:18, 21; 39:5, 8, 10, 13, 20, 29) and the divine recognition formula in its many variants (38:16, 23; 39:6, 7, 22, 23, 28). This does not mean, however, that the structure of the oracle is clear or that it is possible to read the events it foretells in a linear manner. Daniel I. Block treats it as an example of the “halving” of oracles, typical of Ezekiel, for chs. 38 and 39 are introduced with almost identical prophetic formulas (cf. 38:2–3; 39:1; note that 38:2 includes an additional orientation formula “set your face toward…”), followed by the adversative formula (“I am against you”) which specifies Gog as “the prince, chief of Meshech and Tubal” (38:3; 39:1).81 As a diptych, the oracle may be divided into the following units:82 Panel A: The Defeat of Gog (38:2–23)

vv. 2–9



vv. 10–13 The Motives of Gog



vv. 14–16 The Advance of Gog



vv. 17–22 The Judgment of Gog



The Conscription of Gog

v. 23

Interpretive Conclusion

Panel B: The Disposal of Gog (39:1–29)

vv. 1–8

The Slaughter of Gog



vv. 9–10

The Plundering of Gog



vv. 11–16 The Burial of Gog



vv. 17–20 The Devouring of Gog



vv. 21–29

Interpretive Conclusion (The Final Word)

81.  Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 424–25. 82.  Cf. D. I. Block, “Gog in Prophetic Tradition: A New Look at Ezekiel XXXVIII 17,” VT 42 (1992): 154–72 (157).

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

153

Even such a schematic rendering of the Gog oracle’s composition evinces some contradictory elements present therein. First, what is the source of the initiative to invade the land of Israel: does it originate with Yahweh, who forces Gog to enter Israel’s territory (cf. 38:4, 8, 16), or does it come from Gog himself, willing to plunder the land of Israel devoid of any fortifications (cf. 38:10–13)? Secondly, what is the reason for the destruction of Gog and his allies: a massive earthquake (cf. 38:17–22) or the defeat in the battle against Yahweh fought on the mountains of Israel (cf. 39:2–5)? Finally, how can predators be invited to feed on the bodies of the deceased soldiers of Gog lying on the mountains of Israel (cf. 39:17–20) if those bodies have been buried by the Israelites (cf. 39:11– 16)? What needs to be addressed then is the problem of the text’s lack of cohesion, and – by inference – the problem of its authorship.83 The discrepancies noticeable in Ezek 38–39 evince the redactional character of the oracle, yet scholars are not unanimous in their understanding of the original shape of Ezekiel’s oracle or of the redactional process. The discrepancies in the scholarly opinions concerning the redaction of Ezek 38–39 stem primarily from the fragment’s lexical, stylistic and compositional compatibility with the rest of the book of Ezekiel.84 Due to the homogeneity of the Ezekielian tradition it is impossible to determine which fragments were authored by Ezekiel and which derive from later redactors respecting Ezekiel’s style and diction.85 What is more, the Gog oracle fails to include any concrete temporal references which would make it possible to establish the historical context in which a particular redactional intervention took place.86 Some indirect hints concerning the fragment’s historical background indicate that the text’s author and later redactors were active before 539 BCE. The text contains no references to Cyrus’s decree allowing the Judeans to return to their country, and in the depiction of the Israelites’ repossession of Judah in the wake of their return from exile no mention is made either of the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple or of difficult conditions of life in Judah in the early post-exilic period.87 Even Ezek 39:21–29, almost unanimously 83.  Cf. Bøe, Gog and Magog, 85–86. 84.  The statement is confirmed by the following analyses: S. L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995), 98–103; Tooman, Gog of Magog, 39–64. 85.  Cf. Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile, 229. 86.  Cf. Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechiel­ buches, 508. 87.  Cf. Klein, Ezekiel, 158; M. S. Odell, Ezekiel, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 463.

154

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

considered an addition to the oracle made in the final stage of the redaction process, evinces a clear exilic perspective (cf. vv. 23, 26–27).88 It may thus be claimed that the Gog oracle comprises texts penned by Ezekiel and his disciples, representing in all likelihood the Priestly circles. Even though it is very difficult to determine which fragments were authored by Ezekiel himself, later redactional extensions and additions are linguistically and stylistically consistent with Ezekiel’s prophecies, which may indicate that the prophet himself was responsible for at least some of these redactional interventions.89 The redactional character of the oracle presupposes a longer period of its composition, which, however, ended before the end of the Babylonian exile. 3.1.2. The Theological Aim of the Gog Oracle. If, then, the Gog oracle in its basic form derives from Ezekiel and its further redaction may be attributed to the circles close to the prophet during the Babylonian exile, it seems legitimate to ask why the oracle transcends the character of restoration foretold in earlier salvation oracles in Ezek 34–37. The answer seems to be hinted at in the question Yahweh asks Gog: “Are you the one I spoke of in former days by my servants the prophets of Israel?” (38:17). If answered in a positive way, the question would mean that Gog was the fulfilment of earlier oracles.90 Since there are no other prophecies concerning Gog’s onslaught, it is generally assumed that Ezekiel refers here to Isaiah’s oracle concerning the defeat of Assyria on the mountains of Israel (cf. Isa 14:25) and Jeremiah’s prediction of “the foe from the north” who will invade Judah (cf. Jer 1:14–16; 4:6–7; 6:1–5, 22–23; 10:22). What seems problematic, however, is that during the Babylonian exile it was obvious that the prophecy of the enemy from the north found its fulfilment in the person of Nebuchadnezzar, as Jeremiah himself 88.  Cf. Wevers, Ezekiel, 206; Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches, 429; Hals, Ezekiel, 280; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 204; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1990), 190; Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism, 119–21. 89.  Cf. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 204; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 430. 90.  Ancient translations (LXX, Vulg., Syr.) interpret the text of Ezek 38:17 in a similar way, with a statement there instead of a question (“You are the one I spoke of…”). Ancient translators thus considered the question word ‫ ה‬at the outset of the sentence in MT (‫ )האתה־הוא‬to be an outcome of dittography (the repetition of ‫ ה‬from the preceding word – Yahweh). Still, the omission of the question word in ancient translations may be viewed as haplography (cf. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 3:305; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 552).

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

155

indicates (cf. Jer 25:9). Still, Jeremiah makes a reference to another foe from the north that would bring demise to Babylonia (cf. Jer 50:3, 41). It is impossible to determine if Ezekiel intended to expound on Jeremiah’s idea, yet the depiction of the invasion of Judah by Gog and his allies in Ezek 38–39 seems to make use of the mythological motif of the foe from the north who invades Mesopotamia.91 As Daniel I. Block argues, when read in the mythological context, God’s question to Gog posed in Ezek 38:17 reflects Gog’s conviction that he is the mythical enemy from the north predicted by Israel’s prophets. Yet, God’s answer to this question is negative.92 Gog does not serve as a tool of God’s punishment of Israel. The oracle does not mention any guilt of the house of Israel, while the subject experiencing God’s anger is Gog and his allies (cf. Ezek 38:18–19). Even the earthquake destroying Gog’s army within the land of Israel (cf. 38:19) seems to spare the cities inhabited by Yahweh’s people (cf. 39:9), and the Israelites are the beneficiaries of Gog’s defeat (cf. 39:10). Yahweh’s choice of Gog is not an act of generosity, since God resorts to force to subjugate Gog, as the metaphors employed in 38:4 make it clear: Gog is subdued as a wild animal (cf. the hooks put into an animal’s nose through which ropes or chains are attached in Ezek 19:4) and forced to move in the other direction as a balky horse might (cf. the verb ‫ ׁשוב‬in polel).93

91.  According to Michael C. Astour, Ezekiel based his scenario of the events presented in the Gog oracle on the Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin (“Ezekiel’s Prophecy of Gog and the Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin,” JBL 95 [1976]: 567–79). Lawrence Boadt, in turn, opts for the Sumerian Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur as the basis for Ezekiel’s text (“Mythological Themes and the Unity of Ezekiel,” in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible, ed. L. J. de Regt, J. de Waard and J. P. Fokkelman [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996], 211–31 [224]). This hypothesis is indirectly accepted by Walther Zimmerli, who argues that Ezekiel’s account of Gog as an enemy from the north evinces the perspective of the peoples inhabiting the Mesopotamian plain, in danger of attacks from the mountainous north (cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 303, 322). Paul E. Fitzpatrick believes, however, that the text of Ezek 38–39 alludes to the myth of the fight against chaos prevalent in the whole ancient Near East, not only in Ugarit (cf. Fitzpatrick, The Disarmament of God: Ezekiel 38–39 in Its Mythic Context, CBQMS 37 [Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2004], 103–12). 92.  Cf. Block, “Gog in Prophetic Tradition,” 171; idem, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 456. 93.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 306; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 442.

156

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

The calling of Gog related in Ezek 38:3–7 does not in any way link his person to the land of Israel. Gog’s task is to organize an army whose soldiers represent various nations and remain under the command of their respective rulers (cf. the reference to ‫ גבורים‬and ‫ נׂשיאי הארץ‬in 39:18). Even though called “prince,” Gog is also termed “chief of Meshech and Tubal” (cf. ‫ נׂשיא ראׁש מׁשך ותבל‬in 38:2, 3; 39:1). Thus, he is not the ruler of an empire, but rather the commander of a coalition of armies, whose job is to maintain order and coordinate the army’s activities. This is made clear by the instructions in 38:7 to serve as a “guard” (‫ )מׁשמר‬for the armies under his leadership, not to protect them but to command them.94 Gog, however, does not subjugate himself to God’s rule, for when he is called by Yahweh95 to the land of Israel (cf. 38:8), he takes over the initiative and decides to plunder the defenceless inhabitants of the land (cf. 38:11–12). Yahweh assesses his intention in a clearly negative way as a “wicked scheme” (‫ )מחׁשבת רעה‬in 38:10. Identifying with the land of Israel (“my land” in 38:16; “my mountains” in 38:21) and its inhabitants (“my people” in 38:14, 16; 39:7), Yahweh attacks Gog (cf. ‫ הנני אליך‬in 38:3; 39:1) and defeats his army on the mountains of Israel. The depiction of Yahweh’s punitive intervention in the Gog oracle refers to the tradition of the holy war. On the one hand, God’s wrath will generate an earthquake that will take place before his face (cf. “before me” in 38:20) as he comes to judge Gog and his army (cf. the verb ‫ ׁשפט‬in 38:22). Gog’s troops will panic and turn their swords against one another (cf. 38:21). On the other hand, Yahweh foretells his attack of Gog on the mountains of Israel, which will become the place of defeat for the foe from the north. Yahweh’s fight against Gog, depicted in a realistic fashion in 39:3–4, ends with the latter’s total defeat: Yahweh will break his bow and will knock out the arrows from his hand; defeated by sword, the bodies of Gog’s warriors will become food for wild animals and birds of prey. The aim of Yahweh’s punishment of Gog is the manifestation of his holiness in the sight of the nations. Such a motive is nothing new in the context of earlier oracles of salvation for Israel (cf. Ezek 20:41; 36:20–23), 94.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 305; Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 3:302; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 443; Bøe, Gog and Magog, 101. 95.  The verb ‫ פקד‬in niphal in Ezek 38:8 is conventionally interpreted as ‫תפקד‬, “you will be summoned, mustered” (cf. W. Schottroff, “‫ פקד‬pqd heimsuchen,” THAT 2:473; HALAT 2:901). In the context of Yahweh’s punitive intervention, one more meaning of the verb ‫ פקד‬in niphal seems plausible – “to be called to account, to be punished” – present in Isa 24:22; 29:6. This would suggest that Gog is summoned by Yahweh to be punished in the land of Israel.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

157

yet new aspects of God’s holiness may be noticed in the Gog oracle. First of all, Yahweh’s “holy name” is profaned not only on account of the exile generated by Israel’s transgressions (cf. 39:25) but also because of Gog’s attack of the people and the land of Israel, which are Yahweh’s possessions (cf. 39:7). Secondly, Yahweh’s sanctity is connected with the land of Israel, mentioned as the place of God’s sanctification in the sight of the nations (cf. the expression ‫ קדוׁש ביׂשראל‬in 39:7 instead of the conventional phrase ‫[ קדוׁש יׂשראל‬cf. 2 Kgs 19:22; Ps 71:22; Isa 1:4; 5:19, 24 etc.; Jer 50:29]). Thirdly, Yahweh manifests his holiness to the world through the subjugation of all the nations, which will finally happen when Gog – the symbol of all of God’s enemies in the world – is defeated (cf. Ezek 38:23; 39:7). Finally, Yahweh manifests his holiness through his loyalty to his people and the gift of the land granted them. Defeating Gog, God proves his capability of ensuring security for his people,96 who need to fear no external danger (cf. the adverbial of time ‫ מן־היום ההוא והלאה‬in 39:22). The Gog oracle proves, therefore, that Yahweh’s salvific action with respect to the land of Israel is motivated by his holiness. As Israel’s God, Yahweh links his sanctity to the land of Israel, in which he will ultimately manifest his reign over the whole world. 3.2. The Temporal Dimension of the Revival of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 38–39 The invasion of Gog and his allies of the land of Israel is to take place ‫“( ביום ההוא‬on that day”), as emphasized in Ezek 38:10, 14, 18, 19; 39:11. This day will constitute a caesura in Israel’s history, for it is “from that day onward” (39:22) that Israel will live safely in their land. The foretold day belongs to the future, specified in 38:8 as ‫“( מימים רבים‬after many days”) and ‫“( באחרית הׁשנים‬in the latter years”) and as ‫“( באחרית הימים‬in the latter days”) in 38:16. How are we to interpret these temporal references: as predictions of the end in a relative sense (i.e. denoting a specific period in the future) or in an absolute way (i.e. as the end of history as we know it that will give way to the end of time)? Exegetes answer this question on the basis of the analysis of the 14 occurrences of the expression ‫ באחרית הימים‬in the Hebrew Bible.97 Originally, the term referred to a limited period of time in the future (cf. Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 4:30; 31:29; Jer 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39), which in Isa 2:2 = Mic 4:1 and Hos 3:5 is situated at the border of current historical time and the end of time. Scholars agree that the expression is 96.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 522–23. 97.  Cf. H. Seebaß, “‫א ֲח ִרית‬,” ַ ThWAT 1:227–28.

158

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

used in Dan 2:28 and 10:14 as a technical term to denote the end of time.98 Such a deployment of the expression “in the latter days” is also typical of the Qumran texts, which identify this period with the inauguration of the end times linked to the coming of the Messiah and the total elimination of evil (e.g. 4Q174 1:11–12; 1QSa 2:11–12). As far as the meaning of the expression in Ezek 38:16 is concerned, however, some scholars, including Walther Zimmerli and Daniel I. Block, question the identification of the expression with the end of time. According to Zimmerli, Ezekiel does not subscribe to an abstract concept of time as an “empty” entity to be filled with events, neither does he speak of “an absolute end.”99 The expression “in the latter days” (and the parallel expression “in the latter years” used in 38:8) indicates the end of a specific period in the distant future, which nevertheless falls within current historical time. In a similar vein, on the basis of the usage of the expression “after many days” in Josh 23:1 (the only occurrence of the phrase in the Hebrew Bible apart from Ezek 38:8), Block treats the phrases under analysis here as idiomatic expressions denoting a substantial period of time in the future, belonging nevertheless to the earthly dimension of history.100 By contrast, some scholars view the adverbials of time used in Ezek 38:8, 16 as a reference to the end of time. Lorenz Dürr was the first exegete to attribute the eschatological dimension to the expression “in the latter days” – the phrase that according to him signifies the starting point of the end times.101 As Brevard S. Childs sees it, the temporal references analysed here shift the events related to Gog from the historical to the apocalyptical level.102 In this way, as Bernhard Erling puts it, any link to the historical context in which the prophet communicates his word gets severed.103 98.  Cf. J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 161; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25−48, 443; Tooman, Gog of Magog, 96. 99.  Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 307. 100.  Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 443. 101.  Cf. L. Dürr, Die Stellung des Propheten Ezechiel in der israelitischjüdischen Apokalyptik, Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 9/1 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1923), 100–104. 102.  B. S. Childs, “The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition,” JBL 78 (1959): 187–98 (196). 103.  Cf. B. Erling, “Ezekiel 38−39 and the Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic,” in Ex orbe religionum: Studia Geo Widengren Oblata, ed. C. J. Bleeker, S. G. F. Brandon and M. Simon, 2 vols., Studies in the History of Religions 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 1:104–14 (113).

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

159

The scholarly opinions on the significance of the temporal expression “in the latter days (years)” presented above are rooted in an intertextual reading of the Hebrew Bible, which takes into account as well the usage of these expressions in the intertestamental literature. It seems, however, that the analysis of the chronological significance of these expressions in the Gog oracle needs to begin with an intratextual reading, which would take into consideration the temporal perspectives sketched in Ezekiel’s prophecies, particularly those that foretell the day of Yahweh and those that offer a theological reflection on Israel’s history. The prediction of the day of Yahweh recurs many times in the book of Ezekiel, occupying a central position in the oracles in 7:1–14 and 30:1–19. For some scholars, the Gog oracle follows this trend of Ezekiel’s prophesying.104 Even though the day of Gog’s invasion (38:18) is the day of Yahweh’s punitive wrath (38:19), the expression “that day” itself is used in Ezek 38−39 to coordinate various events related to Gog.105 It needs to be emphasized as well that the day foretold in the Gog oracle does not function as the subject of verbs of movement, which in the prophecies of the day of Yahweh signal the proximity and immediacy of that day.106 Meanwhile, Ezekiel situates Gog in some distant, unspecified future, “after many days,” “in the latter days” and “years” (38:8, 16). This distant temporal perspective comes as a surprise in light of the fact that earlier Ezekiel had to respond to his listeners’ charges that the realization of his prophecies was postponed (cf. 12:22) as they seemed to deal with “distant times” “many years ahead” (12:27). Chronologically speaking, Gog’s attack is a different event than the day of Yahweh, even if semantically it alludes to the idea of the day of Yahweh as presented in the book of Ezekiel. The prophet does not specify the duration of the period referred to as “after many days,” “in the latter years” (38:8) and “days” (38:16) that will end with Gog’s invasion. Introducing this future perspective, Ezekiel significantly modifies his earlier visions of Israel’s future, especially the most detailed account of Israel’s history in ch. 20, which offers a periodization of the history 104.  Cf. Bøe, Gog und Magog, 121–22; N. Wendebourg, Der Tag des Herrn: Zur Gerichtserwartung im Neuen Testament auf ihrem alttestamentlichen und frühjüdischen Hintergrund, WMANT 96 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 48–50. 105.  Cf. S. J. de Vries, From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 178. 106.  Cf. the verb ‫ בוא‬in Ezek 7:10, 12 (also in 21:30, 34) and ‫ נגע‬in hiphil in 7:12 as well as the adjective ‫ קרוב‬in 7:7; 30:3[×2].

160

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

of the chosen nation (cf. §III.1). Israel’s history has been marked from its very beginnings by people’s unfaithfulness to, rebellion against and disobedience towards Yahweh (cf. 20:8, 13, 21, 28–32). God, for his part, remains loyal to the covenant he made with Israel, as he wishes to manifest his holiness in the world through his nation’s history. For this reason, the day of Yahweh as the day of God’s punitive anger is not the final event in Israel’s history, but rather an essential stage before Israel can be ultimately restored as a nation and before the foreign nations can have a chance to recognize God’s sanctity (cf. 36:17–23). The renewed relationship of the covenant with Yahweh (cf. 36:24–28) will result in Israel’s repossession of their land, which will be restored to its paradisiacal conditions (cf. 36:35). From that moment, Yahweh’s people will live safely (‫ )לבטח‬in the Promised Land (34:25, 27, 28), forever rejoicing at the covenant of peace, guaranteed by Yahweh’s presence among his people (cf. 34:25; 37:26). The Gog oracle introduces a completely new temporal perspective in Israel’s history, not invoked by Ezekiel so far: the Israelites have already returned from the Babylonian exile107 and live safely (‫ )לבטח‬in their land (cf. 38:8, 11, 14), which proves that the relationship of the covenant with Yahweh has been rebuilt (cf. Lev 25:18–19; 26:5). That the material destruction of the land of Israel remains only a distant memory is confirmed by Gog’s perception of the land as brimming with “silver and gold…cattle and goods” (cf. Ezek 38:13). The land and its inhabitants are thus recipients of God’s blessing. The covenant of peace is not external to people, for they themselves – called in Ezek 38:11 ‫הׁשקטים‬ (“the quiet people”) – are the embodiment of peace.108 Peace signifies trust in Yahweh (cf. the ‫ הׁשקט‬command addressed to Ahaz in Isa 7:4), which is reflected in the absence of fortifications in the land of Israel.109 In the future of the chosen nation, however, there will be one more turning point, through which Yahweh will manifest his holiness in the sight of the nations (cf. 38:16, 23; 39:7). Does it mean that the prophet introduces here the category of the eschaton – the definitive end of history? In light of the temporal expressions used by Ezekiel so far, the culminating point in history is the moment of Israel’s restoration, coinciding with their return from exile and repossession of the Promised Land. The 107.  In Ezek 38:8 the period of exile, coinciding with the period during which the mountains of Israel remain ruins, is termed ‫תמיד‬. In this case, the word is used not to express the destruction of the mountains during the exile but rather to signal a temporal prolongation of this state (cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 286). 108.  Cf. Odell, Ezekiel, 472. 109.  Cf. the expression ‫ארץ פרזות‬, the equivalent of being “without walls, and having no bars or gates” in Ezek 38:11.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

161

prediction of Gog’s invasion “in the latter days” indicates a completely new reference point for Israel’s history. The history of the chosen nation will be completed with Yahweh’s annihilation of Gog, which, on the one hand, will prove God’s might and holiness for all the nations to see, and, on the other, will bring about a definitive salvation of Israel. In this way, the Gog oracle transcends historical time, for the restoration of Israel – a chronological reference point for Gog’s invasion – has not yet happened. Introducing the new stage of future events, the prophet, nevertheless, does not stress the end of history. As the conclusion of the Gog oracle in 39:22 indicates, history will continue. At the same time, the conclusion of the Gog prophecy returns to the prophet’s and his listeners’ “now” (‫)עתה‬, during which Yahweh will change their fate (cf. 39:25). Future events connected with Gog thus shed new light on the current experience of exile and the ensuing restoration of the land of Israel. Ezekiel, then, offers a typology in which Yahweh’s triumph over Gog – situated in some distant, unspecified future – constitutes a confirmation of the salvation promised for the land of Israel, which is to happen in the near, precisely delineated future.110 In this way, the restoration of the land of Israel seems a turning point not only in the history of the chosen nation but also in the history of all the other nations that will acknowledge Yahweh’s sanctity. 3.3. The Spatial Dimension of the Revival of the Land of Israel in Ezekiel 38–39 The Gog oracle offers a new spatial – and not only chronological – perspective on the history of the world. The spatial dimension has a universal character, for the events connected with Gog’s invasion are situated not only in the context of the histories of other nations but also in a broader context of the whole universe. The identification of Gog and his allies constitutes one of the biggest problems with interpreting Ezek 38−39. Gog from Magog111 is presented as the leader of northern peoples: Meshech and Tubal (cf. 38:2, 3; 39:1). There are several ways in which scholars explain the identity of Gog and 110.  Cf. B. Biberger, Endgültiges Heil innerhalb von Geschichte und Gegenwart: Zukunftskonzeptionen in Eze 38–39, Joel 1–4 und Sach 12–14, BBB 161 (Bonn: V&R unipress, 2010), 120. 111.  Some scholars treat Magog as a personal name since Magog is mentioned as one of Japheth’s sons in Gen 10:2. The usage of the word in Ezek 39:6 indicates, however, that it should be treated as the name of a region. The definite article preceding Magog in Ezek 38:2 (‫ )ארץ המגוג‬is unconventional in the Hebrew language, yet it can be explained on the textual level: originally ‫ ה‬was added to the noun ‫ ארץ‬as directional ‫ה‬: ‫( מגוג ארצה‬cf. §I.2.2, n. 34).

162

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

the peoples in his army: some focus on the etymology of their names, others link them to historical figures and nations, while yet another group of exegetes indicate their mythological provenance.112 Even though all of those scholarly propositions are of a hypothetical character, out of the historical models for Gog King Gyges of Lydia seems the most legitimate choice. However, Gyges was no longer alive in Ezekiel’s times – he died approximately in 650 BCE. If the names of Gog’s allies are taken into consideration, it may seem that the prophet was not well versed in history and geography. For instance, he mentions four nations: Meshech, Tubal, Gomer, and Beth-togarmah, which are all situated in the same region of Cappadocia, a mountainous area in the north-eastern part of Asia Minor.113 All of Gog’s allies are peoples whose power was of a local character only and was at that time already a thing of the past, vivid only in memories. The only exception is Persia (‫ פרס‬in 38:5), which will play a significant role in Israel’s future. The reference to Persia seems astonishing also due to geographical reasons: as a country situated to the east of Israel, it does not qualify as an enemy “from the north” (cf. 38:6, 15; 39:2), unlike the peoples of Asia Minor mentioned above. This is also true of Cush and Put (38:5), which signify Nubia and Somalia, respectively. The reason behind the prophet’s enumeration of these various peoples needs to be interpreted on the basis of their geographical location. Gog’s army will invade Israel from several directions: from the north, east and south-west. As 38:13 makes clear, the attack will additionally be observed by Sheba and Dedan, South Arabian kingdoms, and Tarshish, the westernmost point of the world for the ancient peoples. All of this suggests that Ezekiel’s intention was to emphasize the universal, world-wide character of Gog’s invasion of the land of Israel, situated “at the centre of the earth” (cf. 38:12).114 Gog’s great army is an abstract entity constructed from specific historical, political and geographical realities, placed in the future as a personification of God’s enemies in the world.115 As the number of the seven nations supporting Gog shows, this “metahistorical power of evil”116 112.  The most complete list of various interpretations of Gog’s and his allies’ identity may be found in Bøe, Gog und Magog, 88–107. 113.  Cf. Bøe, Gog und Magog, 102–4. 114.  Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 441; Bøe, Gog und Magog, 107; Tooman, Gog of Magog, 148–49. 115.  A. Cody, Ezekiel with an Excursus on Old Testament Priesthood, Old Testament Message (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984) 185; cf. Biberger, Endgültiges Heil innerhalb von Geschichte und Gegenwart, 118. 116.  B. F. Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1992), 158.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

163

has cosmic dimensions. Seven as a number points to completeness and wholeness, indicating that Gog’s invasion will be the ultimate turning point in the world’s history, the final battle between the powers of evil, represented by Gog and his army, and the powers of good, represented by Israel. God himself takes part in the conflict, and he is the only one who can ultimately defeat evil in the world (cf. 39:1). Hence, Yahweh’s defeat of Gog is not a local event, even if it takes place upon the mountains of Israel. Yahweh uses a “great earthquake” (‫( )רעׁש גדול‬38:19) as a tool to punish the invaders. In later prophetic texts, this expression will function as a technical term to describe the world’s return to the original chaos (cf. Isa 13:13; 24:18; Joel 2:10; 4:16; Zech 14:4–5).117 The earthquake’s epicentre is in the land of Israel, yet its effects will be felt throughout the whole world: the mountains – a symbol of permanence – will collapse and all human-made walls will fall to the ground (cf. Ezek 38:20b). As a consequence, all the inhabitants of the universe will “shake” (‫)רעׁשו‬: not only people but also all types of animals enumerated in the biblical accounts of the world’s creation: fishes, birds, beasts of the field and amphibians (cf. Ezek 38:20a and Gen 1:26, 28; 9:2). God’s victory over Gog is observed by the whole world, including animals. The description of the feast on the bodies of Gog’s soldiers to which Yahweh invites “the birds of every kind and…all the wild animals” (39:17)118 is an astonishing anthropomorphism in a text rooted in the Priestly tradition.119 The sacrificial matter here is the human body, which seems to violate the holiness of human life (cf. Gen 9:4–6).120 What is more, the fat and blood of the defeated soldiers that the animals are to feed on (cf. Ezek 39:19) were reserved to be used only in Yahweh’s cult (cf. Lev 3:16–17; Ezek 44:7, 15). On top of that, the feast is supposed to take place on the mountains of Israel (cf. Ezek 39:17), just like the idolatrous 117.  Cf. Childs, “The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition,” 189–90; Fitzpatrick, The Disarmament of God, 87. 118.  It is possible that the animals gathered by God symbolize the nations and their leaders oppressed by Gog. Such a viewpoint is articulated, among others, by Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches, 478–79; S. Grill, “Der Schlachttag Jahwes,” BZ 2 (1958): 278–83 (280). 119.  The motif of the sacrifice (cf. Ezek 39:17, 19) of human bodies prepared by Yahweh appears also in earlier prophetic texts (cf. Isa 34:6–8; Jer 46:10; Zeph 1:7). These might have been inspired by the Ugaritic texts depicting Anat’s feasts on defeated warriors or emphasizing the orgiastic character of cultic feasts (cf. C. L. Carvalho, “The God That Gog Creates: ‘Drop the Stories and Feel the Feeling,’ ” in Joyce and Rom-Shiloni, eds., The God Ezekiel Creates, 107–31 [126–27]). 120.  Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 477.

164

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

practice of eating sacrificial matter on the mountains (in high places) criticized before (cf. Ezek 18:6, 11, 15; 33:25) as a source of the profanation of the land of Israel. Nevertheless, the aim of the feast Yahweh prepares for the animals is completely different. The mountains of Israel are not desecrated, for Yahweh calls them “my table” (‫ ׁשלחני‬in 39:20), a term typically used to denote the altar in the sanctuary (cf. Ezek 44:16). The battlefield that Gog has been defeated on now becomes the space of Yahweh’s cult, the place of celebrating his victory, through which he manifests himself as the God of Israel and the Lord of the whole world.121 The spatial dimension of the restoration of the land of Israel, confirmed by Yahweh’s defeat of Gog, is also connected with the cleanliness of the land, essential for the manifestation of Yahweh’s holiness. The bodies of Gog’s soldiers lying on the mountains of Israel (cf. 39:4) are a source of the land’s impurity. This profanation has a cultic character (cf. Num 19:11, 16, 19; 31:19, 24); thus, to remove it, the bodies need to be buried, which is predicted in Ezek 39:11–16. In this context, the land of Israel as the place of Gog’s and his allies’ burial becomes a sign of Israel’s future safety. The bodies are buried in “the Valley of Travellers” (‫גי‬ ‫)העברים‬, called in 39:11 “the Valley of the Tumult of Gog” (‫)גיא המון גוג‬.122 This expression may be interpreted in light of etymological aetiology,123 whereby the place of Gog’s and his troops’ burial is a symbolic sign (cf. ‫ ׁשם‬in 39:13), placed in the future to remind the Israelites of the holiness of Yahweh, who will guarantee their safety in the restored land of Israel. The land of Israel is cleansed of the bodies of Gog’s soldiers by the Israelites, which signals a new quality of the inhabitants of the land. On 121.  Cf. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 526; Fitzpatrick, The Disarmament of God, 98–99. 122.  There are three ways – the topographical, mythic and symbolic ones – in which “the Valley of Travellers” is identified by scholars. The first one is contingent upon the identification of the sea which functions as a reference point for the location of the valley in the expression ‫ קדמת הים‬in 39:11, conventionally translated as “east of the sea” (the Mediterranean Sea or the Dead Sea or the Sea of Galilee). The mythological interpretation links “the Valley of Travellers” to the passage to the netherworld familiar from the Ugaritic texts. Gog’s burial would then keep Israel’s enemies in Sheol. The symbolic interpretation mentioned above makes it possible to overcome the difficulties posed by both the topographical identification of the valley and its mythical interpretation (the latter is refuted by the realistic depiction of the place). A detailed account of the three interpretations of “the Valley of Travellers,” with the supporters of each listed, may be found in Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 539–45. 123.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 317; Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 543.

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

165

the one hand, Ezekiel emphasizes that it is “all the people of the land” that bury the bodies of the soldiers (39:13). The prophet employs the expression ‫ עם־הארץ‬to refer not only to Judah’s aristocracy (cf. 7:27; 22:29) but to all the inhabitants of the land of Israel (cf. 12:19; 33:2; 45:22; 46:3, 9).124 Hence, all the Israelites will be involved in the cleansing of the land, which will take them seven months (cf. 39:12, 14). On the other hand, Ezekiel stresses the zealousness of the Israelites in guarding the land’s cultic purity after the burial of Gog’s army. Two groups will be appointed: the first will be obliged125 to scour the land constantly in search of any remaining bones (cf. 39:14–15a), while the other group will be entrusted with the task of burying any bones that may still be found (cf. 39:15b). The scrupulousness of the Israelites in their actions for the sake of the land’s purity corroborates the permanence of Israel’s restoration as the people of the covenant, aware of the theophanic character of the Promised Land. Its purity is an essential requirement for the residence of God, who wishes to be “the Holy One in Israel” (39:7). The analysis of Ezek 38–39 leads to the conclusion that the Gog oracle extends the temporal perspectives of the oracles foretelling the restoration of the land of Israel in Ezek 34–37. The depiction of the land to be invaded by Gog’s army confirms the realization of earlier predictions of the restoration of the Promised Land and the safe residence there of the returnees from exile. The Gog prophecy, therefore, does not aim to draw attention to some new aspect of the revitalization of the land of Israel, but rather to point to Yahweh’s ultimate triumph in the world. Even though God’s victory is situated in some distant, unspecified future, it will definitely confirm his holiness in the sight of the nations, manifesting itself in his care for his land and its inhabitants. In this way, the restoration of the land of Israel is situated in a universal context: it is not a local event, but rather a central event in the world’s history, a key moment in Yahweh’s theophany in the universe. The reference to mythological motifs in the Gog oracle, particularly to the enemy from the north, serves to identify Gog and his allies as the embodiment of evil, which will ultimately be defeated by Yahweh. Regardless of the scope of Ezekiel’s participation in the creation of the text, it may be considered as the prophet’s and his Priestly disciples’ attempt to dispel the doubts expressed by the exiles as regards the promises of salvation for the land of Israel. 124.  The expression “people of the land” seems to refer to Judah’s aristocracy only in Ezek 7:27 and 22:29, cf. II.2.2.1 n. 41. 125.  The fact that they are called ‫ אנׁשי תמיד‬in Ezek 39:14 indicates that it is their “profession” to wander across the country in search of any possible source of the land’s impurity.

166

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

To sum up, the main conclusions stemming from the analysis of the salvation oracles in Ezek 34–39 will be reiterated to reconstruct Ezekiel’s vision of the land of the new covenant. First of all, two rhetorical sections may be distinguished in Ezek 34–39: chs. 34–37 and chs. 38–39, which foretell two different events – the first part focusing on the land’s restoration immediately after the return from exile, and the second part presupposing some unspecified, though substantial, period of time which needs to pass since the Israelites’ repossession of the land before Gog and his allies’ attack of Israel “in the latter days” and “years” (cf. 38:8, 16). This eschatologization of the land’s restoration, proto-apocalyptical to some extent, is depicted from the perspective of the Babylonian exile, as the conclusion of the Gog oracle in 39:21–29 makes clear. Chapters 38–39 ultimately confirm in this way the predictions of the restoration for the land of Israel included in earlier salvation oracles. Through his defeat of Gog, Yahweh wishes finally to manifest his holiness in the sight of the nations, which will acknowledge not only his dominion over the world, but also his care for Israel’s safety and well-being in the Promised Land. The linear character of the restoration of the land of Israel is, however, absent in chs. 34–37. This part of the book is an anthology of various salvation oracles which complement one another in their depiction of diverse aspects of the future revitalization of the land. The apex of these predictions may be found in Ezek 36:16–38, which uses resumptive exposition to deepen and elaborate on Israel’s history depicted in ch. 20, with the focus on the definitive character of the restoration of the land of Israel as the finale of the new exodus. Secondly, the mechanism of resumptive exposition is clearly noticeable in the oracle addressed to the mountains of Israel in Ezek 36:1–15, which alludes to the oracle of punishment for the mountains in Ezek 6. The foretold revitalization and repopulation of the mountains will restore their lost subjecthood in their relations to Yahweh, Israel and the nations. It is the land, not the returnees from exile, that will be the first beneficiary of Yahweh’s salvific action. Yahweh will “turn to” the mountains of Israel (36:9) to make them again the place of his communion with his people. It will be possible also due to the fact that the land, whose topography was conducive for the construction of high places, will no longer “cause [its] nation to stumble” (36:15). Thirdly, the salvation oracles in Ezek 34–37 present four aspects of the revitalization of the land of Israel: demographical, material, political and religious ones. Even though these are four distinct facets of the land’s restoration, in each of them the land functions as an essential element of Yahweh’s new relationship with Israel. Through the repopulation of the

IV. The Land of the New Covenant

167

land after the exile Yahweh will realize his intention concerning the people of the covenant: from their very selection in Egypt, they were meant to inhabit the land promised to their fathers. The material restoration of the land is presented first and foremost as a result of God’s direct action, and only secondarily as the outcome of the actions of the Israelites returning from exile. The revitalization of the land by Yahweh seems an act of new creation which transforms the land into “the garden of Eden” (36:35). This new land will again be the place of residence for the whole Israel, united after their return from exile under one ruler. In this way, the land of Israel will also recover its political subjecthood. The restoration of the land of Israel is possible only thanks to Yahweh, who will make it the place of his residence and will live there forever (37:26–28). What is more, the restoration of the land of Israel constitutes one of the key moments of the new covenant foretold by Ezekiel in 36:24–28 (cf. 11:17–20). The community of the covenant in the land of Israel will be enabled by a radically new anthropological basis – the gift of “a new heart and a new spirit,” which will be Yahweh’s act of re-creating the people of the covenant. As the vision of the dry bones (37:1–14) confirms, without the revitalization of the people, in which Yahweh’s spirit plays a decisive role, it would be impossible for them to return from exile and to live permanently in the restored land. Furthermore, the novelty of the covenant predicted by Ezekiel ultimately manifests itself in the covenant of peace, presented in Ezek 34:25–30 and 37:26–28. “Peace” – an essential component of the new covenant – assumes a concrete form in Yahweh’s presence among his people, a source of prosperity and salvation, of safety and justice for the community of covenant. Finally, the definitive character of the covenant of peace, and, by inference, of the restoration of the land of Israel, is confirmed in the oracle against Gog and his coalition, who “in the latter days” and “years” will invade Yahweh’s people living safely in their land (cf. 38:11). Yahweh’s victory over Gog, the personification of all God’s enemies active in the world, will take place within the land of Israel. This corroborates the theophanic function of the land of Israel, through which Yahweh intends to manifest his holiness in front of the whole world (cf. 39:7).

Chapter V T he V i s i on of t h e N ew L and of I sr ae l i n E z ek i el 40–48

The final chapter of the book will concentrate on the territorial aspect of the restoration of the land of Israel in the concluding vision of the book of Ezekiel included in Ezek 40–48. The analysis of the vision’s rhetorical structure will serve to pinpoint the dynamics of the land’s future revitalization, whose key element will be the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple. God’s presence influences the new shape of Israel’s borders. The determining of these borders will not be limited to topographical issues only, but will attempt to find out as well what impact the borders have on the status of the land of Israel as the land of the covenant. In this context, another question will be raised: that of the division of the land of Israel as an inheritance for Israel’s tribes, in which ‫ גרים‬will also participate. 1. Yahweh’s Presence in the Land of Israel The salvation oracles in Ezek 34–37 end with a triple statement emphasizing that Yahweh will forever be present among his people and the sanctuary – God’s dwelling place (37:27) – will be a sign of his presence (37:26, 28). The concluding chapters of the book of Ezekiel (40–48) contain a vision of the restored Israel that already experiences Yahweh’s presence in its midst. The territorial dimension of Ezekiel’s vision leads to a question of the influence of God’s presence upon the land of Israel. To answer this question, an analysis of the structure of chs. 40–48 will be conducted in order to determine the position of the land of Israel in the vision. Furthermore, the rhetoric of the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple will be analysed (Ezek 43:1–12), both in the context of earlier visions of Yahweh’s Glory (Ezek 1–3; 8–11) and the current vision of the new Israel (Ezek 40–48). The changes that the land of Israel will undergo due to Yahweh’s presence will ultimately be revealed in the vision of the water issuing out of the temple (Ezek 47:1–12).

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

169

1.1. The Structure of Ezekiel’s Vision in Ezekiel 40–48 The “divine vision” (40:2) that the book of Ezekiel ends with is not a coherent literary text, even though it constitutes a separate rhetorical sequence.1 As far as the question of literary genre is concerned, the fragment consists of the narrative of the vision (cf. Ezek 40–42; 43:1–12; 44:1–4; 47:1–12) and of legal regulations concerning the organization of worship as well as the division and ownership of the land. However, the account of Ezekiel’s visional journey through the temple also includes a fragment regulating the priests’ service in the temple (cf. 42:13–14). At the same time, the prophet’s journey through the temple is not limited to chs. 40–42, since the fragment of 43:13–27 contains a description of the altar with the prescription for its consecration, while the section including cultic regulations (44:5–46:18) is followed by a return to the visional trip, during which the prophet visits kitchens located in the four corners of the outer court (cf. 46:19–24). Ezekiel 40–48 contains numerous repetitions. One of these is the division of the land of Israel is described twice, which is mentioned first in 45:1–8 and later in 48:1–29 (vv. 8–22 are parallel to 45:1–8). The return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple is also mentioned twice (“the Glory of Yahweh filled the temple” in 43:5 and 44:4). Ezekiel’s final vision also seems to include some contradictory elements, primarily in the texts referring to the priests who are the descendants of Zadok and the Levites: the former are to serve Yahweh directly at the altar, while the latter’s service is restricted to other areas within the temple, where they keep order within the gates, prepare sacrifices (cf. 44:11, 14) and operate kitchens (cf. 46:24). If in 40:44–46 both priestly groups are treated in an identical manner when it comes to their use of the chambers located at the northern and southern gates leading to the inner court, the specification of their respective roles in 44:6–16 results in the elevation of the Zadokites and the degradation of the Levites. What is more, even smaller literary units are not free from contradictions. For instance, the regulations concerning daily offerings (46:13–15) mention two different sacrifices to be made “every morning” (cf. v. 13 and v. 14), while v. 15 combines the two into one burnt offering.

1.  In contrast to Ezekiel’s two earlier “divine visions” (cf. Ezek 1:1–3:15; 8–11), the last one lacks formal closure, for its conclusion fails to include the statement signalling the end of the prophet’s visional experience (cf. 3:12–14a; 11:24) and his reaction to the vision (cf. 3:14b–15; 11:25).

170

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Literary criticism enables the enumeration of even more examples of shifts of style and genre, thematic discontinuities, incoherent diction and grammatical changes.2 Thus, it seems essential to address not only the coherence of the vision presented in chs. 40–48 but also the question of the vision’s author. 1.1.1. The Diachronic Perspective. Scholarly opinions concerning the formation of Ezek 40–48 articulated throughout the last five decades have been based on the model of sources (H. Gese), updating (Fortschreibung – W. Zimmerli), stratification (M. Konkel, K. F. Pohlmann, T. A. Rudnig) or the holistic model (M. Greenberg).3 The variety of scholarly opinions concerning the redaction of Ezek 40–48 confirms the complex history of the text’s creation. There are many arguments, however, that support the dating of the complete text of Ezek 40–48 to the period of the Babylonian exile and the years in its immediate wake.4 The vision does not contain any explicit references to the events transpiring after the sixth century BCE. There is also no mention of the person of the high priest, repeatedly evoked in Haggai’s and Zechariah’s prophecies in the context of the events occurring between 520 and 518 BCE.5 Ezekiel’s vision must have preceded the rebuilding of the temple, dedicated in 515 BCE. If the design of the temple included in Ezek 40–48 came from a later period, it would be difficult to justify its departures from the actual character of the

2.  To give one example, there are shifts between second person sing. (Ezekiel) and third person sing./plur. (priest/priests) as addressees of the regulations concerning the sacrifices made during Passover (cf. 45:18–20) or during the altar’s consecration (cf. 43:20–27). 3.  A detailed analysis of the scholarly propositions regarding the redaction of Ezek 40–48 may be found in Pohlmann, Ezekiel, 131–44. 4.  Cf. Hals, Ezekiel, 287–88; Joyce, Ezekiel, 219–20. 5.  Cf. ‫ הכהן הגדול‬in Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4; Zech 3:1, 8; 6:11. Steven S. Tuell explains that the absence of the high priest in Ezek 40–48 stems from the fact that “the Torah of Ezekiel” did not propose a power structure that was to be in force for a longer time in the post-exilic period. What is more, the overlooking of the high priest in Ezek 40–48 was a tactical move supposed to assure Darius I that the post-exilic community was free from political ambitions (cf. idem, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48, 147). Both arguments seem problematic: (1) there is no evidence that the regulations suggested in Ezek 40–48 ever functioned as law in the post-exilic community; (2) for the Persian king the problem was not the power of the high priest Joshua but that of the governor Zerubbabel, who was the cause of the community’s hopes for the revival of the Davidic dynasty. For this reason, Haggai indirectly expresses his messianic expectations related to Zerubbabel in 2:23.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

171

Second Temple. The vision’s fragments indicating the dominant position of the Zadokite priests (cf. 40:46; 43:19; 48:11) may be interpreted as later additions reflective of the rivalry between various priestly groups in the post-exilic period. This notwithstanding, the excerpt of 44:10–14, invoking the Levites’ past sins as a reason for the degradation of their cultic role, may be read in a completely different way: having experienced God’s punishment for their past apostasy, the Levites are now rehabilitated and restored to temple service.6 As far as the redaction of Ezek 40–48 is concerned, it seems legitimate, therefore, to accept a stance similar to that of Zimmerli, who distinguishes in the vision Ezekiel’s basic text, enriched later by his “school” at the end of the Babylonian exile and the beginning of the post-exilic period. Zimmerli himself makes a reservation that due to the linguistic, stylistic and conceptual consistency of the priestly circles responsible for the redaction of the book of unequivocally Ezekiel, it is impossible to rule out Ezekiel’s authorship of the texts attributed to his “school.”7 For this reason, in the subsequent analysis of the selected fragments of Ezekiel’s closing vision concerning the land of Israel (43:1–12; 45:1–8; 47:1–12; 47:13–48:35), it will be assumed that these texts come from Ezekiel, either directly or indirectly through his disciples redacting his texts at the end of exile and in the first post-exilic years, unless there are reasons demanding a reconsideration of this claim. 1.1.2. The Synchronic Perspective. In the context of the present study’s interest in the land of Israel, it is necessary to discuss the rhetorical structure of Ezekiel’s final vision as regards its deployment of the motif of the land. Scholars agree that on the basis of its content the text of Ezek 40–48 may be divided into three parts that deal with (1) the new temple, (2) the new cult and (3) the new land. There is no unanimity among them, however, when it comes to the delimitation of these three parts, as illustrated by the list given below: •

(1) 40:1–42:20; (2) 43:1–46:24; (3) 47:1–48:35 (W. Zimmerli, L. C. Allen, H. Van Dyke Parunak);

6.  Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 632. 7.  Cf. W. Zimmerli, “Planungen für den Wiederaufbau nach der Katastrophe von 587,” VT 18 (1968): 233; idem, Ezekiel 2, 345. Acknowledging the difficulties in identifying the primary and secondary material in the book of Ezekiel due to its literary homogeneity, some scholars decide to attribute problematic material to Ezekiel (cf. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 228; Joyce, Ezekiel, 219).

172

• • •

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

(1) 40:1–43:11(12); (2) 43:13–46:24; (3) 47:1–48:35 (D. I. Block, C. J. H. Wright); (1) 40:1–43:11(12); (2) 44:1–46:24; (3) 47:13–48:35 (M. Greenberg); (1) 40:1–44:3; (2) 44:4–46:24; (3) 47:1–48:35 (M. Haran, H. F. Fuhs, R. W. Klein).

It seems, therefore, that the problems in determining the composition of Ezek 40–48 come down to the location of two fragments: Ezek 43:1–12 and 47:1–12. As for the first section, the delimitation 40:1–42:20 seems to be correct. Verses 40:1–4 include a narrative introduction, while the account of the journey proper begins in 40:5. Verse 40:5 constitutes the frame of the vision together with 42:15–20, to which it is connected via the deployment of the following words (as extreme terms): ‫“( חומה‬wall”) in 40:5; 42:20; ‫“( קנה‬measuring-rod”) in 40:5; 42:16, 17, 18, 19; the verb ‫“( מדד‬to measure”) in 40:5; 42:15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (absent in earlier verses of ch. 42). The account of the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple falls within the fragment of 43:1–12. Verse 12, starting with the formula “This is the law of the temple” (‫)זאת תורת הבית‬, functions as a heading introducing the regulations concerning access to the temple and the activities performed there8 (the subject is signalled indirectly in 43:11). The limits of the next section, 43:13–46:24, are indicated by two descriptive passages constituting the depiction of two elements of the temple presented before: the altar in 43:13–27 and the kitchens in the outer court in 46:19–24. From a rhetorical point of view, the first fragment is related to the text of 44:1–4, which returns to the subject of Yahweh’s Glory: the closing of the outer eastern gate is presented as an outcome of the passing of Yahweh’s Glory through it (cf. vv. 1–3), after which the statement of the Glory of Yahweh filling the temple is reiterated (v. 4). In this way “the law of the temple” is included in the text of 44:5–46:18, which has a concentric structure:9 8.  The expression “this is the law” appears at the end of a list of rules (e.g. Lev 11:46; 13:59; 14:32, 57) but also at its beginning (e.g. Lev 6:2, 7, 18; 7:1, 11). The material following Ezek 43:12 is termed ‫ תורת‬in 44:5, a name not used with reference to the preceding material concerning the temple’s description. The legislative character of the section of 43:13–46:18 is foreshadowed by the reference to ‫ חקות‬and ‫ תורת‬in 43:11 (cf. the discussion on the rhetorical position of Ezek 43:12 within chs. 40–48 in Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 590–91). 9.  Cf. Van Dyke Parunak, “The Literary Architecture of Ezekiel’s mar’ôṯ ’ĕlōhîm,” 73; his arguments are followed by Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 249–50; Block, The Book

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48 A

44:5–31

worship under the auspices of the priests

B 45:1–8 A′

45:9–46:18

173

the sacred contribution of the land for Yahweh – the allotment of the land to the priests, the prince and the city

worship under the auspices of the prince

The section focusing on “the law of the temple” thus has at its centre verses 45:1–8, which are devoted to the land of Israel, or, to be more precise, an area of the land called ‫“( תרומה‬contribution, gift”) with the temple and the land assigned to the priests, the Levites and the city. The vision of the water flowing from the temple (47:1–12) constitutes a separate rhetorical unit. This is indicated by the vision’s frame formed by the expression “water issuing (‫ )יצאים‬out of the temple/sanctuary” (vv. 1, 12; at the beginning of the account the temple is referred to as ‫הבית‬, while at the end it is referred to as ‫)המקדׁש‬. The beginning of the following unit is marked by the messenger formula in 47:13, which introduces Yahweh’s oracle, ending together with the vision in 48:35. The cohesion of the oracle stems not only from the subject of the land’s boundaries and its division but also from the recurring formula: “this is/these are” + an appropriate noun – “boundary” (‫ גה גבול‬in 47:13), “the names [of the tribes]” (‫ ואלה ׁשמות‬in 48:1), “its [the city’s] dimensions” (‫ואלה מדותיה‬ in 48:16), “the land” (‫ זאת הארץ‬in 48:29) and “the exits from the city” (‫ ואלה תוצאת העיר‬in 48:30). The rhetorical distinctness of the fragments of 47:1–12 and 47:13–48:35 is also corroborated by the presentation of the visional material: the vision of the temple spring has a dynamic character, while the description of the land’s division is static. The delimitation of the texts comprising Ezekiel’s vision in chs. 40–48 shows that Ezek 43:1–12 and 47:1–12 should be perceived as separate rhetorical units. As a result, the vision’s composition has a concentric structure, as schematically shown below:

of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 649–50; M. Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48), BBB 129 (Berlin: Philo, 2001), 26; J. Milgrom and D. I. Block, Ezekiel’s Hope: A Commentary on Ezekiel 38–48 (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012), 188–89. The parallel character of parts A and A′ is created through an identical introductory term, ‫רב־לכם‬, which in 44:6; 45:9 expresses God’s objection to earlier transgressions of the priests and the prince, as well as through an identical presentation of the priests and the prince: the two groups’ prior transgressions (44:5–8; 45:9–12); their participation in the new worship (44:9–27; 45:13–46:15; their inheritance in the new economy 44:28–31; 46:16–18).

174

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel A

40:1–42:20



B 43:1–12



the structure of the new temple the return of the Glory of Yahweh to the temple

C 43:13–46:24



B′ 47:1–12

A′

47:13–48:35

the structure of the new worship

the temple spring

the structure of the new land

The rhetorical analysis of Ezek 40–48 leads to several conclusions that may be formulated as regards the position of the land of Israel in the vision’s final format. The object of the vision – that is, the land of Israel – is presented in a progressive manner: at the outset it is presented merely as “a very high mountain” (40:2), while at the end it is as “the land allotted as an inheritance among the tribes of Israel” (48:29). Even though the vision is primarily devoted to the temple and worship, these issues are raised from the perspective of the land of Israel, whose restoration is strictly connected with the new temple. Furthermore, the vision’s concentric structure draws attention to the central position within chs. 40–48 of 45:1–8, devoted to the “sacred contribution” of the land of Israel, the area within which the temple is located and of which the priests, the prince and the city partake. The relationship between the new temple and the new land is construed in the vision’s structure by two texts: 43:1–12 (B) and 47:1–12 (B′). These two units function as narrative bridges between the three sections (A, C, A′) which expound on the topic of the temple, worship and land, respectively. As far as the two units’ content is concerned, they reveal the dynamics of the revitalization of the land of Israel. But for the return of the Glory of Yahweh (43:1–12), the temple would remain dead; without the temple spring flowing towards the Dead Sea (47:1–12), in turn, the land of Israel would be lifeless. Yahweh’s presence constitutes, therefore, the foundation for the restoration of the temple, worship and the land of Israel. It is in such a context that the closing text of the vision in 48:30–35 should be read. Even though the fragment is frequently treated as a later addition to the vision, not completely consistent with the subject matter of the land’s boundaries and division, it is rhetorically related to the vision’s narrative introduction in 40:1–4, which mentions “a structure like a city (‫ )כמבנה־עיר‬to the south” located on top of a “very high mountain” (40:2). When the Glory of Yahweh returns to the temple, the city is identified as the one earlier destroyed by Yahweh departing from the temple (cf. 43:3). The city is alluded to throughout the account of the land’s division (cf. 45:6, 7[×2];

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

175

48:15[×2], 17, 18 etc.), yet it is only at the end of the vision that the city is connected directly with Yahweh’s presence within the land of Israel, thanks to which the city gets a new name: “Yahweh is there” (48:35). The structure of Ezek 40–48 thus indicates that the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple is a key moment for the restoration of the land of Israel. For this reason, the subsequent analysis will concentrate on two fragments, 43:1–12 and 47:1–12, to determine the character of God’s renewed presence among his people and to show how this presence affects the status of the land of Israel. 1.2. The Return of Yahweh’s Glory to the Land of Israel (Ezekiel 43:1–12) As Ezekiel’s visions of the Glory of Yahweh indicate, Yahweh’s presence among his people remains inextricably connected with the subject of the land. In the Hebrew Bible’s theological reflection, the noun ‫ כבוד‬became a technical term to denote the invisible God’s effective and illuminating presence in history. Emphasizing the power of God’s actions, the word points to God’s immanence in the world without at the same time violating or questioning God’s transcendence. In the pre-exilic period the concept of Yahweh’s Glory was strictly connected with the Zion theology. Jerusalem’s fall and the temple’s destruction call into question one of the axioms of Israel’s faith – namely, the belief that the Glory of Yahweh is always present in the Jerusalem temple (cf. §I.1.2). Ezekiel’s reflection on Yahweh’s connection with the land of Israel is provoked by the prophet’s personal exposure to the Glory of Yahweh in the inaugurating vision of his prophetic activity in Babylonia (Ezek 1). God’s presence outside the Promised Land is confirmed in the second vision of Yahweh’s Glory (Ezek 8–11): the prophet witnesses the Glory of Yahweh as it departs from the Jerusalem temple, which is doomed to destruction. In light of the above, the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the new temple related in the third “divine vision” in 43:1–12 raises the question of the character of Ezekiel’s revision of the previous connection between Yahweh and the land of Israel, manifested through the presence of Yahweh’s Glory in the temple. To answer this question, it is necessary, on the one hand, to evaluate the consistency of Ezekiel’s theology of Yahweh’s Glory, and, on the other, to point out how the Glory of Yahweh affects the understanding of God’s relation to the land of Israel. In both cases, the analysis will refer to three aspects of Yahweh’s presence stemming from the return of his Glory in Ezek 43:1–12: freedom, reign and holiness.

176

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

1.2.1. Yahweh’s Freedom towards the Land of Israel. To interpret the vision of Yahweh’s Glory in Ezek 43:1–12, it is essential to refer to God’s earlier manifestations of his Glory to Ezekiel. The prophet indicates this need himself when he identifies his experience of the journey through the new temple with “the vision that [he] had seen when he came10 to destroy the city, and…the vision that [he] had seen by the river Chebar” (v. 3). The prophet thus treats as a reference point the inaugural vision of the Glory of Yahweh upon the Chebar River in Babylonia, described in ch. 1 (cf. 1:3). On the basis of this experience, Ezekiel recognizes the Glory of Yahweh in his subsequent vision, formally a part of his call to become a prophet in 3:23. In a similar vein, the object of the vision in the Jerusalem temple in chs. 8–11 is identified with “the same living creature which [Ezekiel] saw by the river of Chebar” (10:15, 20; in 10:22 the cherubim’s faces are identified in the same way). The allusion of Ezek 43:1–12 to chs. 8–11 is natural on account of the place in which the prophet sees the Glory of Yahweh: in both cases it is the temple, yet while in the earlier vision the Glory of Yahweh departs from the temple (cf. verbs of movement in 10:4, 18, 19; 11:23), in the concluding vision it returns to the new temple (cf. verbs of movement in 43:2, 4, 5). Even the route of Yahweh’s Glory is identical in both visions: the temple – the inner court’s eastern gate – the outer court’s eastern gate – the mountain to the east of the city (cf. 10:19; 11:23; 43:2, 4).11 Unlike in earlier visions, the description of the outward manifestation of Yahweh’s Glory in 43:1–12 is only one sentence long: “his voice was like the sound of many waters and the earth shone with his glory” (43:2). The chapter overlooks the chariot of Yahweh’s Glory, described in detail in chs. 1 and 10. The vision does not mention the living creatures crucial in the earlier visions (cf. 1:5, 8 etc.), identified in the second one as the cherubim (cf. 10:1, 2 etc.). The mobility of Yahweh’s Glory is not attributed to the movement of “the wheels” (cf. 1:15–21; 10:9–11), nor to 10.  MT reads here ‫“( בבאי‬when I came”). Such a reading is supported by LXX and Syr., but it is problematic due to the fact that Ezekiel does not participate in the city’s destruction in Ezek 8–11. Scholars offer two solutions here: they either treat the final ‫ י‬as an erroneous reading of ‫“ – בבאו( ו‬when he came”), which is confirmed by several manuscripts, Theodotion and Vulg., or as a miswritten abbreviation preserved in MT, [‫“( בבא י]הוה‬when Yahweh came”) (cf. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 242; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 574). 11.  The connection of the vision of Yahweh’s Glory in 43:1–12 with earlier visions is strengthened by the description of the prophet’s reaction to the Glory: he “fell on [his] face” (cf. 1:28; 43:3), “the spirit lifted” him and “brought [him]” to a specific place (cf. 8:3; 43:5).

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

177

the activity of “the spirit of life” (cf. 1:12, 20–21; 10:17). The emphasis is placed exclusively on the Glory of Yahweh. The sole reference to the sound effects accompanying the movement of the Glory is the mention of “the sound of many waters” (43:2), which indirectly alludes to the hum of the living creatures’ wings in 1:24. Similarly, the reference in 43:2 to the “shine” surrounding the returning Glory constitutes only an allusion to the motif of fire characteristic of earlier visions of Yahweh’s Glory – related either to the phenomenon of storm (cf. 1:4, 13–14) or to an incense altar (cf. 10:2) – which gives these visions the character of a judgment theophany. In the final vision, light emanates from the Glory itself, filling the whole earth in an intense way (cf. the verb ‫ אור‬in hiphil in 43:2). These scarce allusions to earlier visions draw attention to the Glory of Yahweh itself as a form of God’s presence, tied again to the temple. The return of Yahweh’s Glory is not, however, Ezekiel’s rehabilitation of the Zion theology; rather, it constitutes an ultimate confirmation of Yahweh’s freedom from the material signs of his presence connected with the holy space. The visions of Yahweh’s Glory in the book of Ezekiel confirm the prophet’s contestation of the Zion theology, which posits God’s constant presence in the Jerusalem temple. Yahweh’s activity is not tied to any material space. This is proved by, among other things, his departure from the temple (cf. 10:4, 18–19), leading to its destruction (cf. 10:3). The inaugural vision of Yahweh’s Glory in the Babylonian land precedes this event by over a year (cf. the chronological data from Ezek 1:2 compared to 8:1), showing that despite Yahweh’s choice of the temple as a space of his communion with his people, his activity is not restricted to the temple precinct. His presence is not to be understood in local or material terms, but in personal terms. Tying his name to Israel’s history (cf. 20:5), Yahweh remains with his people regardless of their location, even when it is the unclean land of Babylonia (cf. 4:13). The first wave of Judeans deported to Babylonia in 597 BCE are treated by the Jerusalemites as people “far away from Yahweh,” who supposedly is linked exclusively to the Jerusalem temple (cf. 11:15). Rejecting the Jerusalemites’ claims, Yahweh confirms his presence among the exiles in Babylonia as ‫מקדׁש‬ ‫( מעט‬11:16). The context of the statement makes it clear that such a form of his presence is not binding for God either, as it is to last only for the duration of the dispersion among the nations (cf. 11:17).12

12.  Cf. §III.3.1.3.

178

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

The return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple thus needs to be interpreted in the context of the new exodus, presented most fully in the theological overview of Israel’s history in ch. 20. The entrance into the Promised Land will be finalized “on [Yahweh’s] holy mountain, on the high mountain of Israel” (20:40), where God will accept his people as a pleasing offering. This prediction is confirmed in the vision of Israel’s restoration in chs. 40–48. Ezekiel is “brought to the land of Israel and set on a very high mountain” (40:1b–2a). On top of the mountain there is the temple, through which the prophet is guided (cf. chs. 40–42) before he witnesses the Glory of Yahweh enter through the outer court’s eastern gate (cf. 43:2) and the inner court’s eastern gate (cf. 43:3) to “fill the temple” (43:5). At this moment, the temple “lives” and becomes filled with people in the subsequent part of the vision. Even though the Glory of Yahweh “fill[s] the temple” (43:5), when God speaks later of his residence, he does not connect it with the temple, but rather with “the sons of Israel,” among whom he will “dwell” (cf. 43:7, 9). In this way, a personal – and not a material – character of God’s presence among his people is corroborated. This does not constitute, however, a return to the concepts of the Zion theology. God’s residence is of a definitive character, as indicated not only by the adverbial of time ‫ לעולם‬in 43:7, 9 but also by the closing of the outer eastern gate, which “shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for Yahweh, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut” (44:2). God’s self-imposed restriction does not result from Zion’s or the temple’s privileged position, but from God’s realization of his intention regarding the restored people of the covenant. The vision is in accord not only with the prophetic overview of Israel’s history in ch. 20, but also with the vision of the covenant of peace, which constitutes a culmination of the salvation oracles for the land of Israel in chs. 34–37. Even though in 37:26–28 God’s presence is related to the temple to which he returns, it is not the same temple that existed in the past. This is indicated by the manner in which the Glory of Yahweh returns to the temple independently of the cherubim, linked in the Zion theology to the Ark of the Covenant. A gradual departure from this connection is signalled already in the vision relating the abandonment of the temple by the Glory of Yahweh. Before being placed on the cherubim to proceed to the outer eastern gate (cf. 10:19), the Glory of Yahweh remains all the time active (it is the Glory that moves Ezekiel in his vision from Babylonia to Jerusalem, cf. 8:2–3) and mobile (it moves about independently of the cherubim, cf. 10:4, 18). Moreover, the Glory abandoning the temple is clearly identified with Yahweh. As Ezek 10:19–20 indicates, “the glory of the God of Israel,” which is above the cherubim (v. 19),

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

179

is the same as “the God of Israel” (v. 20). The process of removing the Glory of Yahweh from the cherubim, and – by inference – from the Ark of the Covenant, has been completed in Ezekiel’s final vision.13 During his journey through the new temple the prophet does not see the Ark of the Covenant, which is not referred to even indirectly as no mention is made of the cherubim in the context of the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple.14 The prophet perceives the Glory as God himself, treating ‫כבוד‬ as God’s name.15 It is God – “speaking from the temple” (43:6) – who communicates directly with Ezekiel to announce the sense of his Glory’s return to the new temple.16 1.2.2. Yahweh’s Reign over the Land of Israel. The Glory of Yahweh as seen by Ezekiel remains independent in its manifestation not only of the Jerusalem temple but also of the Ark of the Covenant, which in the Zion theology was connected with the idea of Yahweh’s rule. In his vision of the new temple filled by the Glory of Yahweh (cf. Ezek 43:5), Ezekiel does not mention the Ark of the Covenant, confirming in this way the fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecy: “When you are multiplied and increased in the land, Yahweh declares, they will no longer say, ‘The ark of the covenant of Yahweh.’ And it will not come to mind, nor will they remember it, nor 13.  Cf. J. Middlemas, “Exclusively Yahweh: Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ezekiel,” in Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. J. Day, LHBOTS 531 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2010), 309–34 (312–13); idem, The Divine Image: Prophetic Aniconic Rhetoric and Its Contribution to the Aniconism Debate, FAT II/74 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 71–72. 14.  According to Jill Middlemas, lack of reference to the cherub throne constitutes “aniconism in its fullest expression: the purified Temple will have no representative of Yahweh” (“Exclusively Yahweh,” 312). 15.  Cf. T. N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies, ConBOT 18 (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1982), 107. Finally, then, Ezekiel does not treat the Glory of Yahweh as God’s attribute, a being different from God and having distinct features (cf. J. T. Strong, “God’s Kābôd: The Presence of Yahweh in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Odell and Strong, eds., The Book of Ezekiel, 69–95 [81]). 16.  Jill Middlemas sees in this a literary strategy which “raises to the foreground the importance ascribed to the role of divine proclamation” and “contributes to the promotion of the word of Yahweh instead of an image” (“Divine Presence in Absence: Aniconism and Multiple Imaging in the Prophets,” in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism, ed. N. MacDonald and I. J. de Hulster, FAT II/61 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013], 182–211 [194]).

180

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

will they miss it, nor will it be made again. At that time they will call Jerusalem ‘The Throne of Yahweh’ ” (Jer 3:16–17a).17 Unlike Jeremiah, however, Ezekiel does not attribute the Ark’s function as Yahweh’s throne or its footstool to Jerusalem but to the temple, which in accord with Yahweh’s declaration will be “the place of [his] throne and the place of [his] feet”18 in the restored land of Israel (Ezek 43:7a). Deploying diction typical of royal ideology, Ezekiel identifies the temple with a royal palace, in which Yahweh resides among his people. The reference to the throne’s footstool in such a context emphasizes Yahweh’s reign and dominance (cf. Ps 110:1). Yahweh’s royal rule, manifested in the return of his Glory to the temple, encompasses not only the new people but also their leader (cf. 43:7b). The above-mentioned fact is noticeable already in the manner in which Yahweh enters the new temple. Situated in the context of an earlier depiction of the temple in Ezek 40–42, the account of Yahweh’s Glory returning to the temple in 43:1–12 follows the pattern of a deity’s possession of a temple built for it, familiar both from biblical and extrabiblical traditions: on the one hand, we have the biblical accounts of the sanctuary constructed in the desert (Exod 25–40; the coming of Yahweh’s Glory itself in 40:34–38) or of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 6–8; the coming of the Glory in 8:10–11) may be mentioned, while on the other, we have the story of Gudea, the king of Lagash, reconstructing the E-ninnu temple dedicated to the god Ningirsu, or Esarhaddon rebuilding Esagila, Marduk’s temple in Babylonia.19 Ezekiel, however, introduces some significant modifications to the conventional pattern. First of all, he does not mention the ruler’s participation in the rebuilding of the temple. 17.  It is impossible to determine the historical circumstances of the loss of the Ark of the Covenant, yet its omission in the list of objects appropriated or destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (cf. 2 Kgs 25:13–17; Jer 52:17–23) may suggest that it disappeared much earlier, possibly during Manasseh’s times. Cf. the discussion concerning this issue in A. Mozgol, “Arka Przymierza,” in Życie religijne w Biblii, ed. G. Witaszek (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 1999), 50–51. 18.  Literally, “the place of the soles of my feet” (‫)מקום כפות רגלי‬. Ezekiel deviates here from the conventional expression “the footstool for Yahweh’s feet” (cf. ‫הדם רגלי‬ in Isa 66:1; ‫ הדם־רגליו‬in Lam 2:1; Pss 99:5; 132:7). An expression similar to Ezekiel’s syntagma appears in Isa 60:13, where ‫ מקום רגלי‬functions as a synonym of ‫מקום‬ ‫מקדׁשי‬. 19.  These texts, together with other examples of the ancient Near Eastern narratives of a deity’s possession of a rebuilt temple, are analysed in Block, The God of the Nations, 139–45; Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48, 37–39; Stevenson, Vision of Transformation, 51–53.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

181

In his vision, Ezekiel wanders through the already completed temple, which awaits the return of its real ruler. Secondly, the Glory of Yahweh returns and fills the temple out of Yahweh’s own initiative and not due to a request made by some earthly king nor on account of the king’s placement of a material representation of God in the temple. It is Yahweh who resides in the temple and awaits the coming of his people led by the king, who accepts his subordinate status to God. Yahweh’s royal dominion over the future ruler of Israel is manifested also in the new temple’s topography. It is described in 43:7–9 and is framed by Yahweh’s declaration of his residing among his people (vv. 7a, 9b). In this context, the prophet mentions the new house of Israel, which will “never again defile [Yahweh’s] holy name” (v. 7b; cf. v. 8b). On the basis of the link between the vision of the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple with the earlier vision of its abandoning the temple in chs. 8–11, one would expect the repetition of the cultic offences mentioned in the earlier vision (cf. 8:3–18). Speaking of Yahweh’s return to his temple, the prophet, however, goes beyond the stereotypical generalizations of these offences as “abominations” (‫ תועבותם‬in 43:8b) and “harlotry” (‫ זנות‬in v. 7b) to enumerate the transgressions committed by the people and kings of Israel through which they questioned Yahweh’s royal reign. The first transgression of this kind is called ‫פגרי מלכיהם במותם‬ (v. 7b; in v. 9a the expression ‫ פגרי מלכיהם‬is repeated). The interpretation of the expression poses some problems mainly on account of the noun ‫פגר‬. Some scholars claim that, literally translated as “corpse, carcass,” the expression would allude to the royal graves situated in the vicinity of the temple and desecrating it.20 The kings, however, were buried in “the city of David,” far from the temple precinct.21 When compared to other Semitic languages, the word ‫ פגר‬may be connected to the cult of the deceased rulers. David Neiman cites Ugaritic and Phoenician inscriptions, in which the noun pgr has to be translated as “a stela,” to conclude that Ezek 43:7 alludes to memorial stelae erected to honour the deceased king.22 Jürgen H. Ebach, in turn, interprets ‫ פגר‬in the context of the

20.  Cf. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 464; Wevers, Ezekiel, 216; Cody, Ezekiel with an Excursus, 219. 21.  Two exceptions would be the burial of Manasseh (cf. 2 Kgs 21:18; 2 Chr 33:20) and Ammon (cf. 2 Kgs 21:26) in “the garden of Uzza” adjacent to the palace. The expression under analysis is linked to these events by Fohrer and Galling, Ezechiel, 243. 22.  Cf. D. Neiman, “Pgr: A Canaanite Cult-Object in the Old Testament,” JBL 67 (1948): 55–60. Such an interpretation is supported by the vocalization of the term

182

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Akkadian word pagrûm, denoting funerary offerings.23 As Daniel I. Block argues, regardless of whether the word ‫ פגר‬signifies stelae or offerings for the deceased kings, Ezekiel alludes in 43:7 to attempts to deify kings after their deaths, a practice familiar from Ugarit. Following this interpretation, in the wake of his return to the temple, Yahweh removes from it all the traces of the cult of the deceased rulers, through which the sanctity of the temple was violated and Yahweh’s royal rule was contested. Such an interpretation is corroborated by the second transgression mentioned by Ezekiel: that of a violation of the temple’s holiness by constructing a royal palace in its immediate vicinity – “threshold next to… threshold and…doorposts next to…doorposts, with only a wall between” the two buildings (43:8a). Even though 2 Kgs 11:2–3 confirms such a practice, Ezekiel’s description of the proximity of the two buildings seems hyperbolic.24 Nevertheless, the prophet alludes in this way to the kings’ attempts to take control over the temple and worship conducted there and to an instrumental treatment of Yahweh as furthering the monarchy’s interests. The Glory of Yahweh returning to the new temple confirms Yahweh’s royal dominion over the restored Israel. Unlike his predecessors, the future ruler of Israel is not called ‫“ – מלך‬king” (cf. Ezek 43:7, 9) – but is repeatedly called in Ezek 40–48, starting with 44:3, ‫“ – נׂשיא‬ruler, prince.” The analysis of this term’s deployment in Ezek 34:24 and 37:25 with reference to the future king of Israel, united after exile,25 has shown that Ezekiel uses the term to subordinate the king’s shepherding to the shepherding of Yahweh. The subjugation of ‫ נׂשיא‬to God is confirmed in the laws regulating the new worship. Despite his privileged position in worship vis-à-vis his people, the king remains a mere mortal. He is not entitled to pass through the outer eastern gate, through which the Glory of Yahweh entered the temple (cf. 44:3). He is prohibited from entering the Holy Place, as the area of the temple with the altar is reserved for the Zadokite priests only (cf. 46:2, 12). His obligation to provide the temple with appropriate sacrificial matter (cf. 45:17) confirms the ruler’s subjugation to Yahweh’s power. The future ruler’s dependence on Yahweh manifests itself also in the sphere of social life, particularly in the ‫ במותם‬as ‫מֹותם‬ ָ ‫ּב‬, ְ “in/after their death,” confirmed by numerous Hebrew manuscripts, Theodotion and the first printed editions of the Hebrew Bible (cf. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 3: 379). 23.  Cf. J. H. Ebach, “Pgr = (Toten-) Opfer? Ein Vorschlag zum Verständnis von Ez. 43.7, 9,” UF 3 (1971): 365–68. 24.  Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 585–86. 25.  Cf. §IV.1.3.3 n. 27.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

183

management of the land of Israel. Since the land belongs to Yahweh, the ruler is obliged by God to ensure the proper division of the land among the tribes of Israel and to respect the right of ownership established by God (cf. 45:8–9; 46:16–18).26 1.2.3. Yahweh as the Source of the Sanctity of the Land of Israel. The return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple also results in a new status of the land of Israel. This status is stipulated in “the law of the temple” (the expression ‫ זאת תורת הבית‬frames Ezek 47:12), which is developed in the subsequent part of the vision (cf. 43:13–46:24) and comes down to the fundamental principle: “upon the top of the mountain the whole area around is the most holy.” Walther Zimmerli perceives Ezek 43:12 as an autoreferential text: the holiness of the temple mountain constitutes the content of the law of the temple.27 The law aims to “separate the sacred (‫ )קדׁש‬from the profane (‫( ”)חל‬42:20), as a result of which “the holy portion of the land” (‫ ;קדׁש מן־הארץ‬45:4) may be distinguished. The holiness of the land stems from Yahweh’s presence in his temple. The sacred zone, however, is not restricted to the temple precinct circumscribed by the outer walls,28 but encompasses as well the surrounding area, as indicated by the employment of the terms ‫ כל‬and ‫ סביב סביב‬in Ezek 43:12. The area is considered a “most holy” place (‫ )קדׁש קדׁשים‬not as a result of the location there of the temple with its Holy of Holies (cf. ‫ קדׁש הקדׁשים‬in 41:4) but as a result of the holiness of Yahweh himself, the rays of whose Glory fills the land upon returning to the temple (cf. 43:2). Ezekiel does not specify in 43:12 the boundaries of the “most holy” area. Since the temple is located atop “a very high mountain” (cf. 40:2), “the top of the mountain” would correspond to the area surrounding the temple. Speaking of the land’s division, the prophet uses the expression ‫ קדׁש קדׁשים‬with reference to the temple’s Holy of Holies (‫( )דביר‬cf. 45:3), which was referred to in an almost identical way, albeit with an article, in 41:4 (‫)קדׁש הקדׁשים‬. In 48:12 the land called the “most holy” is identified with the sacred contribution (‫ )תרומת־הקדׁש‬for the priests: it is an area of 25,000 cubits in length and 10,000 cubits in width that is the location of the temple (cf. 48:10). This area, together with the gift of the land of the same size adjacent to it from the south and reserved for the Levites 26.  This issue will be discussed in more detail later, in §V.3. 27.  Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 419. 28.  Ezek 43:12 is interpreted in this way by Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 466; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 556; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 592; T. A. Rudnig, Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40–48, BZAW 287 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2000), 333.

184

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

(cf. 48:13), is called “holy”: “it shall be holy (‫ )קדׁש‬throughout its whole extent” (45:1; cf. the reference to the area as ‫ תרומת־הקדׁש‬in 45:6, 7[×2]). The area of the “sacred contribution” is thus divided into the “most holy” land, belonging to the priests, and the “holy” land, assigned to the Levites. Ezekiel’s view on the sanctity of the land of Israel is unique in the whole Hebrew Bible, as nowhere else but in his book is the expression the “most holy” used to refer to an area outside the temple.29 What is the relationship of this type of holiness to the Holy of Holies in the new temple? Walther Zimmerli interprets the presence of the article in the expression ‫ קדׁש הקדׁשים‬used with reference to ‫ דביר‬as an indication of the place’s quality. The same expression used without an article (‫קדׁש‬ ‫ )קדׁשים‬does not signify a space of lesser holiness but serves to indicate the difference between the sacred and the profane.30 Thanks to Yahweh’s presence, the area surrounding the temple is recognized as the most holy in the whole land of Israel. From the perspective of the Glory returning to the temple, it is an act of elevating the area over the rest of the land of Israel. At the same time, such a status of the temple and the adjacent land prompts the Israelites to respect the boundaries between sacrum and profanum not only within the temple precinct (42:20) but in each and every space of their existence (cf. the priests’ role in teaching people to distinguish between the sacred and the profane in 22:26; 44:23). In this way, God’s sanctity is to permeate the new Israel’s whole life. 1.3. Yahweh’s Presence Transforming the Land (Ezekiel 47:1–12) The return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple translates into the new status of the land of Israel, where the holy Yahweh’s presence among his people is made manifest. God’s presence affects not only the area adjacent to the temple, but, as the vision of the water springing from the temple’s threshold in Ezek 47:1–12 shows, it leads to the transformation of the whole land of Israel. This transformation will now be elaborated on from the territorial and theological perspectives. 1.3.1. The Territorial Dimension of the Land’s Transformation. The vision of the water issuing out of the temple constitutes “the climax” and “the crowning achievement” of Ezekiel’s final vision,31 during which the Glory 29.  Cf. R. Kasher, “Anthropomorphism, Holiness and Cult: A New Look at Ezekiel 40–48,” ZAW 110 (1998): 192–208 (202). 30.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 420. 31.  The first expression comes from H. F. Fuhs, Ezechiel II: 25–48, NEchB (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1988), 256, while the second comes from Vogt, Unter­ suchungen zum Buch Ezechiel, 172.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

185

of Yahweh returns to the new temple. All of a sudden, the prophet on his visional journey crosses the boundaries of the temple precinct and follows the water flowing towards the Dead Sea. In this way, the land of Israel becomes the object of the vision. The water issues out of the temple. Ezekiel may observe water flowing from under the temple’s threshold (47:1a) from the eastern gate of the inner court.32 Water flows down on the right side of the entrance to the temple (the level of the temple is higher than that of the inner court, cf. 40:49), continues along the temple’s front wall, passes from the south side the altar located in front of the temple and flows towards the eastern gate (47:1b). At this point Ezekiel stops observing water’s progression from within the temple – he departs through the outer northern gate to observe the water again from outside the temple, at the eastern gate. The gate remains closed after the passing of Yahweh’s Glory returning to the temple, yet it is no obstacle to the water springing from the temple, which the prophet now sees on the right side of the eastern gate (47:2b). The water is still a small stream, yet it is no longer a mere streamlet seeping from under the temple’s threshold but a bigger watercourse whose waters issue out from the earth more intensely, as signalled by the accompanying sound of gurgling.33 The stream’s subsequent flow to the east is described in 47:3–5 through a four-time repetition of the following pattern: the measuring (the verb ‫ )מדד‬of the distance of a thousand cubits by Ezekiel’s guide (cf. 40:3), who leads the prophet (the verb ‫ עבר‬in hiphil) through the water and then announces its depth. After each distance of 1,000 cubits the stream becomes deeper and deeper: at the first measurement the water reaches to Ezekiel’s ankles (v. 3); at the second one, his knees (v. 4a); and the third one, his hips (v. 4b). Following the distance of another 1,000 cubits it is impossible to ford the water (v. 5) – it is already a river (‫ )נחל‬to be swam through, as indicated by the expression ‫“( מי ׂשחו‬water to swim in”). Hence, approximately 2 km from the temple the stream becomes a regular river.

32.  Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 279, believes that the water springs from the Holy of Holies, whereby the prophet would have to stand at the entrance to the Holy Place. From this location, however, Ezekiel would not be able to see the water’s progression after exiting the temple (cf. 47:1b), for its flow along the temple’s façade and later to the south of the altar may only be seen if one faces the temple building. 33.  Etymologically speaking, the verb ‫ פכה‬in piel (“to trickle”) used in Ezek 47:2 is in an onomatopoeic relationship to the noun ‫“( פך‬a flask, a pitcher”), whose sound alludes to the gurgling of a liquid poured from a flask; cf. HALAT 2:875.

186

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

Ezekiel learns about the subsequent direction of the river flowing from the temple from his guide on the visionary journey. His words are a commentary on what the prophet sees as he is led back to the river’s mouth at the temple’s eastern gate (v. 6b). He sees at that point at the bank of the river “very many trees on one side and on the other” (v. 7) What Ezekiel cannot see but learns from his guide is that the “water flows out to the eastern region, descends to the Arabah and enters the sea, the sea of salty waters” (v. 8). The expression ‫“( הגלילה הקדמונה‬the eastern region”), used with reference to the area between Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, is Ezekiel’s lexical innovation – a hapax legomenon.34 Nowadays, the name ‫“( ערבה‬Arabah”) refers to a ravine, an extension of the Jordan Valley that connects the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba. In biblical times, however, the term was used to denote the Jordan Valley,35 which is 25 km wide in its southern part. The sea that Ezekiel’s river flows into is identified as the Dead Sea. The expression ‫אל־הימה המוצאים‬ used with reference to it is interpreted in a variety of ways in textual or philological circles: (1) with the correction to ‫( ההמוצאים‬from ‫– חמיץ‬ “seasoned, salted,” cf. Isa 30:24), the expression would denote “a sea of ְ ‫( ַה‬hophal part. formed from the salt”;36 (2) with the correction to ‫ּמּוצ ִאים‬ root ‫“ – צוא‬to be filthy, polluted”), the expression could be translated as “a polluted sea”;37 (3) taking into account the Syriac version’s wording, sry’, the phrase may be translated as “a sea of stagnant waters.”38 Due to the context of the fragment, mentioning later that a part of the sea is to be left unhealed to harvest salt from there (47:11), the first of the above interpretations seems the most legitimate. The salinity of the Dead Sea is 34.  Some scholars link the river flowing through “the eastern region” to the Wadi en-Nar, starting in the Kidron Valley (cf. W. R. Farmer, “The Geography of Ezekiel’s River of Life,” BA 19 [1956]: 17–22 [19]; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 513). 35.  In Deut 4:49 “the Arabah” denotes the eastern part of the Jordan Valley, while in Josh 12:8 denotes its western part. The term is also used with reference to the Dead Sea, called “the Sea of the Arabah” (cf. Deut 3:17; 4:49; Josh 3:16; 12:3). 36.  Such a reading is suggested in the critical apparatus of BHS and, among others, by Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 581, and Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 507. 37.  Such an interpretation was offered by G. R. Driver, “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Ezekiel,” Bib 19 (1938): 186–87, who was followed by, among others, Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 273, and Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 571. 38.  This reading is accepted by, among others, Wevers, Ezekiel, 229; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 688; Milgrom and Block, Ezekiel’s Hope, 228. The same direction is suggested also in the HUB critical apparatus, which as a supporting argument lists the Qere variant in 2 Kgs 10:27: ‫מֹוצאֹות‬ ָ ‫“( ְל‬a cloaca, a latrine”). In this context, “stagnant waters” would be “stinking” waters.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

187

estimated to be between 25 and 33 percent.39 Ezekiel’s vision, however, contains a promise that the sea will be “healed” by the river issuing out of the temple, thanks to which some of its waters will be transformed into sweet waters (47:8b), with other parts left unhealed for the mining of salt (47:11). With the appearance of fishes in the Dead Sea, fishing will flourish at the reservoir, as shown by the nets spread from “En-Gedi to En-Eglaim” (47:10). The first place is the oasis of Ain Jidi, situated on the west coast of the Dead Sea, some 56 km to the south-east of Jerusalem.40 It is difficult to determine the location of the other place: some scholars understand it as Eglath-Shelishiyah, located at the south-eastern coast of the Dead Sea, near Zoara, while others opt for Ein Feshkha, situated on the western coast, ca. 25 km to the north of En-Gedi and 3 km to the south of Qumran.41 The second interpretation is confirmed by Ezekiel’s political geography of the land of Israel, whose eastern boundary is marked by the Dead Sea (cf. 47:18). What is more, the interpretation is corroborated by the fact that the “swamps and marshes” are left unhealed to extract salt from there (47:11). Geological conditions indicate that the area is to be found in the south-eastern part of the Dead Sea, below the Lisan Peninsula. The water springing from the temple, described in Ezek 47:1–12, flows through the area to the east of Jerusalem, whose boundaries are marked by the Jordan Valley and the Dead Sea. The narrative evinces some topographical ambiguities, including the fact that Ezekiel overlooks in his vision the Mount of Olives situated to the east of the temple (cf. 11:23), which would constitute a natural obstacle for the river’s flow. These ambiguities, however, are not important from a theological point of view, which remains pivotal for interpreting the meaning of the vision in the context of the restoration of the land of Israel. 1.3.2. The Theological Dimension of the Land’s Transformation. Biblical scholars unanimously draw attention to the allusions to earlier biblical and extra-biblical traditions in Ezekiel’s vision of the water issuing out of the temple. In extra-biblical traditions, there is, for example, the mythical motif of the mountain of the gods, associated with Mount Zaphon.42 This 39.  Cf. U. Worschech, “Totes Meer,” NBL 3:910. 40.  Cf. J. M. Hamilton, “En-Gedi,” ABD 2:502. 41.  Cf. the debate concerning the location of En-Eglaim, with supporters of each interpretation mentioned, in G. A. Herion, “En-Eglaim,” ABD 2:501. 42.  Allusions to the mountain may be noticed in the oracle against the king of Tyre (Ezek 28:11–19), who initially lived “in Eden, in the garden of God” (v. 11), situated upon “the holy mountain of God” (v. 14; cf. v. 16). The reason for the

188

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

imagery informs the biblical texts speaking of Zion as a city located on “Mount Zion in the far north,” on Yahweh’s “holy mountain” (Ps 48:2–3). The streams of the river issuing out of there “make glad the city of God” (Ps 46:5). Through the incorporation of the aquatic motifs into the Zion theology, Jerusalem is presented as a “historical Eden.”43 In this context, the Gihon Spring44 is associated with one of the four rivers issuing out of the Garden of Eden (cf. Gen 2:13), while Zion with its temple constitutes the centre of the universe. Despite its departure from Jerusalem’s actual hydrological conditions, Zion’s aquatic vision assumes a metaphorical meaning in the biblical tradition. Its aim is to convey the soteriological message of Yahweh, whose presence and words transform Zion into a residential space for his people, with all the necessities of life guaranteed (cf. Isa 8:6–8; 12:3; 33:20–23).45 Ezekiel, however, introduces significant modifications to the aquatic metaphor of Zion. First of all, the aquatic metaphor with its allusions to Eden is not restricted to Zion only but is used with reference to the land of Israel. Even though the temple in Ezekiel’s vision is situated on the mountain (cf. Ezek 4:2; 43:12), there is no direct reference either to Zion or to Jerusalem. The water issues out of the temple, yet its beneficial influence is felt by the land the water flows through, transforming it into a new garden of Eden. In this context, lexicographical allusions to the language of the Priestly tradition employed in the first account of creation in the book of Genesis may be noticed: “every living creature” (‫)כל־נפׁש החיה‬, identified with fishes, is mentioned in Gen 1:21 (cf. v. 20) and Ezek 47:9; their multitude is expressed with the verb ‫“( ׁשרץ‬to swarm”); they are classified both in Gen 1:21 and Ezek 47:10 “according to [their] kind” (‫ למין‬+ suffix). Another paradisiacal motif is connected with the trees growing along the two banks of the river (Ezek 47:7, 12), which reference to “two rivers” (‫ )נחלים‬flowing from the temple in Ezek 47:9 is sought also in the Ugaritic mythology (the dual form present in MT is not confirmed by ancient translations, hence scholars correct it to sing). It is supposed to be an allusion to the royal capital of El, situated “at the source of the twin rivers, at the confluence of the double deeps” (KTU 1.4 IV 21–22) (cf. R. E. Clements, God and Temple [Oxford: Blackwell, 1965], 102 n. 2). 43.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 369. 44.  The Gihon Spring, situated in the Kidron Valley to the south of Ophel, was the only stable source of water for Jerusalem, with its annual output of 73,000 cubic metres (J. Wilkinson, “Ancient Jerusalem: Its Water Supply and Population,” PEQ 106 [1974]: 33–51 [33]). 45.  This aspect of Zion’s metaphorical depiction is analysed in a more detailed way in Pikor, Soteriologiczna metafora wody, 146–50, 230–35.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

189

are “somehow metamorphosed into one great ‘tree of life’ ”46 (cf. Gen 2:15–17). In Ezekiel’s vision, fruit-bearing trees seem to surpass the trees growing in the garden of Eden as regards their vegetative cycle: they bear fruit every month and their fruit never ends (cf. Ezek 47:12). What is more, their never-withering leaves are employed for medicinal purposes (‫( )תרופה‬cf. 47:12).47 The vision also makes repetitive use of the motif of extraordinary fertility and abundance of the re-created land. The adverbial “very many” (‫ )רב מאד‬appears three times: first, with reference to the number of trees lining the river on both sides (47:7), and later, to the fishes filling the river fed by the waters from the temple (47:9) as well as to the healed waters of the Dead Sea, whose fishes will numerically correspond to those in the Mediterranean Sea (47:10). At the same time, a pragmatic attitude to the natural resources of the land of Israel may be noticed; created anew, the land surpasses its erstwhile state, yet retains those qualities that have always contributed to its value. For this reason, the Dead Sea’s transformation into sweet waters does not affect the whole reservoir, for its southern part, called “swamps and marshes” (47:11),48 will be used for the harvesting of salt, a substance essential for household and cultic use (cf. 43:24) and a valuable object of trade. The vision of the water issuing out of the temple thus ultimately confirms earlier predictions of the restoration of the land of Israel, which likewise employed the motif of fertility and abundance (cf. Ezek 34:26–27; 36:8, 11, 30, 34–35). Secondly, in his metaphor of water, Ezekiel treats Yahweh as the metaphorized element. It is God’s personal presence among his people that becomes a source of blessing for the land.49 In this way, Ezekiel confirms his understanding of the presence of Yahweh’s Glory in the temple. Its return to the temple and presence there are confirmed by the closed outer eastern gate (cf. 44:2). It does not mean, however, that Yahweh is imprisoned within the temple walls. The water springing from the temple’s threshold follows the route earlier traversed by the returning Glory of Yahweh. Through the outer eastern gate (cf. 47:2) the water

46.  Wright, The Message of Ezekiel, 359. 47.  The image is even more evocative when one takes into consideration the motif of dry leaves as a metaphor of death (cf. Isa 64:5), used in the context of the aquatic metaphor to speak of a person’s attitude to God’s word (cf. Ps 1:3; Jer 17:8) 48.  Cf. the comments made in the previous section regarding the topography of the vision in Ezek 47. 49.  In the context of Ezekiel’s earlier predictions of the land’s restoration, it has to be emphasized that the land’s re-cultivation leading to its fertility and abundant crops is an outcome of Yahweh’s – and not human – activity (cf. Ezek 34:26–27; 36:29–30).

190

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

flows towards the east up to the Dead Sea. The cultic interpretation of this event, which perceives temple worship as a source of the land’s blessing, seems problematic.50 Ezekiel’s vision makes no allusion to the relationship of cause and effect between the new cult and the restoration of the land. Water’s symbolism as a source of life is transposed onto Yahweh, who through Ezekiel repeatedly confirmed his wish to keep Israel alive (cf. 18:32; 33:11). This wish is finally made manifest through the re-creation of the land. Even though the vision does not portray the transformation of the whole land of Israel, this does not mean that some parts of the land will remain unrenewed. The choice of the most sterile area, essentially the dead land of the Judean Desert, as well as of the most adverse waters, which deserve the name of the Dead Sea, shows in a spectacular manner that Yahweh is a God of life, and not of death. The life of God becomes the life of land, for “everything will live where the river goes” (47:9). Thirdly, Ezekiel’s vision presents Yahweh’s sanctity in a new way. The history that led to the Babylonian exile was marked by Israel’s sin, violating Yahweh’s sanctity in the sight of the nations (cf. 20:9, 14, 22; 36:20–21). At the same time, Yahweh’s concern for his holy name related to the history of the people of the covenant constitutes a source of Israel’s restoration (cf. 20:44; 36:22–23; 39:25). In the new temple and the new land Yahweh’s sanctity is to be guarded by a system of rigorous regulations concerning separation and gradation,51 outlined in chs. 40–46. However, the vision of the water flowing from the temple shows that Yahweh understands his sanctity not in terms of exclusivity, but in terms of selfoffering life. Residing among his people in the land of Israel, Yahweh offers an abundant gift of life, made manifest in the transformation of the Promised Land into a new garden of Eden. In this way, “divine sanctity and grace are not antithetical notions but perfect correlatives of the divine character.”52 The land’s restoration results from the renewal of the people of the covenant.53 The healing that the land experiences (cf. 47:8, 9) removes its curse and punishment, which resulted not only from human

50.  Cf. Clements, God and Temple, 102; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 280. 51.  Cf. M. Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” Int 38 (1984): 181–208 (203). 52.  Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 702. 53.  In this context, an analogy is noticeable between the prediction of the Israelites’ purification through being sprinkled with “clean water” in Ezek 36:25 (cf. §IV.2.2) and the land’s purification with the clean spring water flowing from the temple.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

191

sin but also from the land’s participation in it, especially in the context of idolatry (cf. §II.2.2.2).54 The removal of sin leads to the land’s purification and opens the way for its re-creation. Fourthly, in the pre-Ezekielian tradition of Zion, the water metaphor appears in the context of Yahweh’s military clash with Israel’s enemies, who are helpless when faced with the power of Zion’s waters. The image, familiar from Pss 46 and 48, culminates in a marine metaphor in Isa 33:21, 23, where Yahweh’s presence in Jerusalem is compared to the waters surrounding the city, a lethal element for the aggressor. The description of the water issuing out of the temple may also be understood as an attempt to emphasize Yahweh’s might. The water springing from under the temple’s threshold rises rapidly outside the temple’s walls, after ca. 2 km becoming a river that cannot be forded (cf. 47:5). Its power is also visible in the rapid regeneration of the land through which it flows – after the fourth measurement Ezekiel returns upstream (cf. 47:6b) and in the meantime “very many trees” have grown along the river’s banks (47:7).55 Finally, the water’s power is made manifest in the transformation of the major part of the Dead Sea into a sweet water reservoir (cf. 47:8). The powerful water originating from the temple is thus not presented as a destructive force but as a life-giving one. Observing the water’s flow regenerating the land, one may draw conclusions concerning God’s actions towards his people. Ezekiel makes use here not so much of the traditional image of the invincible Zion but rather of Isaiah’s picture of “gently flowing waters of Shiloah,” contrasted with “the waters of the River, strong and many” – a metaphor of Assyria’s power (Isa 8:6–8).56 The fourfold measurement of the distance of a thousand cubits, after which the depth of the water outside the temple’s walls is given (47:3–5), contributes to the narrative’s order and harmony, despite informing of the water’s rapid and unusual rise. The land’s transformation thus occurs

54.  The healing as a liberation from the curse resulting from human sin is symbolically signalled by the healing of the waters of the Dead Sea, whose state of death is linked in the biblical tradition to the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19) (cf. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 583; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 702). 55.  The ‫ והנה‬particle introducing in 47:7 the prophet’s comment on the trees on both sides of the river signals not so much the change in point of view (as Ezekiel is still the narrator) but rather the moment of astonishment the prophet feels at another view of the river from the perspective of the temple. 56.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 512–513; Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, 18; Hals, Ezekiel, 338; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 280.

192

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

without some radical upheaval, but in a gradual and continuous way, so that the land may enjoy a full blessing thanks to “the waters that issued out of the sanctuary” (47:12). From the perspective of the vision of the water issuing out of the temple, the key element of the future restoration of the land of Israel is Yahweh’s presence there. The book of Ezekiel’s closing vision of the new temple, the new cult and the new land signals this truth already in its rhetorical structure. The transition between the three major topics of the vision is construed first by the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple (43:1–12) and later by the vision of the temple spring (47:1–12). The renewed presence of Yahweh’s Glory in the temple confirms the freedom of God’s self-manifestation in front of Israel, which is not determined by the temple walls but is related to Yahweh’s personal relation with his people. Yahweh’s residence in the temple manifests his royal reign over the restored people. The Glory’s return foretells the finale of the new exodus, which will ultimately lead to the people of the covenant’s residence in the Promised Land. Yahweh’s presence generates the new status of the land, which is perceived not only as a material reality but, primarily, as a theological one. The regulations concerning the space of the temple and the division of the surrounding area serve to show Yahweh’s holiness. It is not of an exclusive or destructive character, though, but is a form of Yahweh’s gift of himself, whereby through his presence he creates the land of Israel anew. The vision of the water issuing out of the temple confirms God’s freedom in his actions: present in the temple, he nevertheless remains active also outside its limits. Ezekiel makes use here of certain precepts of the Zion theology, primarily through his deployment of its aquatic metaphor. He nevertheless introduces some crucial modifications, treating the restored land of Israel (and not Zion) as the new Eden – the space of Yahweh’s communion with his people. 2. The Theological Geography of the Land of Israel The return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple brings about the regeneration of the Promised Land, which is ready to welcome the people of the covenant. Israel’s future residence in the land is mentioned a few times in Ezekiel’s final vision of the Glory. The subsequent analysis will focus on the texts delineating the borders of the new land of Israel, both external (Ezek 47:15–20; cf. 48:1, 20) and internal, the latter being reflective of the tribal allotment of the land (48:1–29; cf. 45:1–8). The present study will aim, on the one hand, to identify the toponyms present in Ezekiel’s

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

193

description of the land’s boundaries and, on the other, to determine the theological foundations at the heart of such a perception of the land of Israel. 2.1. The External Borders of the Land of Israel The reconstruction of the borders of the land of Israel delineated in Ezek 47:15–20 is to some extent hypothetical due to the difficulties with the identification of some settlements located at the border, especially in the north and north-east. Ezekiel’s description of the land’s boundaries mentions some natural elements of the landscape too, but their topographical location is in itself a subject of debate. On top of that, to indicate the location of the border Ezekiel uses the word ‫גבול‬, which means not only “the border” as the line delimiting Israel’s territory (cf. 47:15, 17, 18, 20; 48:21) but also the “territory” or “area” (cf. 47:16, 17; 48:1) adjacent to the line of the border. Any attempt to identify the toponyms present in Ezek 47:15–20 will benefit from the parallel text of Num 34:2–12, which clarifies the borders of “the land of Canaan” (v. 2). In Moses’s speech related there, the description of the southern border corresponds to the toponyms used to demarcate Judah’s southern border in Josh 15:1–4. The relationship between these parallel delimitations of Israel’s territory will be treated in the section devoted to the theological message of Ezek 47:15–20. 2.1.1. The Identification of the Toponyms in Ezekiel 47:15–20. The description of Israel’s borders starts with the northern end of the country and proceeds in a clockwise fashion. The map on the following page will help point out the localization of some specific elements of the border. The northern border is depicted in Ezek 47:15–17 and, in a shortened form, in 48:1. The border starts at the Mediterranean Sea (“the great sea”) and goes through the following towns (vv. 15b–16): Hethlon, Lebo-hamath, Zedad, Berothah, Sibraim and Hazer-hatticon, located at the western end and identified in v. 17a (and also in 48:1) with Hazar-enon (cf. Num 34:10). Such a line corresponds to the one between “the territory of Damascus” (lying to the south) and “the territory of Hamath” (located to the north) (v. 17b). The key element in the determination of the northern border is the location of ‫לבוא־חמת‬.57 Even though the place is repeatedly 57.  In the MT the name of the place is divided into two parts in Ezek 47:15–16 through the insertion of the term ‫צדד‬. The variant of ‫ לבוא־חמת‬is confirmed by the appearance of the toponym in Ezek 48:1 as well as by the parallel text of Num 34:8, in which ‫ צדד‬follows ‫לבוא־חמת‬.

194

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as the northernmost point of Israel,58 its location is not clear. The majority of scholars believe that Lebo-hamath is located in the northern part of the Beqaa Valley and identify it with Lebweh, situated some 60 km to the north of Damascus.59

58.  Cf. Num 13:21; 34:8; Josh 13:5; Judg 3:3; 1 Kgs 8:65; 2 Kgs 14:25; 1 Chr 13:5; 2 Chr 7:8; Amos 6:14. 59.  Among them, the following studies may be enumerated: Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 528–29; Wevers, Ezekiel, 231; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 713; B. A. Levine, Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 534; Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen, 210; Z. Kallai, “The Patriarchal Boundaries, Canaan and the Land of Israel: Patterns and Application in Biblical Historiography,” in Studies in Biblical Historiography and Geography, BEATAJ 56 (Frankfurt a. Main: Lang, 2010), 115. Cf. the arguments supporting the identification of Lebo-Hamath with Lebweh in B. Maisler, “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Boundary of Canaan,” BJPES 12 (1946): 91–102 (Maisler, who later used the surname Mazar, published his article in Hebrew; his arguments are cited from Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 610–12); Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1979), 72–73.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

195

The identification of the other settlements marking the northern border takes into consideration the location of Lebo-Hamath in the northern part of the Beqaa Valley. Starting from the west end, the first place is Hethlon, mentioned in the Hebrew Bible only in Ezek 47:15 and 48:1. The parallel text of Num 34:7 helps to locate the place as it mentions Mount Hor – one of the peaks of the Lebanese range north of Byblos. Because of that, some scholars identify Hethlon with the modern Heitela, situated to the northeast of Tripoli.60 Zedad is linked to the modern town of the same name, located some 56 km to the north-east of Lebweh, not far from the ancient Riblah upon the Orontes.61 Berothah is mentioned one more time in the Hebrew Bible – in 2 Sam 8:8 – and should probably be identified with Bereitan, situated in the Beqaa Valley ca. 48 km to the north-west of Damascus.62 The precise location of Sibraim – mentioned in the Hebrew Bible only in Ezek 47:16 – was unknown even to Ezekiel, as he adds an adverbial of place to it: “between the territories of Damascus and Hamath.” At the furthest north-eastern point of the border there is Hazerhatticon. The place is identified with Qaryatein, a desert oasis about 110 km to the north-east of Damascus.63 The eastern border is described in Ezek 47:18 in a less precise way, at least when it comes to the northern part of the country. The border first lies between the territories of Damascus and Hauran and then follows the Yarmuk River at the northern border of Gilead before reaching the Jordan River. Then, the border is marked by the line of the Jordan River and the coast of the Dead Sea. The southernmost tip of the eastern border is Tamar, which would lie some 40 km to the south-west of the Dead Sea.64 The southern border proceeds “from Tamar southward to the waters of Meribath-kadesh, to the brook and the Great Sea” (Ezek 47:19; cf. 48:28). “The waters of Meribath-kadesh” is an alternative name for Kadeshbarnea at the southern tip of the Desert of Zin.65 “The brook” (‫)נחלה‬, called in Num 34:5 “the Brook of Egypt” (‫)נחלה מצרים‬, is typically identified with the Wadi el ’Arish, which flows into the Mediterranean Sea approximately 80 km to the south-west of Gaza, constituting the natural boundary between Judah and Egypt.66 60.  Cf. R. L. Roth, “Hethlon,” ABD 3:188. 61.  Cf. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 73. 62.  Cf. H. Avalos, “Berothah,” ABD 1:679. 63.  Cf. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 73; R. W. Younker, “Hazer-Hattikon,” ABD 3:86. 64.  Cf. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 74; J. K. Lott, “Tamar,” ABD 6:315. 65.  Cf. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 70. 66.  Cf. M. Görg, “Egypt, Brook of,” ABD 2:321.

196

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

The western border is formed by the Mediterranean Sea, called in Ezek 47:19, 20; 48:29 “the great sea.” The southern end of this part of the border is marked by the estuary of the Brook of Egypt, while the northern end is described in 47:20 as “a point opposite Lebo-hamath” (‫עד־נכח לבוא‬ ‫)חמת‬. 2.1.2. The Rhetorical Dimension of the New Borders of the Land of Israel. The above reconstruction of the borders of the land of Israel delineated in Ezek 47:15–20 takes into account a parallel text of Num 34:2–12. Both delimitations unanimously enumerate the following points located at the border:67 • • • •

the northern border: the great sea, Lebo-hamath, Zedad, Hazerenon; the eastern border: the Jordan, the Salt Sea/the Eastern Sea the southern border: Kades-barnea/Meribath-kadesh, the Brook of Egypt/the Brook, the Sea/the Eastern Sea the western border: the Great Sea.

Exegetes point out that the land of Israel whose borders are described in Num 34:2–12 and Ezek 47:15–20 excludes the Transjordan (from the Yarmuk River to the south) while including Philistia and Phoenicia. As far as the Transjordan is concerned, there is a difference between the book of Numbers and the book of Ezekiel: the former does not depict the Transjordan as belonging to “the land of Canaan” (cf. Num 34:11–12), yet it mentions the settling of the tribes of Israel there (cf. 34:13–14), making a claim in ch. 32 for the sake of “the inheritance” (cf. 32:19, 32) of the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Manasseh at the eastern bank of the Jordan. At the same time, there are some differences between the two texts which seem to support their independent delimitations of Israel’s territory. The borders are presented in a clockwise manner, yet the starting point of each text evinces a specific position of the writer: the description in the book of Ezekiel starts with the northern border, which suggests the view at Israel from the perspective of Babylonia (the returnees to the land will come from the north), while the account in the book of Numbers starts

67.  When variants of the same name appear, the first version is the toponym used in the book of Numbers, while the name appearing in the book of Ezekiel follows the solidus (/); cf. the enumeration of the parallels between these two texts in Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 597.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

197

from the south, corresponding to the perspective of the Israelites of the first exodus, entering the land from the direction of Egypt.68 The book of Ezekiel lists more reference points to identify the northern border, while the book of Numbers is more detailed when it comes to the eastern (e.g. the Sea of Chinnereth is mentioned in Num 34:11) and southern border. The line of the southern border as delineated in the book of Numbers corresponds to the one indicated in Josh 15:2–4. The borders sketched in Ezek 47:15–20, especially the northern and eastern ones, seem less detailed, as exemplified by the text’s reference to older borders of Assyrian provinces, either to indicate the location of places unknown to Ezekiel (e.g. Sibraim or Hazer-hatticon) or to determine the line of the border in areas with no topographical reference points. Regardless of some noticeable differences between the two texts, it has to be emphasized that they sketch almost identical borders of the land of Israel. The terminological and syntactical disparities between Num 34:2–12 and Ezek 47:15–20 prove the texts’ literary autonomy, due to which scholars search for a historical source of both depictions. The most frequently accepted opinion is that of Benjamin Mazar, who identifies the borders described in the two texts with the Egyptian province of Canaan from the second half of the thirteenth century BCE.69 However, as Kenneth D. Hutchens demonstrates, Mazar’s opinion is not fully convincing.70 First of all, there are no documents that would enable the reconstruction of the borders of the Egyptian province of Canaan. One can speak of “a vicious circle” here: Mazar refers to biblical texts to reconstruct Canaan’s borders to then argue that these borders correspond to Israel’s territory as delineated in Num 34:2–12 and Ezek 47:15–20. What is more, if Ezekiel was reconstructing the borders of the Egyptian province, he would not have

68.  Cf. D. H. Engelhard, “Ezekiel 47:13–48:29 as Royal Grant,” in Go to the Land I Will Show You: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young, ed. J. E. Coleson, V. H. Matthews and D. W. Young (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 45–56 (50). 69.  Maisler, “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Boundary of Canaan.” A similar viewpoint is expressed by, among others: R. de Vaux, “Le pays de Canaan,” JAOS 88 (1968): 28–30; Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 75; M. Weinfeld, “The Extent of the Promised Land – the Status of Transjordan,” in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 der Hebräischen Universität und das GeorgAugust-Universität, ed. G. Strecker, Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten 25 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 59–75 (65); Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, 116; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 715. 70.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 604–12.

198

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

omitted the Transjordan, which was controlled by the Egyptians.71 By the same token, the Sinai Peninsula, overlooked by Ezekiel, is treated in Egyptian texts as part of Canaan, as the description of its borders “from Sile up to Upi” makes clear.72 Another suggestion as to the source used by Ezekiel in his delimitation of Israel’s territory has been put forward by Steven S. Tuell. He considers the borders of the Persian satrapy of Abar-Nahara, described by Herodotus in The Histories (III, 91), as the prototype of the borders of the land of Israel in Ezek 47:15–20.73 However, apart from Herodotus’s account, there are no documents supporting such a delimitation of the Trans-Euphrates satrapy. Another problem that cannot be ignored is the fact that the area identified by Ezekiel as the land of Israel is significantly smaller than the satrapy of Abar-Nahara in Herodotus’ account, which includes also the Transjordan, the Phoenician coast, major part of Syria and Cyprus.74 The borders of the Egyptian province of Canaan and of the Persian satrapy of Abar-Nahara mentioned above significantly transcend the borders of the land of Israel as depicted in Ezek 47:15–20. For this reason, it seems necessary to seek another explanation of Ezekiel’s delimitation of the land of Israel. Hutchens interprets these borders in a cultic way: they do not signify so much the political autonomy of the land of Israel but rather its cultic status as a clean land, in opposition to the uncleanliness of the neighbouring lands.75 As Hutchens argues, the boundaries of the land, presented not only in Ezek 47:15–20 but also in Num 34:2–12, originated among the priestly circles that wished to control access to the temple by means of the land.76 The borders marked by the natural topography are to help determine whether an offering comes from a clean land. The 71.  Egyptian control of the Transjordan is proved by the cities located in the central Transjordan (e.g. Pehal and Botirat), which are mentioned in Egyptian texts as part of Egypt’s Asian dominion (cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 606–9). 72.  The quotation comes from Papyrus Anastasi III from the twelfth century BCE. Sile is situated on the eastern edge of the Nile delta, close to the border of the Sinai desert, while Upi is identified in Egyptian documents with a region of southern Syria including Damascus (cf. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 64–65; Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 604–5). 73.  Cf. Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48, 156–58. 74.  Cf. the criticism of Tuell’s point of view in Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 619; Rudnig, Heilig und Profan, 188; Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen, 283. 75.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 622. 76.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 623–25.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

199

toponyms demarcating the border serve to verify whether a worshipper has not lost his cleanliness by virtue of contact with an unclean land. Finally, the exclusion of the Transjordan from among Israel’s territory stems from a desire to eliminate the land that may lead to apostasy. This cultic concept of the borders is thought to have originated during the reign of King Josiah, who tried to reunify Israel, also through the centralization of worship in Jerusalem.77 The cultic interpretation of the borders presented in Ezek 47:15–20 seems problematic primarily on account of the misunderstanding of the concept of ritual un/cleanliness. Hutchens does not clarify what offerings may be unclean due to their origin outside the land of Israel. In general, it is only animal offerings that may be considered unclean. What matters, though, is not the place the animals come from but whether they are suitable for human consumption – that is, ritually clean (cf. Lev 11). The Hebrew Bible never mentions a possibility of a Jew’s ritual uncleanliness because of contact with an unclean (foreign) land.78 Finally, the exclusion of the Transjordan does not have to be treated as a preventive measure since Philistia, Damascus or Phoenicia have not been excluded. Ezekiel’s inclusion in Israel’s territory of the areas historically occupied by foreign nations provokes a question about the reasons behind such a revision of Israel’s land. As the above analysis proves, the land’s boundaries in Ezekiel’s account do not result from a desire to reconstruct the borders of a foreign administrative unit operative in this area some time in the past, nor are they formulated as a criterion of cultic purity. Thus, it seems essential to explore the concept of the borders of the land promised to the fathers (Ezek 47:14), to which the description in Ezek 47:10–15 refers. Moshe Weinfeld points out the discrepancies in the depictions of the eastern border of the Promised Land in the book of Deuteronomy and the book of Joshua.79 The latter depicts the moment of entry into the Promised Land as that of crossing the Jordan River after the disappearance of manna 77.  Cf. Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 627. 78.  The question of the land’s purity or impurity is crucial in the context of a possibility of worshipping Yahweh outside the land of Israel. It seems, however, that the problem does not lie in the status of the land as such but rather in the ancient practice of treating gods as national patrons, who could only be worshipped within the land they protected. That is how to explain the Syrian leader Naaman’s request made of Elisha to give him a load of Jewish soil on which he would be able to worship Yahweh after he returns to his homeland (cf. 2 Kgs 5:17). 79.  Cf. Weinfeld, “The Extent of the Promised Land – the Status of Transjordan,” 58, 65.

200

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

(cf. Josh 5:12) and the circumcision in Gilgal (cf. 5:2–9). Even though the eastern bank of the Jordan fell within the boundaries of Solomon’s kingdom (cf. the districts of Gilead and Mahanaim mentioned in 1 Kgs 4:13–14), the borders of the Promised Land were not adjusted. For the author of the book of Joshua, the Transjordan remains an unclean land (cf. 22:19, 25, 27), which Yahwistic tradition explains as an outcome of the moral wickedness of both the original inhabitants of the area (cf. Gen 13:13) as well as the Moabites and Ammonites living there later, having originated from the offspring of Lot’s incestuous relationship with his daughters (cf. Gen 19:30–38).80 In Deuteronomy, however, the Transjordan constitutes an integral part of the land Israel is to possess after their return from Egypt. The conquest of the land begins with the crossing of the Arnon River, an eastern tributary of the Dead Sea (cf. Deut 2:24–25). In his last speech, made on the top of Mount Nebo, Moses shows the borders of the land promised to the patriarchs, which includes also the Transjordan (cf. Deut 34:1–4). Such a vision of Israel’s borders seems inspired by King Josiah’s attempt at the territorial expansion of the kingdom, whose dimensions in the Deuteronomic tradition are truly imperial: “from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River, the river Euphrates, to the Western Sea” (Deut 11:24).81 The borders presented in Ezek 47:10–15 correspond to the areas which the book of Joshua treats as belonging to the Promised Land. According to Josh 11:17, the tribes of Israel are to conquer the land in the north “as far as Baal-gad in the Valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon.” The areas which are not conquered despite belonging to the Promised Land include “all Lebanon, toward the east, from Baal-gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath” (Josh 13:5; cf. Judg 3:3). The Philistine and Phoenician coasts of the Mediterranean Sea are mentioned among the areas still to be subdued (cf. Josh 13:3–4). This part of the Promised Land was conquered only by David (cf. 2 Sam 8:1–12), as a result of which the biblical tradition describes Solomon’s kingdom as stretching “from Lebo-hamath to the Brook of Egypt” (1 Kgs 8:65; 2 Chr 7:8; cf. 1 Chr 13:5).82 80.  Cf. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, 115; Klein, Ezekiel, 183. 81.  Cf. Weinfeld, “The Extent of the Promised Land – the Status of Transjordan,” 69. 82.  Israel will have similar borders in the north in the mid-eighth century BCE, under the rule of King Jeroboam II, whose kingdom extended “from Lebo-hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah” (2 Kgs 14:25; Amos 6:14 [Arabah signifies the Dead Sea here]).

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

201

The vision of the land of Israel in Ezek 47:10–15 refers, therefore, to the borders of Solomon’s kingdom, which are perceived as the realization of God’s command to conquer the land promised to the fathers. Even though the united monarchy encompassed also the Transjordan, the Deuteronomistic tradition locates the Promised Land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, and between Lebo-hamath and the Brook of Egypt. It is this perspective that is assumed by Ezekiel, who believes that the first exodus ended with a failure, hence God’s original plan for the land promised to the fathers, expressed in Egypt, still awaits its realization during the new exodus.83 The reference in this context to the boundaries of Solomon’s kingdom stems from cultic reasons. Biblical narratives mention the borders of his kingdom only after the consecration of the temple. “Solomon and with him all Israel, a great assembly, from Lebo-hamath to the Brook of Egypt” take part in this event (1 Kgs 8:65). The borders of Israel delineated in Ezek 47:10–15 seem, then, to demarcate an ideal space in which the restored people of the covenant are to create a cultic community. At the centre of the community lies “the sacred contribution” of the land, around which each tribe will be allotted its inheritance. 2.2. The Intertribal Borders within the Land of Israel The salvation oracles for the land of Israel in Ezek 34–37 end with a prediction that Israel and Judah will be reunited and ruled as one people and kingdom by one Davidic ruler (cf. 37:22). The prophecy is included in Ezekiel’s final vision, which after the presentation of the external borders of the restored Promised Land focuses in 48:1–35 on the land’s internal division among the tribes of Israel and on the interior structure of the “sacred contribution” of the land (48:8–22), outlined earlier in 45:1–8. The division of the land proposed in these texts seems to be based to a lesser extent on topographical conditions, emphasizing primarily the theological significance of Israel’s new internal borders.

83.  The vision of Israel’s history based on the pattern of the first and the new exodus is presented in Ezek 20 (cf. §III.1). In this context, it seems that the text of Ezek 47:10–15 was created independently of Num 34:2–10. The similarities between the two stem from their belonging to the Priestly tradition, yet the description of the borders in the book of Numbers is influenced by the Deuteronomic tradition, which indicates its post-exilic origin. The text of Num 32 and 34 is based on the assumption that the Israelites entering Canaan are rightful successors of Egypt, ruling over the area so far (cf. Levine, Numbers 21–36, 540).

202

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

2.2.1. The Distribution of Israel’s Tribes in the Restored Land. Formally speaking, the description of the land’s division among the tribes of Israel constitutes a continuation of an earlier presentation of external borders of the land, as indicated by the absence of the conventional formula in Ezek 48:1 that would function as an initial term. The order in which the inheritance of the subsequent tribes of Israel is presented in ch. 48 corresponds with the direction of the description of the land’s external borders in 47:15–20: the account starts with the northern part and ends with the southern one. The connection between the two descriptions is strengthened by the depiction of the northern border in 48:1, which is a sort of a summary of the description in 47:15–17, and by the reference to the southern border in 48:28, which is a repetition of the description in 47:19. Even though the presentation of the land’s internal division fails to mention directly the eastern and western borders, these must coincide with the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, respectively. This hypothesis is confirmed by the frame of the description, construed by the sentence opening the depiction of the outer borders (47:13) and the one ending the account of the intertribal division of the land (48:29) (in both sentences the root ‫ נחל‬is used with the direct object of ‫ הארץ‬and the indirect object ‫ ׁשבטי יׂשראל‬as dativus commodi). The external borders of the land are described through references to natural topography or to settlements located at the border. Such allusions, however, are missing in the description of the internal borders of the land. Taking into account Palestine’s lay of the land, one would expect the north-to-south orientation of the borders: starting at the Mediterranean Sea, Palestine is composed of a stretch of coastal valleys, a central mountain range and the Jordan crevice. Meanwhile, the division of the land among the tribes of Israel described in Ezek 48 occurs horizontally, along latitudes, starting at the northern border and ending at the southern one, and no details are provided that would make it possible to identify in a precise way either the exact location of a given area or its size.84 Each time an identical formula is used, which enables the reader only to determine the sequence of the twelve tribes’ inheritance: “adjoining the territory of [a given tribe] from the east side to the west, [another tribe], one portion.” The formula is modified three times: in 48:1, 28 it is enriched with the description of the northern border (adjacent to the tribe of Dan) and the southern border (adjacent to the tribe of Gad), while in 48:23 the description of the land allocated to the tribe of Benjamin is introduced with the expression “the rest of the tribes” as a phrase that 84.  Cf. the map of the new land of Israel on p. 194.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

203

continues the description of the intertribal borders from v. 8, interrupted in vv. 9–22 by the presentation of “the contribution” of the land (‫)תרומה‬ separating the land allocated to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. As a result, from the northern border to ‫ תרומה‬there is the land of, subsequently, the tribes of Dan, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben, and Judah, while from ‫ תרומה‬to the southern border there lies the land of Benjamin, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun and Gad. Alongside the twelve areas of land inherited by the tribes of Israel, there is a thirteenth part called ‫( תרומה‬48:8–22; cf. 45:1–8). It has a shape of a square whose sides are 25,000 cubits long (cf. 48:8, 20).85 It comprises three parts of land. The first one, 25,000 cubits long and 10,000 cubits wide (approximately 13,000 × 5,200 m), is reserved for the Zadokite priests, who are allowed to build their houses there (cf. 45:4). It is called “the sacred contribution for Yahweh” (‫ תרומה ליהוה קדׁש‬in 45:1), “the most holy place” (‫ קדׁש קדׁשים‬in 45:3; 48:12) or “the sacred contribution” (‫ תרומת־הקדׁש‬in 48:10). Such a categorization of the area stems from the location of the sanctuary there (cf. ‫ המקדׁש‬in 45:3, 4; 48:8). The land on which the temple is situated has the shape of a square with the sides 500 cubits long, surrounded by a buffer zone 50 cubits wide (cf. 45:2).86 The second part of the land comprising ‫ – תרומה‬25,000 cubits long and 10,000 cubits wide – is reserved for the Levites as their ‫( אחזה‬45:5). They have the right to use it, yet it does not constitute their hereditary possession. Together with the portion of the land reserved for the Zadokite priests, the part reserved for the Levites is called “the sacred contribution” (‫ )תרומת־הקדׁש‬in 45:6, 7; 48:18, 20, 21. The third part of ‫תרומה‬, 25,000 cubits long and 5,000 cubits wide (ca. 13,000 × 2,6000 metres), is the area of the city. The city itself has the shape of a square whose sides are 4,5000 cubits long (approximately 2340 m), surrounded by the pasture belt 250 cubits wide (ca. 130 m) (cf. 45:6; 48:16–17). To the west and east of the city there are fields 10,000 cubits long (48:18). This part of the land has the status of ‫( חל‬48:15), the opposite of ‫קדׁש‬, translated as “unholy, common or profane.” The city is inhabited by people from all the tribes of Israel (48:19; cf. 45:6), who as ‫העבד העיר‬ (“workers of the city”) serve the pilgrims coming to the city and make 85.  When converted to metres, the land has the size of ca. 13,000 by 13,000 m. The length of the cubit mentioned in Ezek 40:5, “each cubit: a forearm and a handsbreadth,” equals 0.52 m and is close to the ancient Egyptian royal cubit (0.53 m) (cf. R. de Vaux, Instytucje Starego Testamentu, trans. T. Brzegowy [Poznań: Pallotinum 2004], 212). 86.  The sanctuary has the size of approximately 260 × 260 m, while the buffer zone – the width of 26 m.

204

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

their living from the land located on the west and east side of the city (cf. 48:18–19). ‫ תרומה‬is bordered from the east and west side by the land of the prince (cf. 45:7; 48:21). Even though the vision enables a precise determination of the dimensions, function and ownership of the three parts of ‫תרומה‬, what is unclear is their location vis-à-vis one another. Most exegetes interpret the expression: ‫( היה המקדׁש בתוכו‬48:8) as a sign that the sanctuary needs to be located in the middle of ‫ תרומה‬and hence propose the central location of the land reserved for the priests, with the “contribution” of the land for the Levites located to the north and the land for the city – to the south.87 Such a viewpoint is based on the translation of the preposition ‫ בתוך‬in 48:8 as “in the middle of.” In such a case, however, there is a problem with the localization of the temple with the use of the same preposition in 48:10, 21, for each time “the middle” indicating the location of the sanctuary is different: in 48:8 the temple would be situated in the middle of the whole ‫תרומה‬, in 48:10 it would be the central point of the “contribution” given to the priests, while in 48:21 it would be in the middle of “the sacred contribution,” combining the land of the priests and the Levites.88 These three adverbials of place are not mutually contradictory only if the preposition ‫ בתוך‬is translated as “inside.” Since the land allotted to the tribes is presented from the north to the south, it has to be assumed that the description of the three parts of ‫ תרומה‬follows the same model. Hence, in the north, adjoining the land of the tribe of Judah, is the contribution of the priests with the sanctuary. Then, there is the land given to the Levites and further to the south, adjacent to the tribe of Benjamin – the gift of the land for the city.89 ‫ תרומה‬can thus be schematically presented in the following way: 87.  Cf. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 532; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 534–35; Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, 119–20; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 282–83; Stevenson, Vision of Transformation, 33–35; Fuhs, Ezechiel II: 25–48, 271; Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 658–59; Joyce, Ezekiel, 240. 88.  Cf. G. C. Macholz, “Noch einmal: Planungen für den Wiederaufbau nach der Katastrophe von 587. Erwägung zum Schlußteil des sog. ‘Verfassungsentwurf des Hesekiel,’ ” VT 19 (1969): 322–52 (335). 89.  Such a viewpoint is supported by Macholz, “Noch einmal: Planungen für den Wiederaufbau nach der Katastrophe von 587,” 335; Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” 202; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 732–33; Klein, Ezekiel, 191 n. 38; Konkel, Architektonik des Heiligen, 213, 221.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

205









Judah



  



7HPSOH î







The





Ŷ Priests



The prince’s land

Levites

 





prince’s land

 







&LW\ODQGV

 City



&LW\ODQGV









Benjamin 





If the intertribal borders delineated in Ezek 48 are to be compared to the land’s division related in Josh 13–19, significant divergences from the historical location of the tribes are noticeable in the former. To begin with, the tribes situated in the Transjordan – Gad, Reuben and half of Manasseh – are moved to Cisjordan. Reuben’s and Manasseh’s lands remains in the north, yet Gad’s area is located at the southern border of the land. Secondly, the tribes of Issachar and Zebulun, historically located in the north, are now situated in the south. Thirdly, the position of Benjamin and Judah vis-à-vis each other is reversed: Benjamin used to be situated to the north of Judah, but in Ezekiel’s vision it is located to the south of Judah, which joins the tribes located to the north of ‫תרומה‬. Furthermore, the land is divided into thirteen parts, the last one encompassing “the sacred contribution” (the land reserved for the Zadokite priests and the Levites) and “the property of the city” (cf. Ezek 48:21). There is no longer any mention of the 48 cities of the Levites scattered through the land of all the tribes of Israel (cf. Josh 21); instead, a “contribution” of the land is assigned to the Levites as a place of their residence. The city too – even though unnamed, yet implicitly identified with Jerusalem – is not located

206

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

in the land belonging to one of the tribes, namely Judah, but is inhabited by the Israelites from all the tribes (Ezek 45:6; 48:19). Finally, the land is not assigned to the tribes through the casting of lots (cf. Josh 18:6, 8, 10), but is assigned by the word of Yahweh, who gives each tribe its portion. How are we to explain Ezekiel’s departure from the historical and geographical realities of the division of the land of Israel? Is it an outcome of an idealistic, to some extent utopian, vision of the Promised Land or does it stem from a theological understanding of the land in the context of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel? 2.2.2. The Rhetoric of the New Intertribal Borders. In his analysis of Ezek 48, Daniel I. Block points out the artificiality of the division of the land of Israel sketched there, which makes its literal interpretation pointless. As he puts it, “one should construe this document not as a literary photograph of the land of Israel but as a cartographic painting by an artist with a particular theological agenda.”90 At the same time, one needs to acknowledge the practical attitude this theological vision manifests towards the tribes’ ownership of land, which is meant to modify the pre-exilic structures of the community of the covenant linked to the ownership of the Promised Land. The schematic character of the land assigned to each tribe in Ezek 48:1–7, 23–29, with no precise delimitation of the allotments’ borders provided, serves to emphasize the equality of all the tribes of Israel. Each of them receives as an inheritance an area of the same size, which is signalled by its qualification with the numeral ‫אחד‬. The principle of the land’s equal division is formulated explicitly at the outset of the description of the land’s external borders in 47:14: “You shall divide it for an inheritance, each like his brother” (‫)נחלתם אותה איׁש כאחיו‬. This constitutes a departure from the principle governing the original division of the land in Joshua’s times, when each tribe was given an area commensurate with its size (cf. Num 33:54). This led to tensions among the tribes, as evinced by the complaints directed at Joshua by Joseph’s progeny in Josh 17:14–18. They consider “the mountainous and wooded land” (v. 18) given to them as too small and unattractive due to its topography and vegetation. Such problems disappear when the land is divided horizontally from west to east, for the land each tribe receives consists then of some coastal terrain, a fragment of the central mountain range and a section of the Jordan Valley.91 90.  Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 723. 91.  The impression of the equal size of each tribe’s allotment wavers when one takes into account the genuine distance between the western and eastern borders of

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

207

The tribes’ equal participation in the land’s inheritance, however, does not nullify a certain tribal hierarchy governing the division of the land. It is not the quality of the land that matters, but rather the genealogical origin of a given tribe.92 This is indicated by the position of the tribes vis-à-vis “the sacred contribution” of the land with the sanctuary. On the basis of Gen 29–30, it may be claimed that the key lies in the maternal origin of a given tribe: the tribes deriving from Leah or Rachel, Jacob’s wives, are positioned centrally around ‫תרומה‬, while those mothered by Bilhah and Zilpah, the maids of Rachel and Leah, respectively, are situated at the northern and southern ends of the land. Such a genealogical order of the land of Israel from north to south is illustrated below: 'DQ



%LOKDK

$VKHU



=LOSDK

1DSKWDOL



%LOKDK

0DQDVVHK



5DFKHO

(SKUDLP



5DFKHO

5HXEHQ



/HDK

-XGDK



/HDK

³VDFUHGFRQWULEXWLRQ´





%HQMDPLQ



5DFKHO

6LPHRQ



/HDK

,VVDFKDU



/HDK

=HEXOXQ



/HDK

*DG



=LOSDK

the land of Israel described in 47:15–20: at the Sea of Galilee it is ca. 65 km, while at the Dead Sea – approximately 125 km, the same as the distance between the western and eastern borders above the spring of the Jordan. Ezek 48’s departure from the actual spread of the land between the eastern and western borders testifies to the fact that the text has a different aim than a mere cartographical representation of the internal borders of the country (cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 723). 92.  The genealogical order of the tribes in the land of Israel is unanimously accepted by biblical scholars; cf., e.g., Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 531–32; Fohrer and Galling, Ezechiel, 262; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 593; Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” 200; Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 280–81; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 723–24.

208

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

In this context, the changed position of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin needs to be addressed, since historically they should be reversed. Benjamin’s location in the south is typically explained as stemming from etymological reasons – the name literally means “son of the right hand,” which corresponds to the southern side.93 The allotments’ location vis-à-vis ‫ תרומה‬sheds light on yet another aspect of the new division of the land among the tribes of Israel. The tribes are positioned concentrically around “the sacred contribution” with seven tribes in the north and five in the south. This abandons the completely asymmetrical arrangement of the tribes – with ten in the north and two in the south – after entering the Promised Land, which later led to the division into the Northern and Southern Kingdoms (cf. 1 Kgs 11:30–31). The new division of the land puts an end to the divided monarchy. The shifting of Judah into Benjamin’s place – that is, the area of the former Kingdom of Israel – serves to strengthen people’s unity.94 What gets questioned in this way is not only the existence of any tribal centre but also the dominant position of the royal power in the land of Israel. This pertains also to land ownership since the ‫ נׂשיא‬receives as his inheritance the land to the west and east of ‫( תרומה‬cf. 45:7; 48:21). This precludes any possibility of the ruler’s claims to the land of any tribe of Israel (cf. 46:18).95

93.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 541; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 724; Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 641. Georg C. Macholz feels inclined to claim that the location of Benjamin’s land to the south of ‫תרומה‬, at the border of the city’s precinct, is a return to the original division of the land, when Jerusalem was located in Benjamin’s land (cf. Josh 18:16, 28) (“Noch einmal: Planungen für den Wiederaufbau nach der Katastrophe von 587,” 333). This statement, however, does not take into consideration the fact that in the division of the land proposed in Ezek 48 both the temple and the city (which is implicitly the temple) are located outside the inheritance of any tribe. Neither can one accept the interpretation of Moshe Greenberg that Judah’s transposition into the place of Benjamin – the smallest tribe – stems from a desire to humiliate the royal tribe of Judah (“The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” 200). This opinion may be rejected due to the fact that there is no reference to the actual size of the land inherited by the tribes before the exile; thus, size cannot function as a criterion governing the distribution of the tribes in the new land of Israel. 94.  Cf. M. Greenberg, “Idealism and Practicality in Numbers 35:4–5 and Ezekiel 48,” JAOS 88 (1968): 59–66 (64); Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, 118. 95.  The extent of the royal rule with reference to the new division of the land of Israel will be discussed in the final section of this chapter (§V.3.1).

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

209

The southern part of ‫ תרומה‬is the area of the city of Jerusalem. The city is inhabited by people from all the tribes of Israel (cf. Ezek 48:19) and the land belonging to the city is the property of “the whole house of Israel” (45:6). The city seems “an antithesis of the pre-exilic Jerusalem,” for it no longer belongs to one tribe nor is it the capital of the kingdom.96 A crucial fragment of the city’s description in vv. 48:30–35 alludes directly to the dimensions of the city given in 48:16, complementing them with extra details concerning the city’s walls and gates. These depart from the historical reality of the pre-exilic Jerusalem if one takes into account the number and names of the gates mentioned in the book of Jeremiah.97 There are twelve gates, named after the tribes’ protoplasts. There are two changes in relation to the names used earlier to describe the tribal distribution of the land: the names of Ephraim and Manasseh are substituted by the name of their father Joseph (cf. Ezek 47:13), while the twelfth place is occupied by Levi, whose tribe was not included in the list of the twelve tribes’ inheritance (cf. 48:1–7, 23–29), getting its allotment as part of “the sacred contribution” (cf. 48:13–14). The names of the twelve tribes of Israel are not given to the twelve gates of the city in the same order in which the land was divided between them (from north to south and from west to east) but follow the clockwise order of the presentation of the external borders of Israel (north–east–south–west, cf. 47:15–20), as illustrated by the diagram below: 

5HXEHQ

1DSKWDOL 

-XGDK

/HYL







-RVHSK

$VKHU 





%HQMDPLQ

*DG 





'DQ

,VVDFKDU

6LPHRQ







=HEXOXQ



96.  Macholz, “Noch einmal: Planungen für den Wiederaufbau nach der Katastrophe von 587,” 344. 97.  Jeremiah enumerates seven gates: the Potsherd Gate (Jer 19:2), the Corner Gate (31:38), the Horse Gate (31:40), the Benjamin Gate (20:2; 37:13; 38:7), the People’s Gate (17:19), the Middle Gate (39:3) and the Gate Between the Walls (52:7).

210

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

The reference to the external borders of the country as well as to the genealogical tradition in the description of the city gates enables the interpretation of the city as a microcosm of the land of Israel.98 The names of the twelve patriarchs used as proper names of the gates confirm that the city belongs to the whole Israel (cf. 45:6), just like its adjacent lands, which provide “the workers of the city from all the tribes of Israel” (48:19) with a living. Thus, it is not a royal city, but rather a sort of federal city that corroborates the ties between the twelve tribes. Such a system is not a consequence of some social or political tract, but is based on the covenant. This is indicated by the new name of the city: ‫( יהוה ׁשמה‬48:35). The statement that “Yahweh is there” does not make the city the centre of ‫ תרומה‬at the expense of the temple. The new name of the city, which desecrated its earlier name (cf. 22:5), shows that Yahweh is free in his manifestations and actions and that the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple does not mean God’s containment within its walls. At the same time, the relational character of Yahweh’s presence in the land of Israel is emphasized: God is where his people are. In the context of the city’s symbolism as a reflection of the people of the covenant inhabiting the Promised Land, the new name of the city ultimately points to Yahweh’s new covenant with Israel, which is realized in the restored land. In this way, the proper relationship between Yahweh, people and the land is restored. 2.3. The Sacral Concept of the Borders of the Land of Israel The above analysis of the new borders of Israel outlined in Ezek 40–48 indicates that the characterization of the borders is not strictly topographical, exposing also the theological understanding of the land of Israel as a constitutive element of Yahweh’s covenant with his people. In her doctoral dissertation devoted to the “territorial rhetoric” of Ezekiel’s final vision, Kalinda R. Stevenson argues that this rhetoric brings a transformation of the human geography of Israel, which violated Yahweh’s territory and resulted in his exile from his land.99 Hence, the restoration of Israel requires a new geography – a theological one. Its aim is to change the spatial organization of the land, which in accordance with Yahweh’s will is to be the space within which his covenant with Israel will be realized.100 Undoubtedly, the key role in this transformation of the space 98.  Cf. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 284; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 736. 99.  Cf. Stevenson, Vision of Transformation, 156. 100.  Cf. Stevenson, Vision of Transformation, 151–52.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

211

of the restored Israel will be played by the new borders, which are to separate the holy (‫ )קדׁש‬from the common (‫( )חל‬cf. Ezek 42:20). To what extent, however, are the new borders to guard sanctity and to what extent enable access to it?101 The central place in the land of Israel is occupied by ‫ תרומה‬with its temple. Even though it is not the geographical centre of the land, this “contribution” remains the theological centre for the existence of the people of the covenant. To express this idea, Ezekiel introduces an important semantic innovation to the meaning of the noun ‫תרומה‬.102 The term typically has a cultic usage. It denotes an object dedicated or given to Yahweh, which is viewed as holy and belonging to God while being intended for use by the priests in the sanctuary. The deployment of the noun in the book of Ezekiel proves the prophet’s familiarity with its cultic meaning (cf. 20:40; 41:30; 45:13, 16). The novelty, however, lies in the usage of the noun ‫ תרומה‬in 45:1–8 and 48:8–20 to refer to a section of the land of Israel. The division of ‫ תרומה‬into three parts is understandable when coupled with the internal structure of the temple shown earlier to Ezekiel. The three parts of the temple indicate three spheres (rings) of sanctity within the sanctuary’s outer walls. The Holy of Holies may be accessed only by Yahweh. The second ring, encompassing the remainder of the temple building and the adjacent sacristies, is the province of the Zadokite priests, who are entitled to “approach Yahweh” (42:13). The third ring includes the courtyard surrounded by the inner walls, where the altar is situated. This is the space of the Levites. Finally, the fourth ring is the outer court, open to lay worshippers. These elements have a concentric structure when it comes to each ring’s level of sanctity:103 with reference to the Holy of Holies, the sphere of the Zadokites is of the profane category; with reference to the Zadokites’ ring, the space of the Levites is profane; with reference to the Levites’ ring, the space of the temple open to the rest of the cultic community is profane. The same gradation of sanctity indicating access to a given place lies at the heart of the internal structure of ‫תרומה‬: “the sacred contribution for Yahweh” is “the most holy place” 101.  Stevenson interprets the borders sketched in Ezek 40–48 as an element separating the holy from the profane (Vision of Transformation, 37–38). The argument is problematic as it treats the two in an antagonistic fashion, at the same time viewing God’s sanctity as static. 102.  Cf. the semantic analysis of ‫ תרומה‬in Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 652–56. 103.  Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 571.

212

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

on account of the sanctuary situated there. This part of the land belongs to the Zadokites. “The holy place” is the land of the Levites. The city with the lands adjacent to it from the east and west is considered profane. This part called ‫ חל‬may be accessed by all the people of Israel. Like the division of the sanctuary into three spheres of sanctity, the division of ‫ תרומה‬into three parts of the land of varied sanctity does not mean, however, that God’s presence is limited to the Holy of Holies only. The vision of the city, with its twelve gates bearing the names of the patriarchs, is a symbolic picture of the land of Israel divided among the twelve tribes of Israel, among whom Yahweh is present. The temple, then, is not the only place where Yahweh is present. God’s holiness is of an expanding character, transforming the whole land and its inhabitants.104 This is illustrated by the vision of the water springing from the temple’s threshold (47:1–12). This aquatic metaphor of God’s life-giving activity is a confirmation of Yahweh’s presence among his people and of his blessing, reflected in the revitalization of the Promised Land and its return to the paradisiacal state.105 In light of the promise of the covenant of peace made in Ezek 37:26–28, God’s residence among his people is a source of Israel’s protection, welfare and salvation.106 God’s sanctity does not result in his containment; on the contrary, it makes him open to people, who are led into a life-sustaining relationship with him through the gift of the land. Yahweh thus manifests his holiness in the land of Israel. The external borders of the area inhabited by the twelve tribes are to protect the expanding sanctity as the source of Israel’s existence. Kenneth D. Hutchens interprets the borders of the land of Israel in a cultic way: their function is to protect the status of the land as one clean of the uncleanliness of the neighbouring lands.107 The role of the borders, however, exceeds the cultic one and is linked to Israel’s identity as the people of the covenant. The borders delineated in Ezek 47:15–20 invoke the Deuteronomistic concept of the borders, whereby the land of Israel stretches from Lebo-hamath to 104.  Soo J. Kim posits the existence in Ezek 40–48 of a third spatial category alongside holy and profane, namely, transitional space to which the city depicted in the third vision would belong, functioning as a gateway to the holy presence of Yahweh (cf. S. J. Kim, “Yahweh Shammah: The City as Gateway to the Presence,” JSOT 37 [2014]: 187–207 [188–89]). Kim completely overlooks the symbolic rendition of the land of Israel in the names of the twelve city gates (cf. ibid, 204–5). The symbolism of gates shows that Yahweh’s presence is not restricted to the temple only, as God is present among the people inhabiting the land of Israel. 105.  Cf. §V.1.3.2. 106.  Cf. §IV.2.3.2. 107.  Cf. §V.2.1.2 with its refutation of Hutchens’s point of view.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

213

the Brook of Egypt, encompasses the whole coast of the Mediterranean Sea in the west and stops at the Jordan River in the east. This is a reconstitution of the borders of the land Yahweh originally promised to the patriarchs (cf. 47:14), which was the space of life for the community centred around the first temple in Solomon’s times (cf. 1 Kgs 8:65). The aim of the new exodus is thus not only a return from exile – ultimately, it is the realization of the promise of the land, fundamental for the relationship of the covenant (cf. 20:6). The failure of the first exodus shown in ch. 20 places in the future the existence of Israel’s complete communion with Yahweh, who will accept his people as a pleasing offering in his temple in the land of Israel (cf. 20:40–41). All the tribes of Israel will partake of the new relationship with Yahweh. For practical reasons, however, it is impossible for each tribe to get as its inheritance the land situated at the same distance from the sanctuary. Hence, there was a need to resort to the genealogical criterion, according to which ‫ תרומה‬is surrounded by the tribes mothered by Leah and Rachel, Jacob’s rightful wives. It does not mean, though, that any of the tribes has a privileged relationship with Yahweh on account of their proximity to “the sacred contribution” of the land (the obvious exception here is the tribe of Levi due to the priestly functions assigned to it) or that any of the tribes morally surpasses any other.108 There is at the same time no indication in ch. 48 that the location of the majority of the tribes to the north of the sanctuary signalled their task of protecting the sanctuary from a hypothetical enemy, traditionally coming from the north.109 The equality of the twelve tribes in their relationship of the covenant with Yahweh, also at the cultic level, is confirmed by the symbolic portrayal of the land of Israel as the twelve gates named after the patriarchs (48:30–35). Present among his people, Yahweh wishes to be to the same extent a source of life and sanctity of every tribe. Yahweh’s presence in the land of Israel lies at the heart of its sacral character. Only a fragment of the land is reserved for Yahweh as “the sacred contribution,” where the sanctuary is located. Nevertheless, the status of the rest of the land as ‫ חל‬does not mean the land’s “non-sanctity”; rather, it indicates its common, lay usage, which needs to respect the land’s cleanliness as a prerequisite for Yahweh’s presence there. This is the people’s response to God’s holiness postulated by Ezekiel. The 108.  The latter claim is made by Iain M. Duguid, who sees the proximity of certain tribes to the temple as proof that in the past they were more faithful to Yahweh than other tribes (cf. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, 133–40). 109.  Such an interpretation is put forward by Hutchens, “Although Yahweh Was There,” 642.

214

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

transcendent God becomes immanent through his presence in the land of Israel. Profane by nature, the land is, in turn, called to become open to the transcendence of God, its Creator and Lord. It is not only a question of people’s transcending or guarding some topographical or architectural boundaries. The land’s purity requires that “the difference between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean” be respected (22:26; 44:23). The admonition pertains not only to the sphere of worship but also that of social life, which witnessed in the past the desecration of the land, also through the violation of its ownership (cf. 45:8–9). For this reason, the principle underlying the land’s division – “each like his brother” (47:14) – is still in force in the community of the covenant as a border protecting the purity of the land of Israel. 3. The Land as the Inheritance of the People of the Covenant Rejecting the claims to the land of Israel put forward by the nations, Yahweh calls it “the inheritance (‫ )נחלה‬of the house of Israel” (Ezek 35:15). The Babylonian exile does not nullify such a status of the land, since it will be “possessed” (‫ )ירׁש‬precisely as ‫ נחלה‬by the new people of the covenant returning from exile and identified by God as “my people Israel” (36:12). The vision of the restored Israel in Ezek 40–48 is not restricted only to the outlining of the boundaries of the land within which the promise will be fulfilled, but it indicates as well certain rules of the land’s division thanks to which it will remain ‫ נחלה‬for the tribes of Israel. One rule is the twelve tribes’ equal participation in the inheritance of the land, which is especially exposed in the regulations concerning the land of the ruler (cf. 45:8–9; 46:16–18). Secondly, the inheritance of the land of Israel is given not only to the twelve tribes (cf. 47:13–14, 21; 48:29) but also to the aliens (‫ )גרים‬residing in the land (cf. 47:22–23). 3.1. The Inheriting of the Land by Israel’s Tribes The future division of the land of Israel among the twelve tribes will result in the apportionment of the land of equal size to each of the tribes, according to the rule formulated in Ezek 47:14: “you shall divide it for an inheritance, each like his brother” (‫)נחלתם אותה איׁש כאחיו‬. The term “brother” refers here explicitly to Jacob’s sons, whose names are mentioned as eponyms of individual tribes in the description of the new distribution of the land in 48:1–7, 23–28 (cf. §V.2.2.2). Implicitly though, the rule of equal division of the land is also to pertain to the distribution of the land within a given tribe among clans and families. This can be deduced from the law concerning the royal land stipulated in 46:16–18.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

215

Formulated in a casuistic way, the law constitutes in a way a legislative version of the prophetic admonition against Israel’s rulers expressed in 45:8b–9.110 Even though the text of 46:16–18 focuses on the prince’s inheritance, it may be used to deduce the norms pertaining to all the tribes as far as the inheritance of the land is concerned. The allotment to the ruler of the land adjacent to ‫“ – תרומה‬the sacred contribution” – as his “inheritance” (‫( )נחלה‬cf. 45:7–8a; 48:21) is unheard of in the legislation of the Pentateuch. In the book of Ezekiel, this fact is presented as a future basis for the protection of land ownership. The institution of monarchy in Israel by its very nature violated the principle of the land’s inheritance by tribes, clans and families, which Samuel warned the clan leaders about when they asked for a king to be appointed (cf. 1 Sam 8:14). The king expanded his property in various ways, by purchasing the land (cf. 2 Sam 24:24; 1 Kgs 16:24), getting it as a tribute (cf. 1 Kgs 9:16) or inheriting it (cf. 2 Sam 9:7–10; 16:4; 19:30). At times, however, the king seized the land belonging to others, violating the land’s ownership, as evinced, for example, by Ahab’s seizure of Naboth’s vineyard (cf. 1 Kgs 21) or Joram’s confiscation of the fields belonging to a Shunammite woman forced by famine to leave the country (cf. 2 Kgs 8:3, 6).111 In this context, it is understandable why Yahweh calls the rulers to “put an end to [their] evictions (‫ )גרׁשה‬of my people” (45:9).112 Such acts of violence performed by the monarch are described with the use of the verb ‫ינה‬ in hiphil as “oppressing [Yahweh’s] people” in 45:8, and in 46:18 – as “evicting them from their possessions.”113 Through the allotment of his own land as ‫נחלה‬, the ruler is made equal to his people when it comes to 110.  Cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 496. 111.  Some exegetes view the land owned by the woman as fief granted by the crown. However, the reference to her in 2 Kgs 4:8 as “a wealthy woman” (‫אׁשה‬ ‫ )גדולה‬suggests that she inherited the land from her husband (cf. Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 88). 112.  In opposition to the singular form used in 46:16–18, the appearance of the term ‫ נׂשיא‬in the plural form in 45:8, 9 to refer to the addressees of the admonition (“the princes of Israel”) suggests that the prophet has in mind the past rulers of Israel, who he accuses of committing acts of violence and injustice towards their subjects. The retrospective character of the commands in 45:9 is confirmed by the plural form ‫ מלכיהם‬in 43:7, which enumerates the cultic transgressions of the past kings of Israel (cf. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 472; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 665). 113.  In the syntagma ‫להונתם מאחזתם‬, the preposition ‫ מן‬plays a directional function, whereby the verb ‫ ינה‬in hiphil means “to oppress someone” in the sense of driving them out of their inheritance (DCH 4:230).

216

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

land ownership. Thus, the restored Israel will be in the future “a nation of free citizens, all of whom have equal rights regarding the ownership and occupation of land.”114 The law that the ruler is to abide by corroborates the familial character of the land’s inheritance. As ‫נחלה‬, the land is a non-transferable property of a given family. The same principle applies to the royal family too, as illustrated by two examples. If a ruler gives his son part of the land, it becomes the son’s property (‫ )אחזה‬by inheritance (‫)בנחלה‬. In this way, the land still remains within the hands of the royal family (46:16, 17b). If, however, a king wishes to give part of his land to one of his servants, it will remain his only until “the year of the release” (‫)עד־ׁשנת הדרור‬, when it will be returned to the royal family (46:17a). The term ‫ דרור‬appears in the Hebrew Bible in the context of the Sabbath year to refer to the release of a Jewish slave (cf. Jer 34:8, 15, 17). It does not seem correct, however, to assume that the period of seven years is implied in the context of the land’s return to its owner. In Lev 25:10 the same word ‫ דרור‬is used with reference to the Year of Jubilee (‫)ׁשנת היובל‬, which occurs every fifty years, when everyone “return[s] to [his] property (‫( ”)לאחזתו‬Lev 25:13, 28). Ezekiel modifies this regulation, speaking of the land’s return in the Year of Jubilee to its genuine owner – in this case, the monarch. As indicated by the situation described in Ezek 46:18, the ruler needs to respect his own inheritance of the land as well as the land which is his people’s inheritance: the prince cannot drive its rightful owners from the land to give it to his own sons as their inheritance. In this context, the perspective on the land inherited by the tribes is substantially widened. The appropriation of the land by the ruler is described in 46:18 with the use of the above-mentioned verb ‫ ינה‬in hiphil, which is used as a parallel to the verb ‫פוץ‬. The latter appears in 11:16, 17; 20:34, 41; 28:25; 36:19 (cf. 34:5–6, 21) with reference to the Babylonian exile as the scattering of the house of Israel among the nations. In this way, the relationship between a given family and its inheritance of the land seems a reflection of the relation between the people of the covenant and the Promised Land.115 Both ties are inviolable, because such is the will of Yahweh, the owner of the land of Israel (cf. Lev 25:23). Both the future monarch and the tribes of Israel returning to the restored land are subjected to the same laws governing land ownership; even so, what is emphasized is the monarch’s special role of enforcing the principle of equal division of the land among the tribes. The ruler is called to “give the land to the house of Israel according to their tribes” 114.  Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 681. 115.  Cf. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 680.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

217

(45:8). That is not the end of his role, though, for he is also to protect the inviolable character of the inheritance of families, clans and tribes. He is the first to respect the land as ‫ נחלה‬by “put[ting] away violence and destruction, and practic[ing] justice and righteousness” (45:9).116 In this way, the ruler is to promote law and justice as the basis of life in the restored land of Israel (cf. 37:24). 3.2. The Inheriting of the Land by ‫גור‬ The text of Ezek 47:21–23, with its command of allotting the land of Israel as ‫ נחלה‬for resident aliens, is considered by some scholars a redactional expansion by Ezekiel’s disciples.117 In a way, it may be treated as a correction of the command to divide the land among the tribes of Israel formulated in 47:13–14. The parallel character of the two texts, construed especially by the repetition of the expression ‫ נפל בנחלה‬in 47:14 and 47:22[×2], in a crucial way expands the earlier command to divide the land: it is to be “allot[ted] as an inheritance” by the tribes of Israel for themselves and “for the aliens (‫ )להגרים‬who reside among” them (47:22). The rhetorical position of this prediction – before the detailed description of the land’s division among the twelve tribes in 48:1–29 – emphasizes the theological significance of the aliens’ entitlement to the land being Israel’s ‫נחלה‬. Such a right is not articulated in any other text of the Hebrew Bible, yet it is consistent with Ezekiel’s understanding of the relationship between Yahweh, the land and Israel. The key question here is the identity of ‫גרים‬, who are to partake of Israel’s inheritance of the land. 3.2.1. The Status of ‫ גור‬in the Hebrew Bible. A person named ‫ גור‬in the Hebrew Bible lives among people he has no blood ties to, for which reason he is deprived of protection and privileges stemming from birth and kinship. The legal and religious status of a foreigner residing in the land of Israel evolved over centuries, as signalled by the changing emphasis in the term ‫ גור‬from the sociological meaning (as a resident alien) to a religious one (as a proselyte).118 116.  The admonition is evocative of a typically Ezekielian description of a just man, which appears in the context of the prophet’s mission as a guard over the house of Israel (cf. Ezek 18:5, 19, 21, 27; 33:14, 16, 19). 117.  Cf. H. Gese, Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditions­ geschichtlich untersucht, BHT 25 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957), 98–99; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 526, 532; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 705. 118.  This semantic change was first indicated by A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden (Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1896), 2, 103, 174–78. The subsequent observations on the semantic evolution of the term

218

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

The Covenant Code, the oldest biblical legislative text,119 includes a prohibition against the oppression of ‫( גור‬Exod 22:20; 23:9), just like that of widows or orphans (cf. Exod 22:21). The law was probably intended to integrate the refugees from the Northern Kingdom, who sought shelter in Judah after their country’s conquest by Assyria and became victims of xenophobia made manifest by the inhabitants of the Southern Kingdom.120 The Judean landowners’ sympathy towards ‫( גרים‬cf. 23:12) should stem from the fact that the chosen people themselves had once been “aliens” in Egypt. The Deuteronomic Code from the end of the seventh and the beginning of the sixth century BCE expands the legislation concerning ‫גרים‬: it forbids the discrimination of resident aliens in courts of law (Deut 24:17–18) and admonishes both the community and its individual members to take care of ‫ גרים‬in a way analogous to orphans, widows and the Levites.121 The social care for aliens was to become a feature of Israel’s religious identity, reflective of Yahweh’s love for ‫( גרים‬cf. 10:17–19).122 Social integration of ‫ גרים‬is proved by the fact that they belong within the poor who are “within [Israel’s] gates” (5:14; 14:21, 29; 16:11 etc.), working as hired servants for Jewish families (cf. 24:14123). ‫ גור‬in the Hebrew Bible are drawn from: D. Kellermann, “‫גוּר‬,” ThWAT 1:979–91; R. Achenbach, “gêr – nakhrî – tôshav – zâr: Legal and Sacral Distinctions regarding Foreigners in the Pentateuch,” in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. R. Achenbach, R. Albertz and J. Wöhrle, BZAR 16 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011), 29–51, and, in the same volume, R. Albertz, “From Aliens to Proselytes: Non-Priestly and Priestly Legislation Concerning Strangers,” 53–69. 119.  Cf. the discussion of the redaction of the Covenant Code in P. Weimar, “Bundesbuch,” NBL 1:354–55. According to Weimar, the laws concerning ‫ גרים‬in Exod 22:20; 23:9 belong to the oldest part of the code, formulated in the ninth to eighth centuries BCE. 120.  Cf. Achenbach, “gêr – nakhrî – tôshav – zâr,” 30; Albertz, “From Aliens to Proselytes,” 54. 121.  Cf. the order to leave for them the tithe of the crops every third year in Deut 14:28–29; 26:12–13 or to give them the second harvest of vineyards, olive trees and fields in 24:19–22. 122.  Cf. Albertz, “From Aliens to Proselytes,” 55. The need to strengthen the legal protection of ‫ גרים‬may, however, suggest that the social situation of resident aliens deteriorated in the last years of the Judean Kingdom. 123.  The prohibition in Deut 24:14 against harming a hired servant, a “brother” as well as an “alien,” shows that “the ethic of brotherhood provides the foundation for social solidarity beyond genealogical boundaries” (Achenbach, “gêr – nakhrî – tôshav – zâr,” 32).

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

219

The Deuteronomic legislation also supports the religious integration of ‫גרים‬, who may participate in the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Booths (cf. 16:9–12, 13–15) and may give offerings from the first of the fruits (cf. 26:11) but cannot take part in the celebration of Passover (cf. 16:1–9)124. Later, the Holiness Code (Lev 17–26), whose final form is linked to the post-exilic Priestly redaction of the Pentateuch (the first half of the fifth century BCE),125 indicates a change in the social situation of ‫גרים‬. Even though some of them are still poor and thus in need of legal protection (cf. 19:32–34) and economic support of wealthy landowners (cf. 19:9–10; 23:22), the vast majority are free and independent people, whose material situation is frequently better than that of the Israelites, since the latter are taken into debt slavery by resident aliens (cf. 25:47–54). ‫גרים‬ have their own houses, where they are responsible for circumcising all men, both their own sons and their servants (cf. Exod 12:43–50). In this context, the intention of the Priestly legislators is to create such a law in the Judean province that would take into consideration the presence of a considerable non-Judean minority without at the same time jeopardizing the religious identity of the Jewish majority.126 The fact that resident aliens were subjected to some cultic laws does not mean that the Priestly legislators wanted to convert ‫ גרים‬into Yahwism.127 They could still worship their own deities (cf. Deut 24:15–16), give them meal and drink offerings (with the exception of blood consumption, cf. 17:8) as well as eat carrion (cf. 17:15). Their subjugation to the sacral law stems from a desire to maintain the purity of the sanctuary and the land (cf. 18:24–30). That is why they are to respect the law concerning the blood of the sacrificial animals (17:10–13), the command of ritual cleansing after the consumption of carrion (17:15) or the prohibition against making offerings to Moloch (20:2–4). In the context of the regulations concerning the participation of ‫ גרים‬in Passover (Exod 12:43–50), it may be assumed that resident aliens

124.  The gradual religious integration of resident aliens posited by the Deuteronomic Code is supported by the Deuteronomistic tradition, according to which ‫גרים‬ were participants of the covenant made on the plain of Moab (cf. Deut 29:10) and are included in “people” gathering every seven years to read the Torah during the Feast of Booths (cf. 31:12). 125.  Cf. C. Nihan, “Resident Aliens and Natives in the Holiness Legislation,” in Achenbach, Albertz and Wöhrle, eds., The Foreigner and the Law, 111–34 (111–13). 126.  Albertz, “From Aliens to Proselytes,” 59. 127.  Cf. Albertz, “From Aliens to Proselytes,” 61; Nihan, “Resident Aliens and Natives in the Holiness Legislation,” 114–15.

220

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

did not have to be circumcised unless they wanted to celebrate Passover (cf. 12:48).128 Later Priestly redaction, responsible for much of the legislation in Num 3–15, from the second half of the fifth century BCE, presupposed a complete religious integration of ‫ גרים‬into the community of Yahweh’s worshippers in the Judean province.129 ‫ גרים‬are no longer considered resident aliens in the province, but rather proselytes, socially, legally and religiously members of the Jewish community, sharing the same obligations and benefiting from the same rights: “you and ‫ גור‬shall be alike before Yahweh” (Num 15:15; cf. 9:14; 15:16, 29). The additional instructions regulating the celebration of Passover in 9:1–4 take the circumcision of ‫ גרים‬for granted (cf. 9:14). Resident aliens are also included in the laws concerning meal and drink offerings that should accompany every animal sacrifice (cf. 15:13–16) as well as in expiation rituals for inadvertent transgressions (cf. 15:26). Finally, the Priestly legislators remove any restrictions on the residence of ‫גרים‬, including in the community of Yahweh’s worshippers also those aliens who do not reside in Judah but live in the diaspora and wish to offer Yahweh sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple (cf. 15:14).130 3.2.2. The Status of the ‫ גור‬in Ezekiel 47:21–23. The diachronic perspective on the term ‫ גור‬in the legal texts of the Pentateuch confirms the on-going integration of resident aliens with the Jewish community, which is not restricted to social issues only but finds it fulfilment in the religious dimension. ‫ גרים‬are not fully integrated, though – neither socially nor religiously – on account of the impossibility of their owning the land of Israel. In this context, the regulations in Ezek 47:21–23, pertaining to the participation of ‫ גרים‬in the twelve tribes’ inheritance of the land, constitute an absolute novelty in the Hebrew Bible. Aside from the analysed fragment of 47:21–23 (vv. 22, 23), the term ‫ גור‬appears in the book of Ezekiel also in 14:7 and 22:7, 29. In all of these texts, the characterization of a ‫ גור‬is to some extent independent of the regulations of the Pentateuch. In Ezek 22:7, 29 the alien, mentioned 128.  Rainer Albertz points out in this context that ‫ גרים‬were not obliged to respect the Sabbath unless they belonged to the house of an Israelite, where the Sabbath needed to be observed (cf. Albertz, “From Aliens to Proselytes,” 61). 129.  Albertz includes in this redaction also: Exod 12:18–20; Num 3:11–13, 40–51; (5–6); 7:89–8:25; 9:1–14; 10:1–10; 15:1–41 (“From Aliens to Proselytes,” 63), cf. Achenbach, “gêr – nakhrî – tôshav – zâr,” 42–43. 130.  Cf. B. A. Levine, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 392–93.

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

221

alongside the widow and the orphan, is not capable of protecting his own rights. He does not seem a poor person, though, as he is the subject of the verb ‫עׁשק‬, used in 22:12 with reference to a violent overtaking of someone’s property for their debts (cf. 22:29).131 In 47:22 the term ‫גור‬ denotes an alien residing permanently in the land of Israel and bearing children there. The text of 14:7 sheds light on the religious situation of ‫גרים‬. The charge of idolatry voiced there is levelled against “the house of Israel and the aliens residing in Israel” who “separate themselves” from Yahweh. The following sentence includes words of punishment for such individuals: Yahweh will “cut them off from the midst of my people” (14:8). The incriminated ‫ גור‬is thus treated as belonging to Yahweh’s people.132 He is possibly circumcised, being the opposite of ‫( בן־נכר‬44:9) – “foreigners uncircumcised in heart and body” (44:7, 9). These were allowed by the Levites to serve in the temple,133 making it unclean. The metaphor of the circumcision of the heart applied to ‫ גרים‬suggests that they listen to and obey Yahweh (cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4). Thus, it seems legitimate to claim that the word ‫ גור‬in the book of Ezekiel signifies a proselyte – a converted foreigner who believes in Yahweh. The prerequisite for the complete social and religious assimilation that would turn a ‫ גור‬into an ‫ – אזרח‬a native inhabitant of the land of Israel – is his partaking of the land inherited by the twelve tribes. Such a radical formulation of the entitlement of ‫ גרים‬to the land of Israel in Ezek 47:22–23 includes them in the patrimony of the people of the covenant – namely, the Promised Land.134 The land allotted to a proselyte will be carved out from the inheritance of the tribe he lives among. This land will become his “inheritance” (47:23b), fully integrating him with a given tribe.135 The participation in Israel’s inheritance of the land translates into a new economic situation for ‫גרים‬, but it has a primarily religious dimension. First, according to the Priestly theology, the Promised Land belongs to Yahweh, while the Israelites living there are “aliens and sojourners (‫ )גרים ותוׁשבים‬with” God (Lev 25:23). Hence, from God’s perspective, 131.  Cf. §II.2.2.1. 132.  Cf. Kellermann, “‫גוּר‬,” 989. 133.  The expression ‫ לׁשמרי מׁשמרתי במקדׁשי‬in 44:8 refers to the role of guarding access to the temple, the duty of the Levites, performed in the past by uncircumcised aliens. Scholars identify them with the Carians originating from Asia Minor who were “guarding the temple on the king’s behalf” (2 Kgs 11:4–8) (cf. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, 260–61; Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, 622–23). 134.  Cf. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, 123. 135.  Cf. Kellermann, “‫גוּר‬,” 989.

222

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

it is not only the aliens residing in the land but also the Israelites themselves who have the status of ‫גרים‬. Secondly, the land of Israel allotted to resident aliens as their ‫( נחלה‬Ezek 47:23) makes them participants in Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. The covenant made with the fathers in Egypt was meant to lead them into the Promised Land (cf. 20:6). It is there that Yahweh will realize his covenant of peace, manifesting itself in the material restoration of the land (cf. 34:24–27), happening due to God’s presence in his sanctuary (cf. 37:26–28). Through the gift of the land, ‫ גרים‬will also experience God’s blessing (cf. 47:1–12). Thirdly, the land assigned to resident aliens is characterized as their ‫נחלה‬. This means that it needs to be subjected to the same laws as the ‫ נחלה‬of the tribes of Israel – the land thus belongs to ‫ גרים‬in a permanent and nontransferable way, which is governed by the regulations of the Year of Jubilee (cf. §V.3.1). Even though the current position of the fragment of Ezek 47:21–23 in chs. 40–48 is considered an outcome of the redactional work of the school of Ezekiel, the command to divide the Promised Land as an inheritance among the tribes of Israel and ‫ גרים‬is consistent with Ezekiel’s understanding of the role of the land in Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. Since the foreigners inhabiting the land of Israel are included in the community of the covenant, they are not second-category worshippers of Yahweh. They have to abide by the rules imposed on the people of the covenant, but at the same time they partake of the inheritance of the land. Ezekiel is ahead of his epoch in this respect. Despite his origin among the Zadokite priests, he is braver in outlining the future assimilation of ‫גרים‬ into the community of the restored Israel than the Zadokite priests in the post-exilic Jerusalem, who were responsible for the final redaction of the Holiness Code.136

136.  The status of ‫ גרים‬outlined in Ezek 47:21–23 surpasses also the predictions of the future inclusion of the proselytes in Israel’s community voiced by the prophets active immediately after the exile (cf. Isa 56:1–8; Zech 2:15). Foreigners are allowed to be part of the community not due to blood ties (Blutsgemeinschaft) but due to the shared religion (Bekenntnisgemeinschaft), whose external sign is the celebration of the Sabbath (cf. J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 19 [New York: Doubleday, 2003], 136–37). Meanwhile, Ezekiel’s vision of the participation of ‫ גרים‬in the inheritance of the land of Israel presupposes their complete assimilation into the structure of Israel’s tribes, construed on the basis of blood ties among the twelve sons of Jacob as heirs to God’s promise of the land given to their father (cf. Ezek 47:14).

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

223

The conclusion of the analysis of Ezekiel’s vision related in chs. 40– 48 will concentrate on its territorial aspect. The vision is devoted successively to the new temple (40:1–42:20), the new cult (43:13–46:24) and the new land (47:13–48:35). The narration does not present Israel’s future structures in a static way, but reveals a dynamic revitalization of the whole land of Israel thanks to Yahweh’s presence among his people, foretold already in 37:26–28. The promise will be realized through the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple (43:1–12) and then through the spring issuing out of the temple as a metaphor of God’s presence, generating the transformation of the land of Israel into the new Eden (47:1–12). The final form of the vision is an outcome of the redaction occurring in the last years of the Babylonian exile or soon after the exile’s end, whose form and content are nevertheless rooted in Ezekiel’s prophecies. This is true also of the texts concerning the future division of the land (45:1–8; 47:13–48:35), including the command to allot ‫ גרים‬land as their inheritance (47:21–23). The land’s restoration is made possible by the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple. The vision thus constitutes a reversal of the situation depicted in chs. 8–11, where the Glory abandons the temple. It does not mean, however, that Ezekiel returns here to the pre-exilic theology of Zion. Rather, the resumed presence of the Glory in the Jerusalem temple signals a new form of Yahweh’s presence among his people, which results in the revitalization of the land. First, God’s presence is of a personal character and is not bound by the material sign of the temple. The return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple, after its abandonment of the temple and manifestation in the Babylonian land, confirms Yahweh’s freedom to act as he pleases towards both Israel and the world. In the context of the return, God declares that he will reside forever not in the temple but among his people (43:7, 9). This confirms that Yahweh is present where his people are. The destination of the new exodus is the “holy mountain, the high mountain of Israel” (20:40; cf. 40:2), where God will accept his people as a pleasing offering. Yahweh accompanies his people on their return to the land. In fact, his return precedes the return of the people, mentioned in the vision only after the Glory re-enters the temple. Secondly, Yahweh’s presence in the land of Israel is not restricted to the temple only, but expands to revitalize the whole land. This is illustrated by the vision of the water springing from the temple and transforming the land as far as its eastern border, marked by the Jordan River and the Dead Sea (cf. 47:1–12). The aquatic metaphor of God’s presence makes it possible as well to show the radical metamorphosis of the land of Israel,

224

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

which not only changes from dead to alive (as illustrated by the transformation of the salty waters of the Dead Sea into sweet waters, cf. 47:8), but whose quality surpasses that of the paradisiacal Eden (as signalled primarily by the motif of trees that bear fruit every month and do not lose their leaves, used for medicinal purposes, cf. 47:12). Thirdly, Yahweh’s presence translates into the land’s sacral value, which is not limited only to ‫“ – תרומה‬the sacred contribution for Yahweh” (45:1). This portion of the land is divided into three sections, whose sanctity corresponds to the spheres of sanctity in the temple: “the most holy place” corresponds to the part reserved for the Zadokite priests, “the holy place” is reserved for the Levites, while the profane sphere (‫ )חל‬is available to the whole house of Israel – to the city and the adjacent terrain. Yahweh’s presence, though, should not be treated exclusively in terms of the categories of separation and gradation demarcating certain boundaries within the temple precinct and within the land of Israel. Sanctity seems to be Yahweh’s gift of himself to his people, who are granted life stemming from God. The land also participates in Yahweh’s gift of himself, experiencing God’s blessing and manifesting at the same time God’s intention to give life to the people of the covenant. Finally, the return of Yahweh’s Glory manifests God’s royal rule. Its sign is no longer the Ark of the Covenant as his throne or the footstool of his throne. Yahweh’s reign is made manifest through the Promised Land. It belongs exclusively to God, who assigns it as an inheritance for his people of the covenant. Taking into account the promise of the land given to Israel’s forebears in Egypt (cf. 47:14), ‫ נחלה‬should be treated as land inherited by a son from his father rather than as fief given to a vassal by his lord. The land is divided not through the casting of lots but through Yahweh’s word, which is to be respected not only by the tribes of Israel but also by the ruler (‫)נׂשיא‬. The revision of the Zion theology is extended by the modification of the role played by the land in Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. Yahweh’s presence in the Promised Land brings its revitalization, whereby it is ready for the new division and occupation by the tribes of the new exodus. In this context, the geographical references to the land of Israel in 47:13– 48:35 need to be interpreted in a theological way. First of all, the land of Israel – whose borders are sketched in Ezek 47:10–15 – extends from the Brook of Egypt to Lebo-hamath and from the Mediterranean Sea to the line marked by the Dead Sea, the Jordan River and further north by the eastern border of Damascus. The future land of Israel excludes, then, the central Transjordan but includes Philistia, Phoenicia and Damascus. Such borderlines correspond to the borders of

V. The Vision of the New Land of Israel in Ezekiel 40–48

225

the Promised Land postulated in the book of Joshua and attained only during Solomon’s reign. Following 1 Kgs 8:65, Israel’s borders proposed by Ezekiel may be considered to demarcate an ideal space within which the people of the covenant are to create a cultic community with its theological centre in ‫ תרומה‬and its temple (cf. 48:8). Secondly, the borders between individual tribes established by Yahweh are to guarantee their equal participation in the inheritance of the land. The distribution of the twelve tribes vis-à-vis “the sacred contribution” of the land is based on the genealogy of Jacob’s sons, situating closest to ‫תרומה‬ the tribes originating from Jacob’s rightful wives, Leah and Rachel (cf. 48:1–7, 23–29). This hierarchical division nevertheless fosters equality among the tribes. What is especially noteworthy is the transposition of Judah’s inheritance to the north, to Benjamin’s place (cf. 48:7, 23), which puts an end to Judah’s dominance over other tribes, linking it more tightly to northern tribes. At the same time, Judah’s ties with royal power are severed, for the ruler receives as his inheritance the land adjoining ‫תרומה‬ from the east and the west (cf. 45:7; 48:21). Thirdly, the function of the city located in the southern part of ‫תרומה‬ and implicitly identified with Jerusalem is changed (cf. 45:6; 48:15–20). It is removed from the temple and becomes a city belonging to all the tribes of Israel. The book’s closing vision of the twelve city gates named after the twelve patriarchs (cf. 48:30–35) confirms that it is no longer a royal city but rather a federal city uniting all the tribes of Israel into one. The unity does not stem from some social or political treaty but from Yahweh’s presence among his people of the covenant, symbolized by the city’s twelve gates. If the city, then, seems a microcosm of the land of Israel, its new name – “Yahweh is there” (48:35) – encompasses the whole Promised Land. In this way, the proper relationship of covenant between Yahweh, the chosen nation and the land promised to the fathers is restored. Finally, the Promised Land is no longer the inheritance of the tribes of Israel only but is to be inherited also by ‫ – גרים‬foreigners residing in the land of Israel who have accepted faith in Yahweh (cf. 47:21–23). The proselytes’ assimilation proposed by Ezekiel presupposes their full integration into Israel’s tribal structures. By virtue of their entitlement to the land inherited by the twelve tribes, they are included in Yahweh’s relationship of the covenant with the chosen people. The covenant is realized in the land, through which Yahweh manifests his presence among his people, granting them life, blessing and sanctity.

C on cl u s i on

The history of salvation depicted in the book of Ezekiel may be labelled geo-theology. The Babylonian exile puts into question the hitherto operative axioms of faith, including the land’s function as a sign of God’s choice of Israel and of Israel’s abiding by the covenant with Yahweh. Ezekiel’s approach to the land is much wider, as he shows the land’s active role in constructing the relationship of covenant between Yahweh and Israel. The following elements constitute characteristic features of Ezekiel’s theology of land. 1. The Land of Israel as the Unifying Principle of the Book of Ezekiel. The land of Israel may be considered the book of Ezekiel’s structural element as the object of resumptive exposition. This tendency is noticeable especially in the oracles included in chapters from 33 onwards, which elaborate on various aspects of the land of Israel alluded to in the earlier oracles pronounced before 586 BCE. What seems particularly worthy of note in this context is the correlation between the oracle against the mountains of Israel in 6:1–14 and the salvation oracle addressed to the mountains in 36:1–15, the contrast between the presentation of the day of Yahweh as punishment for the land of Israel in ch. 7 and the salvation predicted in the Gog oracle in chs. 38–39, the elaboration in 36:16–38 of the history of the land of Israel described in ch. 20, and, finally, the reversal of the vision from chs. 8–11 (where Yahweh’s Glory abandons the temple) in the ultimate vision of the revival of the land of Israel in chs. 40–48 (where Yahweh’s Glory returns to the temple). The parallels between these two visions inform the historical narration of the book. Having left the Jerusalem Temple in 10:1–22 and 11:22–23, Yahweh’s Glory accompanies the exiles in Babylon, which Ezekiel experiences firsthand in his prophetic call reported at the beginning of the book (chs. 1–3). Yet when one thinks of the return of Yahweh’s Glory to the renewed land of Israel, foretold in the concluding chapters of the book, Ezekiel’s prophecy seems to herald the new exodus, which will bring about a return from the Babylonian exile and the repopulation of



Conclusion

227

the land promised to the ancestors of the Babylonian exiles during the former’s exodus from the land of Egypt. The motif of the land functions as an element contributing to the narrative continuity of the book, which gradually develops a new conceptualization of the land of Israel. 2. The Relationality of the Land of Israel. Ezekiel does not treat the land of Israel as a mere passive object dependent on others; on the contrary, for Ezekiel, the land is an active protagonist of the history of salvation. Such a conclusion can be drawn from the analysis of the oracles addressed to the mountains and the land of Israel. 2.1. The Character of Ezekiel’s Semantics of the Land. Ezekiel makes use of the land terminology commonly employed in the Hebrew Bible, yet he introduces several important modifications thereof. The first one is connected with the term ‫אדמת יׂשראל‬, which is most commonly used to refer to the land of Israel while contrasting it with the lands of the nations, typically referred to as ‫ארצות‬. At the same time, the original geomorphological meaning of the noun ‫ אדמה‬as soil is significantly broadened to encompass an additional anthropo-geographical dimension of a safe and prosperous dwelling. The second lexical novelty lies in using the phrase ‫ הרי יׂשראל‬to refer to the land of Israel. The above-mentioned phrase signifies the mountains of Israel, and its deployment to refer to the land of Israel can be understood not only as an allusion to the mountainous terrain of Israel, but also as a guarantee of a safe life given by the “mountains of Israel” to the people of the new covenant. The third new element in Ezekiel’s semantics of the land is making ‫ ארץ יׂשראל‬and ‫ אדמת יׂשראל‬the addressees of the prophetic messages. It has to be emphasized at this point that these two phrases do not function in the oracles as metonyms of the people of Israel but as independent subjects. 2.2. The Subjecthood of the Land of Israel. The land and the mountains of Israel are treated as subjects of prophetic communication, being direct recipients of God’s word. Such literary personification does not deprive the land and the mountains of Israel of their natural geomorphological properties, which form the basis of their relations with Yahweh, Israel and the nations. The land of Israel belongs to Yahweh, which is emphasized by God’s referring to it as “his land” (‫)ארצי‬, given as a gift to Israel (36:5; 38:16), as “his treasure” (‫)צפוני‬, which he shares with his people (7:22), and as “his ornament” (‫ )עדי‬as beautiful and fertile land (7:20; cf. 16:11; 23:40). As the land’s owner, Yahweh fully respects its autonomy, freedom and responsibility, which are manifested in its relationship with Israel. Because of Yahweh’s will, the land constitutes the heritage (‫ )נחלה‬of his people, Israel (36:12).

228

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

228

In its relation with Israel, the land remains a subject which impacts on the religious condition of Israel. Ezekiel predicts that the land and the mountains of Israel will be judged by God on account of their ‫ דרכים‬and ‫תועבות‬. These two words refer to the land’s and the mountains’ participation in the idolatrous cult by playing host to idolatrous worship (cf. 6:3–7; 7:3–4, 8–9). By its connection to the cult of idols, the land of Israel proves its infidelity towards Yahweh (14:13), which is a serious breach of the relationship crucial to its identity. As Yahweh’s property, the land of Israel was given to his people to become the location for the construction of the community of the covenant. Yet, due to its natural properties and resources it leads Israel to fall (cf. 36:15). Nevertheless, Ezekiel does not view the land of Israel in an anthropocentric way, nor does he put the whole blame for the people’s sin upon it. The starting point for his reflection on the land’s subjecthood is its participation in the sin of the people as well as in the punishment befalling Israel. At the same time, the prophet emphasizes the fact that the land itself is a victim of the sinful conduct of the Jews. First of all, people treat the land as a mere object, take advantage of the land in their idolatrous practices and make it the place of violence perpetrated against those who are economically deprived. Secondly, the land experiences desolation and destruction as an outcome of God’s punishment of his unfaithful people. Finally, the land is defiled both due to violence and bloodshed (cf. 7:23; 8:17; 9:9; 36:18) as well as the acts of idol worship committed in it (cf. 22:3–4; 36:18). Even when the land lost its special relations with Yahweh and Israel and became the object of the nations’ claims, Yahweh did not cease to care for it as his own land (36:5), which he never deserted (cf. 35:10). 2.3. The Sense of Yahweh’s Punishment of the Land. Ezekiel speaks of the land’s punishment in the context of the day of Yahweh, described in ch. 7. The land’s destruction comes about as a result of God’s wrath, yet it does not signify God’s breach of his covenant, which he continues to abide by. The land’s human and material desolation cannot be treated solely in terms of God’s punishment since God’s intention was all along to purify the land. Such purification is an essential requirement for the creation of the land as a subject fully integrated with God’s covenant with Israel (cf. 11:18; 22:24; 36:25). 3. The History of the Covenant in the Context of the Promised Land. The current situation of the land of Israel, which is an outcome of the oracles of judgment directed against it, is clarified in the light of the theology of history proposed in ch. 20 of Ezekiel’s book.



Conclusion

229

3.1. The Land of Israel as the Land of the Covenant. The theocentric vision of Israel’s history, presented in Ezek 20, is inextricably connected with the gift of land. The operating force of Israel’s history is Yahweh’s concern for his holy name, which is the consequence of the covenant established with Israel back in Egypt. It was there that Yahweh manifested himself as “their God” (20:5) and promised to bring them out of the land of Egypt into a land he himself had searched for them (20:6). The land which God wishes his people to inhabit becomes the place of God’s theophany in history. However, the role of the land is not that of a mere sign of the covenant or a guarantee of the covenant’s continuity; the land constitutes the aim of the covenant as the space in which Yahweh’s communion with Israel is to be realized. 3.2. Exodus as a Structural Element Clarifying the History of the Land of Israel. In ch. 20 Ezekiel construes a typological analogy between the Babylonian exile, which is part of his contemporaries’ lives, and the Egyptian captivity experienced by their ancestors. The exodus hence seems to function as a primary structure of Israel’s history: the history begins with the promise of the land given to the Jews kept as captives in Egypt and ends with the re-possession of the land by the Jews released from the Babylonian captivity. The prophet believes that the people have not yet reached the Promised Land on account of their unfaithfulness, whose manifestation could be seen already in Egypt (cf. 20:7–8). Faced with recurring instances of idolatrous worship on the desert, God decides that Israel is going to be dispersed in the future (cf. 20:23), which comes true during the Babylonian exile. The ancestors entered the Promised Land only seemingly, for after forty years of wandering across the desert they chose “high places” as their destination (cf. 20:28–29), and in this way they rejected the Promised Land as a space of meeting Yahweh (cf. 20:32). 3.3. The Revision of the Promise of the Land Given to the Forefathers. Ezekiel is obviously familiar with the stories of the patriarchs, yet when he speaks of the promise of the land in ch. 20, he only alludes to them indirectly by referring to Jacob. The omission of Abraham may be the prophet’s reaction to the manipulations of the Abrahamic tradition by the remaining Judean populations after 586 BCE, who voiced claims to the real estate left by the Judeans displaced to Babylonia (cf. 33:24). Ezekiel dates the promise of the land back to Jacob (28:25; 37:25). By doing so, he fosters the identity formation of Hebrew exiles and strengthens their hopes of returning to their land, the way Jacob returned to his land after spending many years among strangers.

230

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

230

4. The Restored Land of the Covenant of Peace. Ezekiel predicts the restoration of the land as a reversal of the punishment through which it was destroyed. The land’s revitalization will happen thanks to Yahweh, who will restore its lost subjecthood and will make it again the material, political and religious basis of the new Israel. In this way, God’s original idea of this land as the land of the covenant will be fulfilled. 4.1. The New Covenant in the Context of the Land’s Restoration. Even though the new covenant prophesied by Ezekiel (cf. 11:17–20; 36:24–28) is semantically linked to the original covenant, it actually surpasses its predecessor. There are several elements of discontinuity between the two covenants that corroborate the new one’s progression in relation to the old one, and the Promised Land’s function as a space of the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant is one of them. To be realized, the covenant needs a radically changed anthropological basis, which will come about as a result of God’s creation of a new people. “The new heart and the new spirit” will enable Israel to forge a long-lasting relationship with Yahweh in the revived land. Restored into a life-giving relationship with God, the land will become the foundation of the covenant of peace. 4.2. The Land of the New Creation. The restoration of the land foretold by Ezekiel will take place on the demographical, material, political and religious levels, yet frequent references to Genesis in Ezek 34 and 36 indicate that this restoration will in essence be a new act of creation, through which the land of the covenant will become the new Eden. Ezekiel engages in a historicizing reading of the book of Genesis, positing the land of Israel as the fulfillment of or even an improvement on (cf. 36:11) the paradise. The climax of the vision of the land’s revival is crystalized in the image of the temple stream, which transforms the dry, arid land of Israel and the waters of the Dead Sea into a spring of life for the new community of the covenant (47:1–12). 4.3. Yahweh’s Presence in the Land of Israel as the Essence of the Covenant of Peace. The land’s revival is an element of the new covenant which is called the covenant of peace (34:25; 37:26). The essence of this covenant is ‫( ׁשלום‬peace), understood not only as all the good that the land and the people can partake of, but also as God’s presence among his people, which is the only source of the people’s safety, welfare and salvation (cf. 37:26–28). The definite character of the covenant of peace is confirmed in the Gog oracle (chs. 38–39). Gog is the embodiment of worldly forces that are hostile to God. Yahweh will prove his sanctity to the world by defeating these forces in the land of Israel (cf. 39:7). In this way, the theophanic function of the land of the covenant will be sustained.



Conclusion

231

5. The Sacral Dimension of the Land’s Restoration. The book of Ezekiel’s concluding vision of the new temple, new cult and new land (chs. 40–48) indicates the soteriological value of the land of Israel, which is an outcome of the sanctifying presence of God in the land. 5.1. God’s Presence in the Land of the Covenant. The return of Yahweh’s Glory to the temple, described in 43:1–12, constitutes an essential prerogative for the realization of the new exodus. The previous theology of Zion rested on the constant presence of God in the Jerusalem Temple. Now, however, God’s life-giving activity is not circumscribed to the temple precinct, for God is present as a person “among his people” (cf. 37:26–28). This is evident in the image of the water flowing from the temple, which transforms the land of Israel (47:1–12). The water is a metaphor of the invigorating presence of God that transcends the temple’s boundaries. Yahweh experiences his sanctity – which is the primary reason for his acting on behalf of Israel’s restoration (cf. 20:44; 36:22–23; 39:25) – not as an excluding category but as self-sustaining life. God’s sanctity does not close him towards others but opens him to embrace his people, who by the gift of the restored land come into a life-giving relationship with him. 5.2. The Sanctity of the Land of Israel. Yahweh’s presence in the land of Israel constitutes the foundation of the land’s sacral character. When Yahweh’s Glory returns to the land, ‫ – תרומה‬the “sacred portion for Yahweh,” with the sanctuary placed in it – becomes the land’s theological centre, the centre of the community of the covenant. It is not only the temple itself that constitutes the sacred space, for the area surrounding it, which is identical to the sacred portion allotted to the priests of Zadok, is recognized as the “most holy” place in the whole land of Israel (cf. 43:12; 48:12). The prediction of the manifestation of God’s sanctity in the land of Israel, unique in the whole Hebrew Bible, does not mean, however, that the remaining part of the land is profane. The fact that the land is called ‫חל‬ indicates the need to respect the land’s purity as an essential requirement for Yahweh’s presence therein. Likewise, the function of the new borders is to remind people of “the difference between what is sacred and what is profane and the difference between what is clean and what is unclean” (cf. 44:23). It is more important, however, to grant people access to sanctity than to protect sanctity from the people. 6. The New Community of the Covenant in the Promised Land. The history of the land of Israel related in ch. 20 ends with a promise of the exiles’ entry into the land of Israel and of their acceptance by Yahweh as a pleasing offering on “his holy mountain” (20:40). The return of Yahweh’s

232

The Land of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel

232

Glory to the temple (43:1–12) is, therefore, a prediction of the culmination of the new exodus, which will take place in the land transformed by God’s presence (47:1–12). The land will become repopulated and divided up as an inheritance of the chosen people, which is depicted in the final part of the prophet’s last vision in 47:13–48:35. 6.1. The New Borders of the Land of Israel. The borders delineated in 47:10–15 extend from the Brook of Egypt to Lebo-hamath, and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea and further north along the Jordan River and the eastern border of Damascus. This area is identical to the Promised Land, described already in the book of Joshua, yet attained by the Jews only in Solomon’s kingdom. In light of 1 Kgs 8:65, the area outlined by these borders can be treated as an ideal space for the cult community created by the people of covenant around the theological centre of ‫ תרומה‬with its temple. 6.2. The Land’s Division among the Twelve Tribes of Israel. The borders between various tribes, established by Yahweh, guarantee an equal participation of each tribe in the inheritance (‫ )נחלה‬of land, in accordance with the rule formulated in 47:14: “divide it for an inheritance, each [will get an allotment] like his brother.” The tribes’ allocation along the north–south axis respects the traditional genealogical relationships among the tribes, according to which the tribes descended from Jacob’s lawful wives, Leah and Rachel, are placed closest to the “holy portion of the land” (cf. 48:1–7, 23–29). This new allocation of tribes serves to foster their unity through the displacement of Judah to the north, to Benjamin’s original position (cf. 48:7, 23). The ensuing closer connection of Judah to the northern tribes brings about the end of its domination over other tribes. At the same time, Judah is removed from monarchy, since the prince’s inheritance is the land bordering ‫ תרומה‬on both east and west sides (cf. 45:7; 48:21). The book’s closing vision of the city’s twelve gates named after the twelve tribes of Israel serves as a the microcosm of the new land of Israel. In the context of the city’s function as a symbol of the people of covenant occupying the Promised Land, the new name of the city – “Yahweh is there” (48:35) – ultimately testifies to Yahweh’s new covenant with Israel, which is realized in the restored land. In this way, a proper relationship of covenant linking Yahweh, the people and the land is restored. 6.3. The Promised Land as the Inheritance of ‫גרים‬. The term ‫גרים‬ employed in the book of Ezekiel signifies proselytes – foreigners who believe in Yahweh and live permanently in the land of Israel. The admonition in 47:22–23 to allot ‫ נחלה‬carved out from the land of the tribe they reside among leads to the full integration of ‫ גרים‬with the people



Conclusion

233

of the covenant. They are not a second category of believers in Yahweh; rather, through partaking of the inheritance of land they become participants in the covenant of peace, whereby the Promised Land bestows on people life, blessing and the sanctity of God. A historical and theological study of the land of Israel in the book of Ezekiel proves that the prophet proposes a perspective on the Promised Land that is unique in the context of the Old Testament. This new perspective is a result of a theological reflection that refers as well to history. Its starting point is the land loss experienced as a result of the Babylonian exile. The land’s current desolation is compared with the past events occurring in the Promised Land, which the prophet ponders to make sense of what is happening to the land during his own life. It is this historically rooted reflection that enables the prophet to outline the future prospects of the land. In the future predicted by Ezekiel the land will become the space of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel; in other words, it will be the land in which Israel’s communion with God will be fully realized.

B i b l i og ra p h y

Achenbach, R. “gêr – nakhrî – tôshav – zâr: Legal and Sacral Distinctions regarding Foreigners in the Pentateuch.” Pages in 29–51 in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by R. Achenbach, R. Albertz and J. Wöhrle. BZAR 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1979. Ahlström, G. W. The History of Ancient Palestine. Minneapolis, MN: Academic Press, 1993. Albertz, R. “From Aliens to Proselytes: Non-Priestly and Priestly Legislation Concerning Strangers.” Pages 53–69 in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by R. Achenbach, R. Albertz and J. Wöhrle. BZAR 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. ———. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. Vol. 2, From the Exile to the Maccabees. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1994. Allen, L. C. Ezekiel 1–19. WBC 28. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1994. ———. Ezekiel 20–48. WBC 29. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990. ———. “The Structuring of Ezekiel’s Revisionist History Lesson (Ezekiel 20:3–31).” CBQ 54 (1992): 448–62. Anderson, F. I., and D. N. Freedman. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24A. New York: Doubleday, 1989. André, G. “‫ זָ ַרק‬zāraq.” ThWAT 2:686–89. Astour, M. C. “Ezekiel’s Prophecy of Gog and the Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin.” JBL 95 (1976): 567–79. Avalos, H. “Berothah.” ABD 1:679. Baltzer, D. Ezechiel und Deuterojesaja: Berührungen in der Heilserwartung der beiden großen Exilspropheten. BZAW 121. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1971. Barthélemy, D. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Vol. 3, Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes. OBO 50/3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Bartlett, J. R. “Edom.” ABD 2:297–95. Batto, B. F. “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif.” JBL 49 (1987): 187–211. ———. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1992. Begg, C. T. “Berit in Ezekiel.” Pages 77–84 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Division A. The Period of the Bible. Edited by D. Assaf. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986. Berg, W. “Israels Land, der Garten Gottes: Der Garten als Bild des Heils im Alten Testament.” BZ 32 (1988): 35–51.

Bibliography

235

Bertholet, A. Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden. Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1896. Biberger, B. Endgültiges Heil innerhalb von Geschichte und Gegenwart: Zukunfts­ konzeptionen in Eze 38–39, Joel 1–4 und Sach 12–14. BBB 161. Bonn: V&R Unipress, 2010. Black, J., A. George and N. Postgate. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. SANTAG Arbeiten und Untersuchungen zur Kleischriftkunde 5. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000. Blenkinsopp, J. Ezekiel. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990. ———. Isaiah 56–66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 19. New York: Doubleday, 2003. Block, D. I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. ———. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. “The God Ezekiel Wants Us to Meet: Theological Perspectives on the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 162–92 in The God Ezekiel Creates. Edited by P. M. Joyce and D. Rom-Shiloni. LHBOTS 607. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. ———. The God of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology. EThSMS 2. Jackson, MI: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988. ———. “Gog in Prophetic Tradition: A New Look at Ezekiel XXXVIII 17.” VT 42 (1992): 154–72. Boadt, L. “The Function of the Salvation Oracles in Ezekiel 33 to 37.” HAR 12 (1990): 1–21. ———. “Mythological Themes and the Unity of Ezekiel.” Pages 211–31 in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L. J. de Regt, J. de Waard and J. P. Fokkelman. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996. Bøe, S. Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38−39 as Pre-text for Revelation 19:17–21 and 20:7–10. WUNT 135. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Bogaert, P.-M. “Les deux rédactions conservées (LXX et MT) d’Ezéchiel 7.” Pages 21–47 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation. Edited by J. Lust. BETL 74. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. Borghino, A. La “nuova alleanza” in Is 54: Analisi esegetico-teologica. TGST 118. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2005. Bourguet, D. Des métaphores de Jérémie. Études Bibliques 9. Paris: Lecoffre, 1987. Bovati, P. Ristabilire la giustzia: Procedure, vocabolario, orientamenti. AnBib 110. 2nd ed. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1997. Brownlee, W. H. Ezekiel 1–19. WBC 28. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986. Brueggemann, W. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith. OBT. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002. Carley, K. “Ezekiel’s Formula of Desolation: Harsh Justice for the Land/Earth.” Pages 143–57 in The Earth Story in the Psalms and the Prophets. Edited by N. C. Habel. The Earth Bible 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. ———. “From Harshness to Hope: The Implications for Earth Hierarchy in Ezekiel.” Pages 109–26 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by S. L. Cook and C. L. Patton. SBLSymS 31. Leiden: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Carr, D. M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

236 Bibliography Carvalho, C. L. “The God that Gog Creates: ‘Drop the Stories and Feel the Feeling.’ ” Pages 107–31 in The God Ezekiel Creates. Edited by P. M. Joyce and D. Rom-Shiloni. LHBOTS 607. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Casson, D. “The Mountain Shall Be Most Holy: Metaphoric Mountains in Ezekiel’s Rhetoric.” Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 2004. Cassuto, U. “The Arrangement of the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 227–40 in Biblical and Oriental Studies. Vol. 1, Bible. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1974. Childs, B. S. “The Enemy from the North and the Chaos Tradition.” JBL 78 (1959): 187–98. Chrostowski, W. “Ezechiel jako świadek asyryjskiej diaspory Izraelitów.” Pages 55–68 in Asyryjska diaspora Izraelitów i inne studia. RSB 10. Warsaw: Vocatio, 2003. ———. Prorok wobec dziejów: Interpretacje dziejów Izraela w Księdze Ezechiela 16, 20 i 23 oraz ich reinterpretacja w Septuagincie. Warsaw: ATK, 1991. Clements, R. E. Abraham and David: Genesis 15 and Its Meaning for Israelite Tradition. SBT 2/5. London: SCM 1967. ———. “The Ezekiel Tradition: Prophecy in a Time of Crisis.” Pages 119–36 in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd. Edited by R. Coggins, A. Phillips and M. A. Knibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. ———. God and Temple. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Clifford, R. J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Clines, D. J. A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2011. Cody, A. Ezekiel with an Excursus on Old Testament Priesthood. Old Testament Message. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984. ———. “When Is the Chosen People Called a gôy?” VT 14 (1964): 1–6. Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor. II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 11. New York: Doubleday, 1988. Collins, J. J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993. Cook, S. L. Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995. Cooke, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936. Davidson, R. M. “The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 71–93 in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea. Edited by D. Merling. Berrien Springs: Institute of Archaeology, 1997. Driver, G. R. “Linguistic and Textual Problems: Ezekiel.” Bib 19 (1938): 60–69, 175–87. Duguid, I. M. Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel. VTSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Dürr, L. Die Stellung des Propheten Ezechiel in der israelitisch-jüdischen Apokalyptik. Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 9/1. Münster: Aschendorff, 1923. Ebach, J. H. “Pgr = (Toten-) Opfer? Ein Vorschlag zum Verständnis von Ez. 43.7, 9.” UF 3 (1971): 365–68. Eichrodt, W. Ezekiel: A Commentary. Translated by C. Quin. OTL. 5th ed. London: SCM Press, 1996. Elliger, K. Leviticus. HAT 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1966. Engelhard, D. H. “Ezekiel 47:13–48:29 as Royal Grant.” Pages 45–56 in Go to the Land I Will Show You: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young. Edited by J. E. Coleson, V. H. Matthews and D. W. Young. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996.

Bibliography

237

Erling, B. “Ezekiel 38−39 and the Origins of Jewish Apocalyptic.” Pages 104–14 in vol. 1 of Ex orbe religionum: Studia Geo Widengren Oblata. Edited by C. J. Bleeker, S. G. F. Brandon and M. Simon. 2 vols. Studies in the History of Religions 21. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Even-Shoshan, A., ed. A New Concordance of the Bible: Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible Hebrew and Aramaic Roots, Words, Proper Names, Phrases and Synonyms. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: “Kiryat Sefer” Publishing House, 1997. Farmer, W. R. “The Geography of Ezekiel’s River of Life.” BA 19 (1956): 17–22. Fechter, F. Bewältigung der Katastrophe: Untersuchungen zu ausgewählten Fremvölker­ sprüchen im Ezechielbuch. BZAW 208. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1992. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Fitzpatrick, P. E. The Disarmament of God: Ezekiel 38–39 in Its Mythic Context. CBQMS 37. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2004. Fohrer, G., and K. Galling. Ezechiel. HAT 13. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1955. Forsey, H. O. “The Hebrew Root NḤL and Its Semitic Cognates.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1973. Fuhs, H. F. Ezechiel 1–24. NEchB. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984. ———. Ezechiel II: 25–48. NEchB. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1988. Galambush, J. “God’s Land and Mine: Creation as Property in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 91–108 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by S. L. Cook and C. L. Patton. SBLSymS 31. Leiden: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Gerstenberger, E. “‫ תעב‬t’b pi. verabscheuen.” THAT 2:1051–55. Gese, H. Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40–48) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. BHT 25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957. Goldingay, J., and D. Payne. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. ICC. 2 vols. London: T&T Clark International, 2006. Görg, M. “Egypt, Brook of.” ABD 2:321. Gosse, B. “Ézéchiel 35–36:1–15 et Ézéchiel 6: La desolation de la montagne de Séir et le renouveau de montagnes d’Israël.” RB 96 (1989): 511–17. ———. “Les traditions sur Abraham et sur le jardin d’Éden en rapport avec Is 51,2–3 et avec le livre d’Ézéchiel.” Pages 421–27 in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History. Edited by A. Wénin. BETL 155. Leuven: Peeters, 2001. Graffy, A. A Prophet Confronts His People. AnBib 104. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1984. Granados García, C. La nueva alianza como recreación: Estudio exegético de Ezek 36:16–38. AnBib 184. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2010. Greenberg, M. “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration.” Int 38 (1984): 181–208. ———. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 22. New York: Doubleday, 1983. ———. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 22A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. ———. “Idealism and Practicality in Numbers 35:4–5 and Ezekiel 48.” JAOS 88 (1968): 59–66. ———. “MSRT HBRYT, ‘The Obligation of the Covenant’ in Ezekiel 20:37.” Pages 37–46 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.

238 Bibliography ———. “What Are Valid Criteria for Determining Inauthentic Matter in Ezekiel?” Pages 123–35 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation. Edited by J. Lust. BETL 74. Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 1986. Grill, S. “Der Schlachttag Jahwes.” BZ 2 (1958): 278–83. Grisanti, M. A. “‫א ָד ָמה‬.” ֲ NIDOTTE 1:269–74. Habel, N. C. The Land Is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies. OBT. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995. ———. “The Silence of the Lands: The Ecojustice Implications of Ezekiel’s Judgment Oracles.” Pages 127–40 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality. Edited by S. L. Cook and C. L. Patton. SBLSymS 31. Leiden: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Hals, R. M. Ezekiel. FOTL 19. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989. Hamilton, J. M. “En-Gedi.” ABD 2:502–3. Herion, G. A. “En-Eglaim.” ABD 2:501. Hieke, T. Levitikus: Erster Teilband: 1–15. HTKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2014. Holladay, W. L. “On Every High Hill and Under Every Green Tree.” VT 11 (1961): 170–76. Horst, F. “Zwei Begriffe für Eigentum (Besitz): ‫ נַ ֲח ָלה‬und ‫א ֻחּזָ ה‬.” ֲ Pages 135–65 in Verbannung und Heimkehr: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Wilhelm Rudolph zum 70. Geburtstage. Edited by A. Kuschke. Tübingen: Paul Siebeck, 1961. Hossfeld, F.-L. “Die Tempelvision Ezek 8–11 im Licht unterschiedlicher Methodischer Zugänge.” Pages 151–65 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation. Edited by J. Lust. BETL 74. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. ———. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches. FB 20. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1977. Hurvitz, A. A Linguistic Study of Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. CahRB 20. Paris: Gabalda, 1982. Hutchens, K. D. “Although Yahweh Was There: The Land in the Book of Ezekiel.” Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1998. ———. “Defining the Boundaries: A Cultic Interpretation of Numbers 34:1–12 and Ezekiel 47:13–48:1, 28.” Pages 215–30 in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes. Edited by M. P. Graham, W. P. Browne and J. K. Kuan. JSOTSup 173. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Illman, K.-J. “‫ ָׁש ֵלם‬šālem.” ThWAT 8:93–101. Jeremias, J. Der Prophet Amos. ATD 24/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Joyce, P. M. Divine Initiative and Human Response. JSOTSup 51. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. ———. Ezekiel: A Commentary. LHBOTS 482. New York: T&T Clark International, 2007. ———. “King and Messiah in Ezekiel.” Pages 323–37 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. Day. JSOTSup 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Kallai, Z. “The Patriarchal Boundaries, Canaan and the Land of Israel: Patterns and Application in Biblical Historiography.” Pages 113–37 in Studies in Biblical Historiography and Geography. BEATAJ 56. Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang, 2010.

Bibliography

239

Kasher, R. “Anthropomorphism, Holiness and Cult: A New Look at Ezekiel 40–48.” ZAW 110 (1998): 192–208. Keck, E. “Beside the Chebar River: The Glory of Yahweh Name Theology, and Ezekiel’s Understanding of Divine Presence.” Ph.D. diss., Boston College, 2011. Keller, B. “La terre dans le Livre d’Ezéchiel.” RHPR 55 (1975): 481–90. Kellermann, D. “‫א ָׁשם‬.” ָ ThWAT 1:463–72. ———. “‫גוּר‬.” ThWAT 1:979–91. Kim, S. J. “Yahweh Shammah: The City as Gateway to the Presence.” JSOT 37 (2014): 187–207. Klein, A. Schriftauslegung im Ezechielbuch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Ezek 34–39. BZAW 391. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2008. Klein, R. W. Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message. SPOT. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988. Koch, R. “Il dono messianico del cuore nuovo (Ez 36:25–27).” StMor 26 (1988): 3–14. Konkel, M. Architektonik des Heiligen: Studien zur zweiten Tempelvision Ezechiels (Ez 40–48). BBB 129. Berlin: Philo, 2001. Koole, J. L. Isaiah III: Chapters 40–48. HCOT. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997. Kratz, R. G. “Isaiah and the Siege of Jerusalem.” Pages 143–60 in New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History: Essays in Honour of Hans M. Barstad. Edited by R. I. Thelle, T. Stordalen and M. E. J. Richardson. VTSup 168. Boston: Brill, 2015. Krüger, T. Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch. BZAW 180. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1989. Kutsko, J. F. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. BJS 7. Winona Lake, MI: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Lapsley, J. E. Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel. BZAW 301. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2000. Leene, H. “Ezekiel and Jeremiah: Promises of Inner Renewal in Diachronic Perspective.” Pages 150–75 in Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophet. Edited by J. C. de Moor and H. F. von Rooy. OtSt 44. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Lemche, N. P. The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites. JSOTSup 110. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Levenson, J. D. Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48. HSM 10. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. Levey, S. H., ed. The Targum of Ezekiel: Translated with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. The Aramaic Bible 13. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987. Levin, C. Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusam­ men­hang ausgelegt. FRLANT 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Levine, B. A. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993. ———. Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 4A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Lilly, I. E. The Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Edition. VTSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lipiński, E. “‫ נָ ַחל‬nāÊal.” ThWAT 5:342–60. Liwak, R. “Die Rettung Jerusalems im Jahr 701 v. Ch.: Zum Verhältnis und Verständnis historischer und teologischer Aussagen.” ZTK 83 (1986): 137–66. Lott, J. K. “Tamar.” ABD 6:315–16. Lundbom, J. R. Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

240 Bibliography Lust, J. “Ezekiel Salutes Isaiah: Ezekiel 20:32–44.” Pages 367–82 in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken. Edited by J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne. BETL 132. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. ———. “Exile and Diaspora: Gathering from Dispersion in Ezekiel.” Pages 99–122 in Lectures et relectures de la Bible: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert. Edited by J. M. Auwers and A. Wénin. BETL 144. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Lyons, M. A. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. LHBOTS 507. New York: T&T Clark International, 2009. Maass, F. “‫ טהר‬ṭhr rein sein.” THAT 1:646–52. Macholz, G. C. “Noch einmal: Planungen für den Wiederaufbau nach der Katastrophe von 587. Erwägung zum Schlußteil des sog. ‘Verfassungsentwurf des Hesekiel.’ ” VT 19 (1969): 322–52. Maisler, B. “Lebo-Hamath and the Northern Boundary of Canaan.” BJPES 12 (1946): 91–102. McCarter Jr., P. K. II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 9. New York: Doubleday, 1984. Mein, A. Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Mettinger, T. N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. ConBOT 18. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1982. Meyer, I. “‫ ָׁש ֵַמם‬šāmam.” ThWAT 8:241–51. Middlemas, J. The Divine Image: Prophetic Aniconic Rhetoric and Its Contribution to the Aniconism Debate. FAT II/74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. ———. “Divine Presence in Absence: Aniconism and Multiple Imaging in the Prophets.” Pages 183–211 in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism. Edited by N. MacDonald and I. J. de Hulster. FAT II/61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. ———. “Exclusively Yahweh: Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ezekiel.” Pages 309–34 in Prophecy and Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by J. Day. LHBOTS 531. New York: T&T Clark International, 2010. Milgrom, J. “Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel.” Pages 57–62 in The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by C. A. Evans and S. Talmon. BInterpS 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Milgrom J., and D. I. Block. Ezekiel’s Hope: A Commentary on Ezekiel 38–48. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012. Mozgol, A. “Arka Przymierza.” Pages 37–65 in Życie religijne w Biblii. Edited by G. Witaszek. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 1999. Neiman, D. “Pgr: A Canaanite Cult-Object in the Old Testament.” JBL 67 (1948): 55–60. Nevader, M. “Creating a Deus Non Creator: Divine Sovereignty and Creation in Ezekiel.” Pages 55–70 in The God Ezekiel Creates. Edited by P. M. Joyce and D. Rom-Shiloni. LHBOTS 607. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Nihan, C. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. FAT II/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. ———. “Resident Aliens and Natives in the Holiness Legislation.” Pages 111–34 in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by R. Achenbach, R. Albertz and J. Wöhrle. BZAR 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011.

Bibliography

241

Obinwa, I. M. C. “I Shall Feed Them with Good Pasture” (Ezek 34:1): The Shepherd Motif in Ezekiel 34. Its Theological Import and Socio-Political Implications. FB 125. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2012. Odell, M. S. Ezekiel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005. Ohnesorge, S. Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu: Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11,14–21; 20:1–44; 36:16–38; 37:1–14.15–28. FB 64. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1991. Okopień-Sławińska, A. “Metafora.” Pages 300–303 in Słownik terminów literackich. Edited by J. Sławiński. 4th ed. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 2002. Ollenberger, B. C. Zion the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult. JSOTSup 41. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. Ottosson, M. “Eden and the Land of Promise.” Pages 177–88 in Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Parker, R. A., and W. H. Dubberstein. Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75. Brown University Studies 19. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1956. Patton, C. L. “Priest, Prophet and Exile: Ezekiel as a Literary Construct.” SBLSP 39. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Pikor, W. La comunicazione profetica alla luce di Ez 2–3. TGST 88. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2002. ———. “Dynamika ‘przymierza pokoju’ w Księdze Ezechiela.” VV 30 (2016): 63–65. ———. “Metafora gniewu Jahwe w Sofoniaszowym proroctwie o dniu Jahwe.” Pages 347–63 in Deus meus et omnia: Księga pamiątkowa ku czci o. prof. Hugolina Langkammera OFM. Edited by M. S. Wróbel. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2005. ———. “Rola ‘serca’ w nowym przymierzu (Jr 31,31–34; Ez 36,24–28).” VV 4 (2003): 53–77. ———. Soteriologiczna metafora wody w Księdze Izajasza. StBibLub 4. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2009. ———. “W poszukiwaniu asyryjskiej diaspory Izraelitów w Księdze Ezechiela.” BibAn 2 (2012): 27–74. Plöger, J. G. “‫א ָד ָמה‬.” ֲ ThWAT 1:95–105. Pohlmann, K.-F. Der Prophet Hesekiel/Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–19. ATD 22/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. ———. Ezekiel: Der Stand der theologischen Diskussion. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Pons, J. “Le vocabulaire d’Ézéchiel 20. Le prophète s’oppose à la vision deutéronomiste de l’histoire.” Pages 214–33 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation. Edited by J. Lust. BETL 74. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. Propp, W. H. C. Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Rad, G. von. “Verheißenes Land und Yahwehs Land im Hexateuch.” Pages 87–100 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TB 8. Munich: Kaiser, 1965. Renaud, B. Nouvelle ou éternelle Alliance? Le message des prophètes. LD 189. Paris: Cerf, 2002. Rendtorff, R. “Ez 20 und 36:16ff im Rahmen der Komposition des Buches Ezechiel.” Pages 260–65 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation. Edited by J. Lust. BETL 74. Leuven: Peeters, 1986. Renz, T. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. VTSup 76. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

242 Bibliography Reventlow, H. Graf. “Die Völker als Jahwes Zeugen bei Ezechiel.” ZAW 71 (1959): 33–43. ———. Wächter über Israel: Ezechiel und seine Tradition. BZAW 82. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1962. Riesener, I. Der Stamm ‫ עבד‬im Alten Testament: Eine Wortuntersuchung unter Berück­ sichtigung neuerer sprachwissenschaftlicher Methoden. BZAW 149. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1979. Ringgren, H., U. Rüterswörden and H. Simian-Yofre. “‫‘ ָע ַבד‬āḇaḏ.” ThWAT 5:982–1012. Roberts, J. J. M. “Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition.” JBL 92 (1973): 329–44. Robson, J. Word and Spirit in Ezekiel. LHBOTS 447. London: T&T Clark International, 2006. Rohland, E. “Die Bedeutung der Erwählungstraditionen Israels für die Eschatologie der alttestamentlichen Propheten.” Ph.D. diss., Universität Heidelberg, 1956. Rost, L. “Die Bezeichnungen für das Land und Volk im Alten Testament.” Pages 125–48 in Festschrift Otto Procksch zum sechzigsten Geburtstag am 9. August 1934 überreicht. Edited by A. Deichert and J. C. Hinrich. Leipzig: Deichert, 1934. Roth, R. L. “Hethlon.” ABD 3:188. Rudnig, T. A. Heilig und Profan: Redaktionskritische Studien zu Ez 40–48. BZAW 287. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2000. Ruwe, A. “Die Veränderung tempeltheologischer Konzepte in Ezechiel 8–11.” Pages 3–18 in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Edited by B. Ego, A. Lange and P. Pilhofer. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Sawyer, J. F. A. Semantics in Biblical Research: New Methods of Defining Hebrew Words for Salvation. SBT 24. London: SCM Press, 1972. Schmidt, H. H. “‫’ ֲא ָד ָמה‬adāmā Erdboden.” THAT 1:57–60. Schmold, H. “‫ ָׁשכֹל‬šākol.” ThWAT 7:1323–27. Schottroff, W. “‫ ידע‬jd‘ erkennen.” THAT 1:682–701. ———. “‫ פקד‬pqd heimsuchen.” THAT 2:466–86. Schwartz, B. J. “Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration.” Pages 43–67 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by M. S. Odell and J. T. Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Sedlmeier, F. Das Buch Ezechiel: Kapitel 1‒24. NSKAT 21/1. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002. ———. Das Buch Ezechiel: Kapitel 25–48. NSKAT 21/2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2013. ———. “ ‘Deine Brüder, deine Brüder…’ Die Beziehung von Ezek 11,14–21 zur dtn-dtr Theologie.” Pages 297–312 in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung.” Edited by W. Groß. BBB 98. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. ———. “ ‘Ich schließe für sie einen Bund des Friedens’ (Ez 34:24; 37:26): Visionen des Heils im Ezechielbuch.” Pages 42–69 in Inquire pacem: Beiträge zu einer Theologie des Friedens. Festschrift für Bischof Dr. Viktor Josef Dammertz OSB zum 75. Geburts­tag. Edited by F. Sedlmeier and T. Hausmanninger. Augsburg: Sankt Urlich, 2004. ———. “Transformationen: Zur Anthropologie Ezechiels.” Pages 203–33 in Anthro­ pologische Aufbrüche: Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinäre Zugänge zur historischen Anthropologie. Edited by A. Wagner. FRLANT 232. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Seebaß, H. “‫א ֲח ִרית‬.” ַ ThWAT 1:224–28.

Bibliography

243

Shea, W. H. “The Investigative Judgment of Judah: Ezekiel 1‒10.” Pages 283–91 in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies. Edited by A. V. Wallenkampf and W. R. Lesher. Washington, DC: Review & Herald Publishers, 1981. Sicre Díaz, J. L. Giosuè. Translated by P. Bernardini and M. Bernardini. Commenti biblici. Rome: Borla, 2004. Stadelmann, L. I. J. The Hebrew Conception of the World: A Philological and Literary Study. AnBib 39. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970. Stendebach, F.J. “‫‘ ַעיִ ן‬ajin.” ThWAT 6:31–48. Stevenson, K. R. “If Earth Could Speak: The Case of the Mountains against YHWH in Ezekiel 6; 35–36.” Pages 158–71 in The Earth Story in the Psalms and the Prophets. Edited by N. C. Habel. The Earth Bible 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. ———. Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40–48. SBLDS 154. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996. Strecker, G., ed. Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 der Hebräischen Universität und das Georg-August-Universität. GTA 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Strong, J. T. “God’s Kābôd: The Presence of Yahweh in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 69–95 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by M. S. Odell and J. T. Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Talmon, S. “‫ ֵקץ‬qēî.” ThWAT 7:84–92. ———. “ ‘Navel of the Earth’ and the Comparative Method.” Pages 243–68 in Scripture in History & Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam. Edited by A. L. Merrill and T. W. Overholt. Pittsburgh, PA: The Pickwick Press, 1977. Tengström, S. T., and H.-J. Fabry. “‫רּוח‬ ַ rûaÊ.” ThWAT 7:385–425. Tooman, W. A. Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38–39. FAT II/52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Trier, J. Altes und Neues vom sprachlichen Feld. Duden-Beiträge zu Fragen der Rechtschreibung, der Grammatik und des Stils 34. Mannheim: Dudenverlag, 1968. Tuell, S. S. “Divine Presence and Absence in Ezekiel’s Prophecy.” Pages 97–116 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited M. S. Odell and J. T. Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. ———. The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48. HSM 49. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992. Van Dyke Parunak, H. “The Literary Architecture of Ezekiel’s mar’oṯ ’ĕlōhîm.” JBL 99 (1980): 61–74. Van Seters, J. “In the Babylonian Exile with J: Between Judgment in Ezekiel and Salvation in Second Isaiah.” Pages 71–89 in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times. Edited by B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel. OtSt 42. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Vaux, R. de. Instytucje Starego Testamentu. Translated by T. Brzegowy. Poznań: Pallotinum 2004. ———. “Le pays de Canaan.” JAOS 88 (1968): 23–30. Vogt, E. Untersuchungen zum Buch Ezechiel. AnBib 95. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. De Vries, S. J. From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and RedactionCritical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.

244 Bibliography Weimar, P. “Bundesbuch.” Columns 348–56 in vol. 1 of Neues Bibel-Lexikon. Edited by M. Görg and B. Lang. 3 vols. Düsseldorf: Benziger, 1991–2001. Weimar, P., and E. Zenger. Exodus: Geschichten und Geschichte der Befreiung Israels. SBS 75. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975. Weinfeld, M. “The Extent of the Promised Land – the Status of Transjordan.” Pages 59–75 in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 der Hebräischen Universität und das Georg-August-Universität. Edited by G. Strecker. Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Wendebourg, N. Der Tag des Herrn: Zur Gerichtserwartung im Neuen Testament auf ihrem alttestamentlichen und frühjüdischen Hintergrund. WMANT 96. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003. Wevers, J. W. Ezekiel. NCBC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969. Wilkinson, J. “Ancient Jerusalem: Its Water Supply and Population.” PEQ 106 (1974): 33–51. Willi, T. “Die alttestamentliche Prägung des Begriffs ‫א ֶרץ יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬.” ֶ Pages 387–97 in Nachdenken über Israel, Bibel und Theologie: Festschrift für Klaus-Dietrich Schnuck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by H. M. Niemann, M. Augustin and W. H. Schmidt. BEATAJ 37. Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang, 1994. Wilson, R. R. “An Interpretation of Ezekiel’s Dumbness.” VT 22 (1972): 91–104. Wolff, H. W. Antropologia dell’Antico Testamento. Translated by E. Buli. BiBi[B] 12. 3rd ed. Brescia: Editrice Queriniana, 1993. Worschech, U. “Totes Meer.” Columns 910–11 in vol. 3 of Neues Bibel-Lexikon. Edited by M. Görg and B. Lang. 3 vols. Düsseldorf: Benziger, 1991–2001. Wright, C. J. H. “‫א ֶרץ‬.” ֶ NIDOTTE 1:518–24. ———. God’s People in God’s Land: Family, Land and Property in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. ———. The Message of Ezekiel. The Bible Speaks Today. Leicester: InterVarsity, 2001. Younker, R. W. “Hazer-Hattikon,” ABD 3:86. Ziegler, J., ed. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis. Vol. 16/1, Ezechiel. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Zimmerli, W. “Das ‘Land’ bei den vorexilischen und frühexilischen Propheten.” Pages 33–45 in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 der Hebräischen Universität und das Georg-August-Universität. Edited by G. Strecker. GTA 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. ———. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Chapters 1–24. Translated by R. E. Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979. ———. Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Chapters 25−48. Translated by J. D. Martin. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983. ———. “Planungen für den Wiederaufbau nach der Katastrophe von 587.” VT 18 (1968): 229–55.

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 1 9, 124 1:1 125 1:4 125 1:10 125 1:12 125 1:18 125 1:20 188 1:21 125, 188 1:22 124 1:25 125 1:26 9, 163 1:28 9, 124, 163 1:30 9 1:31 125 2–3 124 2:5 125 2:9 121 2:13 188 2:15–17 189 2:15 125, 126 3:23 126 3:24 126 6:11 66 6:13 60, 66 8:17 124 9:1 124 9:2 147, 163 9:4–6 163 9:4 54 9:7 124 9:8–17 143 10:2 14, 161 13:13 200 14:4 85

16 81 17:1 103 17:8 76 17:19 133 17:21 133 18:19 3, 103 19 191 19:30–38 200 27 81 27:41 106 28:4 76 28:13 80 28:14 81 29–30 207 32:29 81 35:10 81 35:12 80 36:7 76 37:1 76 48:4 80 49:1 157 Exodus 1:14 148 3:8 87 3:17 87 6:4 76 6:8 76, 79, 96 12:18–20 220 12:43–50 219 12:48 220 13:5 87 13:12 86 22:20–21 53 22:20 218 22:21 218 22:28–29 86

23:9 218 23:12 218 25–40 180 33:3 87 34:19 86 40:34–38 131 Leviticus 1:4 90 3:16–17 163 6:2 172 6:7 172 6:18 172 7:1 172 7:11 172 7:18 90 11 199 11:46 172 13:11 138 13:13 138 13:15 138 13:17 138 13:59 172 14:32 172 14:57 172 16 139 16:16 140 16:19 140 16:30 140 16:34 140 17–26 144, 145, 219 17:4 54 17:8 219 17:10–14 54 17:10–13 219 17:15 219

246 Leviticus (cont.) 18:24–30 219 19:7 90 19:9–10 219 19:26 54 19:32–34 219 19:33–34 53 20:2–4 219 20:24 87 22:23 90 23:22 219 25:10 216 25:13 216 25:18–19 160 25:23 216, 221 25:25–26 98 25:28 216 25:29–32 98 25:34 109 25:47–54 219 26 145, 146 26:3–13 144 26:3 145 26:4 145 26:5 144, 145, 160 26:6 144, 145, 147 26:7–8 145 26:9 120, 133, 145 26:11 145 26:12 145 26:13 144, 145 26:14–15 145 26:33–46 75 27:32 75 Numbers 3–15 220 3:11–13 220 3:30 128 3:32 128 3:35 128 3:40–51 220 6:24–26 120 7:89–8:25 220

Index of References 9:1–14 220 9:1–4 220 9:14 220 10:1–10 220 10:33 87 13–14 87 13:2 87 13:16 87 13:17 87 13:21 194 13:27 87 13:32 43 14:8 87 14:30 76, 79 15:1–41 220 15:13–16 220 15:14 220 15:15 220 15:16 220 15:26 220 15:29 220 16:2 128 19:5–6 139 19:9 139 19:11 164 19:13 139 19:16 56, 164 19:19 164 19:20 139 24:3–4 5 24:14 157 25:11 144 25:12 144 31:19 164 31:24 164 32 196, 201 32:19 196 32:32 196 34 201 34:2–12 193, 196– 98 34:2–10 201 34:2 193 34:5 195 34:7 195 34:8 193, 194 34:10 193

34:11–12 196 34:11 197 34:13–14 196 35:2 109 Deuteronomy 1:31 111 1:33 87 2:1–8 112 2:5 112 2:24–25 200 3:17 186 4:21 111 4:25–28 75 4:28 86 4:30 157 4:38 111 4:40 18 4:49 186 5:14 218 5:16 18 6:3 87 7:8 3 8:5 111 8:18 3, 133 10:16 221 10:17–19 218 11:9 87 11:11 19 11:24 200 12:9 111 12:10 111 14:1 111 14:21 218 14:28–29 218 14:29 53 14:29 218 15:4 111 16:1–9 219 16:9–12 219 16:11 218 16:13–15 219 19:3 111 21:1 18 21:22–23 55 21:23 18 22:12 60

24:4 49 24:14 218 24:15–16 219 24:17–18 218 24:17 53 24:19–22 218 24:19–21 53 26:5–10 78 26:9 87 26:11 219 26:12–13 218 26:15 87 28:36–38 75 28:36 86 28:52 127 28:64 86 29:10 219 29:16 86 30:6 221 31:12 219 31:20 87 31:29 157 32:40 79 33:11 90 33:24 90 34:1–4 200 Joshua 3:16 186 5:2–9 200 5:12 200 9:15 128 9:6 14 10:6 14 10:7 14 10:9 14 11:16 19 11:17 200 11:21 19 12:3 186 12:8 186 13–19 205 13:3–4 200 13:5 194, 200 15:1–4 193 15:2–4 197 17:14–18 206

247

Index of References 17:15 19 17:18 206 18:6 206 18:8 206 18:10 206 18:16 208 18:28 208 19:50 19 20:7 19 21 205 21:11 19 22 95 22:14 128 22:19 95, 200 22:25 200 22:26–27 95 22:27 200 23:1 158 24:2–13 78 Judges 3:3 194, 200 9:37 21 1 Samuel 8:14 215 8:20 71 25:37 85, 141 26:19–20 95 2 Samuel 8:1–12 200 8:8 195 9:7–10 215 16:4 215 19:30 215 23:1–7 5 23:1 5 23:3–4 5 23:5 5 24:23 90 24:24 215 1 Kings 4:13–14 200 6–8 180

8:65

194, 201, 213, 225, 232 9:16 215 11:30–31 208 12:19 85 16:24 215 21 215 2 Kings 1:1 85 3:5 85 3:7 85 4:8 215 5:17 95, 199 8:1 125 8:3 215 8:6 215 8:20 85 8:22 85 10:18 99 10:27 186 11:2–3 182 11:4–8 221 14:25 194, 200 18:7 85 19:18 86 19:22 157 19:32–37 4 21:18 181 21:26 181 23:33 12 24:1 85 24:14 1 24:20 85 25:12 101 25:13–17 180 1 Chronicles 1:5 14 13:5 194, 200 29:17 90 2 Chronicles 7:8 194, 200 10:19 85 11:12–14 128

248 2 Chronicles (cont.) 11:16 128 13:6 85 21:10 85 21:11 19 27:4 19 28:23 50 33:20 181 35:7–9 123 36:13 85 Nehemiah 2:17 127 2:19 85 9:15 79 Esther 9:19 21 Job 6:15 12 31:38 22 34:9 90 38:13 60 40:30 14 41:16 141 Psalms 1:3 121, 189 2:6 4 18:8 22 18:16 12 27:9 96 30:8 96 31:23 6 42:2 12 42:3 96 46 191 46:4 3 46:5 3, 188 46:6 96 46:7 3 47 4 48 191 48:2–3 188 48:3–4 3 48:5–7 3

Index of References 51:4 139 63:11 106 67:2 96 71:22 157 76:4 3 76:6–7 3 77:8 90 78:68–70 4 80:4 96 80:8 96 80:20 96 88:6 6 88:15 96 93–99 4 96:11–13 22 98:7–9 22 99:5 180 105:16 125 110:1 180 123:1 54 123:2 54 132:7 180 132:11–17 4 137:7 106 147:10 90 147:11 90 Proverbs 3:12 90 31:24 14 Song of Songs 2:14 10 5:12 12 Isaiah 1–39 25 1–12 25 1:4 157 2:2 157 4:5–6 131 5:17 157 5:24 157 7:14 160 8:6–8 188, 191 9:5–6 143 10:24–27 4

10:32 11 11:9 89 11:11 14 12:3 188 13–23 25 13:13 22, 163 14:25 154 14:32 4 17:22 89 17:23 89 20:27–28 89 20:29–41 89 20:40–41 89 20:40 89 20:41 89 23:8 14 24–35 25 24:10 144 24:16 60 24:18 163 24:20 49 24:22 156 25:2 127 26:1 127 26:3 127 27:13 89 29:6 156 30:24 186 31:4–5 4 31:9 4 33:20–23 188 33:20–22 4, 96 33:21 191 33:22 4 33:23 191 34:6–8 163 36:5 85 37:33–38 4 40–48 89 40:2 90 40:9–10 89 40:11 89 41:8 81, 102 42:13 89 43:1–9 89 43:1 81 43:10 81

43:25 139 44:1 81 44:2 81 44:21 81 45:4 81 45:7 143 45:11 81 48:20 81 51:2 102 51:3 102, 126 52:7–9 126 52:7 143 52:8 89 52:12 89 53:5 143 53:8 6 54:7–8 144 54:9 144 56:1–8 222 56:7 89 57:13 89 57:19 143 60:13 180 60:17 143 60:18 127 64:5 189 65:11 89 65:25 89 66:1 180 66:12 143 66:20 89 Jeremiah 1:1–25:14 25, 154 1:9–10 37 1:14–16 23 2:2 133 2:20 11 3:4 133 3:16–17 180 4:4 221 4:5–7 23 4:6–7 154 4:20 62 5:24 124 6:1–5 23, 154 6:22–23 23, 154

249

Index of References 7:4 4 7:6 53 10:22 23, 154 11:19 43 14:10 90 17:8 121, 189 17:19 209 18:15 50 18:21 106 19:2 209 20:2 209 21:14 23 22:3 53 22:30 43 23:20 157 24:7 135 25:9 155 25:15–38 25 26–36 25 29 93 29:7 143 29:11 143 29:12–14 99 29:14 75 30:24 157 31:23 89 31:29 6 31:31–34 132, 135, 139 31:31 132, 135 31:38 209 31:40 209 32:37–41 135 33:6 143 33:8 139 33:9 125, 143 34:8 216 34:15 216 34:17 216 37:13 209 38:7 209 39:3 209 39:10 101 40:7–12 101 40:7 101 40:10 101 40:12 101

41 103 41:5 108 46–51 25 46:10 163 48:47 157 49:39 157 50:3 155 50:15 127 50:29 157 50:41 155 52:3 85 52:7 209 52:16 101 52:17–23 180 Lamentations 2:1 180 2:8 127 5:4–5 101 Ezekiel 1–32 29 1–24 25, 26, 94 1–11 26–28 1–3 xv, 29, 31, 32, 168, 226 1 27, 28, 88, 175, 176 1:1–3:15 169 1:1–28 28 1:1–2 2 1:2–3 1 1:2 177 1:3 14, 176 1:4 177 1:5 176 1:8 176 1:12 177 1:13–14 177 1:15–21 176 1:20–21 177 1:24 177 1:28 176 2:3–5 2 2:3 15, 85 2:4 85, 141

250 Ezekiel (cont.) 2:5 29, 37, 85 2:6 85 2:7 2, 37 2:8–3:3 37 2:8 85, 149 3:1 2 3:4 2 3:7 85, 141 3:8 37 3:9 85 3:10–11 2 3:11 37 3:12–14 169 3:14–15 169 3:16–21 28 3:17 2, 29 3:18 64 3:22–24 28 3:22 10 3:23 10, 176 3:26 29, 85 3:27 2, 37, 85 4–5 31 4 57 4:2 188 4:3 110 4:6 xx 4:7 35 4:13 95, 114, 177 5 57 5:5 21, 45, 86, 88 5:6 142 5:9 62 5:11 69, 131 5:12 62, 147 5:13 61 5:14 64 5:16–17 147 5:16 61, 62 5:17 61, 147 6–7 32 6 31, 36, 39, 43, 47, 53, 55, 57, 115,

Index of References 118, 119, 166 6:1–14 xv, xvii, 27, 30, 35, 226 6:2 22, 23, 34 6:3–7 47, 63, 228 6:3–6 38 6:3 10, 11, 22, 23, 34, 35, 39, 47 6:4–13 43 6:4–5 43, 54 6:4 36, 47, 55 6:5 36, 47, 54 6:6 11, 36, 47, 54, 63, 64 6:7 36, 45, 55 6:8–10 28, 94 6:8 15, 45, 63 6:9 49, 54, 65, 85, 86, 141 6:10 36, 46 6:11–12 147 6:11 62, 124 6:12 62, 104, 124 6:13 10, 11, 43, 45, 47, 54, 55, 121, 130 6:14 12, 36, 42, 62, 64 7–39 18 7 31, 47, 48, 57–59, 226, 228 7:1–27 xv, 29, 30, 35 7:1–14 159 7:2–4 58, 59 7:2 9, 17, 19, 22, 30, 31, 34, 57–60 7:3–6 58 7:3–4 46, 48, 49, 59, 61, 228

7:3

38, 47, 48, 59, 61 7:4 38, 46, 48, 64 7:5–9 58, 59 7:5 59, 61 7:6–9 58 7:6–7 58 7:6 59 7:7 19, 59, 60, 63, 159 7:8–9 46, 48, 49, 59, 61, 228 7:8 38, 48 7:9 46, 48, 58, 64 7:10–27 59 7:10 58, 59, 159 7:11 59 7:12–13 63 7:12 38, 58, 59, 159 7:13 38, 59 7:14 38, 59 7:15 12, 30, 62, 104, 124, 147 7:16 10, 63, 65 7:17 65 7:18 65 7:19 40, 58 7:20 40, 49, 54, 88, 227 7:21 40 7:22 40, 87, 227 7:23 16, 51–53, 228 7:24 40, 59, 63 7:26–27 6 7:26 62 7:27 38, 47, 52, 61, 65, 165 8–11 27, 28, 30, 31, 41, 69, 92, 114, 168, 169, 175, 176,

181, 223, 226 8 47, 49 8:1 2, 69, 93, 177 8:2–3 178 8:3–18 181 8:3 9, 47, 176 8:4 10 8:5–10:7 94 8:6 41, 49, 96, 131 8:7 41 8:9 41, 49 8:10–11 180 8:10 41 8:12 6, 16, 18, 41, 46 8:13 41, 49 8:14 47 8:15 41, 49 8:16 47 8:17 16, 41, 49, 51, 53, 66, 228 9:1–10:7 94 9:4–7 31 9:4 49 9:6 131 9:7 56 9:9 6, 16, 18, 41, 46, 51, 98, 228 10 88, 176 10:1–22 28, 30, 226 10:1 176 10:2 31, 176, 177 10:3 177 10:4 176–78 10:9–11 176 10:15 176 10:16 13 10:17 177 10:18–19 177 10:18 176, 178 10:19–20 178

251

Index of References 10:19

13, 176, 178 10:20 176, 179 10:22 176 11 142 11:1–21 94 11:1–14 132 11:1–12 28 11:3 5 11:5 86, 98 11:10 98 11:11 5, 92, 98 11:13 98 11:14–21 2, 16, 26, 30, 31, 92–94, 100, 101, 103, 105, 111 11:14–17 94 11:14–16 94 11:14 94 11:15–34 132 11:15 xv, 3, 16, 93, 94, 96–98, 105, 108, 114, 119 11:16–17 45 11:16 15, 94, 98, 99, 177, 216 11:17–20 28, 77, 93, 98, 115, 118, 134, 135, 141, 167, 230 11:17 15, 17, 94, 99, 122, 135, 136, 177, 216 11:18–21 100 11:18 94, 100, 129, 135, 136, 228 11:19–20 94

11:19

85, 94, 114, 132, 135, 141 11:20 94, 100, 132, 135, 142 11:21 92, 94, 141 11:22–25 88 11:22–23 30, 226 11:23 11, 41, 176, 187 11:24 100, 169 11:25–26 100 11:25 169 11:27–29 100 11:35–58 132 11:59–63 132 12–24 27 12–23 27 12:2 37, 85, 149 12:3 85 12:9 85, 149 12:10 52 12:12–13 6 12:12 16, 52 12:13 14 12:15 15, 45 12:16 63, 65, 147 12:19 16–19, 47, 63, 165 12:20 16, 62, 64 12:21–28 2 12:22 17, 159 12:25 85, 149 12:27 159 13:2 141 13:3 86, 141 13:4 64 13:5 43, 58 13:9 17 13:14 13 13:16 35 14 47 14:1–11 69 14:1 2 14:3 69, 85, 141 14:4 141

252 Ezekiel (cont.) 14:6 49, 69 14:7 141, 220, 221 14:8 221 14:11 94, 132 14:12–23 22, 49 14:13–20 49, 64 14:13 15, 22, 38, 49, 62, 88, 124, 147, 228 14:15 15, 43, 62–64, 147 14:16 15, 62, 69 14:17 15, 62 14:18 69 14:19 15, 61, 62 14:20 69 14:21–23 38, 49, 94 14:21 61, 88, 147 14:22 63 15:8 16, 62 16 28, 35, 54, 78, 132, 134 16:2 69 16:3 14, 35, 78 16:4–7 78 16:4 139 16:5 13 16:6–14 133 16:7 13 16:8 78, 133 16:9 139 16:11 40, 227 16:13 40 16:16 11, 47, 54 16:19 54 16:20–21 54 16:20 55 16:21 55 16:22 79, 133 16:24 11 16:25 11 16:27 48 16:29 14

Index of References 16:31 11 16:35 35 16:36 49, 55 16:39 11 16:43 48, 79, 133 16:44–58 134 16:44–45 78 16:47 48 16:48 69 16:50 49 16:53–63 26 16:59–63 28, 94 16:59 133 16:60 79, 132, 133, 136, 137 16:61 48, 134 16:62 132, 133, 137 16:63 134 17 88 17:3 6 17:4 14 17:5–6 6 17:5 13 17:7 125 17:8 6, 13 17:12 6, 85, 149 17:13 133 17:15 85 17:16 69 17:18 133 17:19 69 17:22–24 26, 94 17:22–23 30 17:22 11 17:23 11 17:24 12 18 83, 103 18:2 6, 17, 83 18:3 69 18:5 217 18:6–7 103 18:6 48, 54, 86, 103, 164 18:9 49, 142 18:10 103

18:11 103, 164 18:12–13 103 18:12 48, 49, 54, 86, 103 18:15 48, 54, 86, 103, 164 18:17 142 18:18 53 18:19 217 18:21 217 18:24 49 18:25 6 18:27 217 18:29 6 18:30–32 26 18:31 114, 138 18:32 190 19 88 19:1–10 6 19:1 52 19:3 42, 52 19:4 14, 155 19:6 42, 52 19:7 16, 47, 64 19:8–9 6 19:8 6 19:10–14 6 19:10–11 6 19:12 13 19:13 12 19:14 6 20 xvi, xviii, xix, xxi, 30–32, 54, 57, 68–72, 74, 77–84, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 112, 113, 117, 118, 122, 129–31, 136, 159, 166, 178, 201, 226, 228, 229, 231 20:1–32 74

20:1–31 69, 70 20:1–26 70 20:1–16 57 20:1–4 71, 74 20:1 2, 69 20:3 69, 91, 123 20:4 69, 83, 91 20:5–26 70, 71 20:5–9 71 20:5–6 78–80, 82, 131, 133 20:5 15, 76, 79, 80, 83, 86, 91, 98, 112, 113, 149, 177, 229 20:6 xvi, 14, 15, 41, 73, 76, 78, 79, 87, 88, 213, 222, 229 20:7–8 75, 229 20:7 76, 142 20:8–9 74 20:8 14, 69, 83–85, 160 20:9 14, 73, 87, 190 20:10–17 71, 74 20:10 12, 14, 73 20:11 142 20:12 149 20:13 69, 83–85, 142, 160 20:14 73, 87, 190 20:15 12, 15, 41, 73, 75, 79, 83, 87, 88 20:16 85, 136, 141 20:17 12 20:18–26 71, 74 20:18 12, 83 20:19 142 20:21 12, 69, 83–85, 142, 160

253

Index of References 20:22 20:23

73, 87, 190 12, 15, 45, 73, 75, 79, 83, 84, 113, 229 20:24 83, 86, 122 20:25 86 20:26 83 20:27–29 69, 71, 74, 84 20:27 83, 98 20:28–32 160 20:28–29 113, 229 20:28 11, 16, 47, 54, 73–76, 79, 83, 87, 90, 121, 130 20:29 11, 75, 77, 84 20:30–32 71, 74 20:30–31 70 20:30 71, 73, 83, 91 20:31 54, 55, 69, 71, 91, 123 20:32–44 69, 70 20:32 13, 15, 70, 71, 75, 84, 86, 113, 118, 229 20:33–44 26, 72, 118 20:33 69, 71, 72, 74, 118 20:34–38 71, 74 20:34 15, 45, 69, 72, 73, 122, 216 20:35–36 21, 75 20:35 69, 72, 73 20:36 12, 14, 69, 72, 73 20:37–38 138 20:37 72, 75, 113, 131

20:38

17, 72, 73, 76, 77, 85, 122 20:39–42 72, 74 20:39 72, 74, 76 20:40–44 28, 30, 94, 115 20:40–41 90, 113, 129, 136, 213 20:40 11, 72, 73, 89–91, 98, 118, 178, 211, 223, 231 20:41–42 75 20:41 15, 45, 72, 73, 90, 91, 118, 122, 149, 156, 216 20:42 16, 17, 72–74, 76, 78, 79, 83, 122 20:43–44 72, 74, 77 20:43 48, 73 20:44 48, 118, 190, 231 21 47 21:1–22 30 21:1–12 xv, 34, 35 21:2–3 34, 44 21:2 23, 34 21:3 23, 34, 64 21:4 46 21:7–10 30 21:7–8 34 21:7 17, 22, 23, 30, 34, 46 21:8–9 60 21:8 17, 23, 30, 34 21:9 23, 42, 64 21:10 46 21:11–12 65 21:12 65

254 Ezekiel (cont.) 21:14–22 30 21:23–32 61 21:30–32 6 21:30 52, 60, 159 21:31 6 21:33–37 26 21:34 60, 159 21:35 13 22 43, 47, 53, 56, 58, 103 22:1–16 43 22:1–13 5 22:2 52, 69 22:3–4 57, 103, 228 22:3 51, 54, 56, 57 22:4 15, 51, 54, 56, 57, 107 22:5 210 22:6–13 52 22:6 51–53 22:7 53, 220 22:11 49, 103 22:12 51–53, 221 22:13 53 22:15 15, 45, 139 22:23–31 xv, 35, 43, 56, 57 22:23–27 36 22:24–31 58 22:24–29 5 22:24 16, 22, 34, 36, 37, 43, 52, 56, 58, 66, 228 22:25–29 36, 52 22:25 52 22:26 52, 184, 214 22:27 51, 52 22:29 36, 53, 165, 220, 221 22:30 16, 43, 64 23 28, 35, 78

Index of References 23:15 13, 14 23:16 86 23:19 14 23:22 18 23:23 14 23:24 18 23:27 14, 86 23:36 49, 69 23:37 55 23:38 131 23:39 55, 131 23:40 40, 227 23:42 12 24 27, 31 24:1–14 28 24:1 31 24:3–14 5 24:3 85, 149 24:6 52 24:7 13, 48, 103 24:9 52 24:13 56, 139 24:15–27 100 24:21 104 24:23 65, 116 24:24 116 24:27 29 25–48 26 25–32 25–27 25:1–28:23 45, 105 25:1–28:10 27 25:3 17, 62, 107, 131 25:6 17 25:7 15 25:9 10, 41 25:12–14 107 25:12 107 25:16 10 26:2 107 26:4 127 26:6 9 26:8 9 26:11 13 26:12 127 26:16 13

26:20 9, 41 27:17 14, 98 27:27 131 28:1–19 27 28:7 18 28:11–19 187 28:11 187 28:13 21, 126 28:14 187 28:16 187 28:17 13 28:18 13 28:20–32 27 28:23 61 28:24–26 32 28:25 15, 17, 18, 80, 81, 90, 112, 122, 149, 216, 229 29:5 12, 109 29:9 14 29:10 14 29:12 14, 15 29:14 13, 14 29:17 31 29:18 90 29:19 14 29:20 90 30:1–19 159 30:3 58, 159 30:6 104 30:12 16, 63 30:13 14 30:18 104, 148 30:23 15 30:25 14 30:26 15 31:4 12, 125 31:6 12 31:8 21 31:9 21, 126 31:12 9 31:13 12 31:14 9 31:15 9, 12

31:16 9, 21, 126 31:17 9 31:18 9, 21, 126 31:35 21 32:1 31 32:2 9 32:4 9 32:5 10 32:6 10 32:9 15 32:15 14, 16, 63 32:18 9 32:21 9 32:23 9 32:24 9 32:25 9 32:26 9 32:27 9 32:32 9 33–48 25, 26, 29 33–39 27 33 xvi, 27, 29–32, 54, 100, 101, 115, 116, 150 33:1–20 28 33:1–9 100 33:2 15, 165 33:3 15 33:7 29 33:8 48 33:9 48 33:10–20 100, 101 33:10 6, 65, 66, 71, 101, 117 33:11 48, 69, 190 33:12 50 33:14 217 33:15 142 33:16 217 33:19 217 33:21–22 65, 100, 115 33:21 29, 100 33:22 29

Index of References 33:23–29

16, 30, 92, 93, 100, 101, 105 33:24 xv, 3, 16–18, 42, 64, 80, 82, 93, 96, 101, 102, 105, 108, 112, 114, 119, 229 33:25–26 103 33:25 16, 48, 51, 54, 86, 103, 164 33:26 16, 49, 54, 103 33:27 64, 69, 93, 101, 104, 147 33:28 16, 19, 34, 62, 63, 104 33:29 16, 62, 104 33:30–33 100 33:33 29 33:37 117 34–48 25, 32 34–39 xxi, 27, 32, 115, 116, 150, 166 34–37 32, 116, 118, 119, 121–24, 129, 130, 137, 143, 151, 154, 165, 166, 168, 178, 201 34–36 116, 117 34 19, 115, 116, 118, 125, 127, 130, 137, 230 34:1–36:15 118

255 34:1–31 28, 117 34:1–6 26 34:2–10 129 34:5–6 216 34:5 12, 109, 147 34:6 11, 122, 130 34:8 12, 69, 109, 147 34:10 109 34:11–16 128 34:11 91 34:12 16, 129 34:13 10, 12, 15, 17, 39, 45, 116, 122, 129 34:14 20, 129 34:15–16 129 34:16 129 34:17–27 26 34:17 129 34:18–19 129 34:18 129 34:19 129 34:20 129 34:21 129, 216 34:22 129 34:23–24 118 34:23 90, 128 34:24–28 150 34:24–27 222 34:24 90, 128, 182 34:25–31 30, 137 34:25–30 144, 146, 148, 167 34:25–27 148 34:25 12, 16, 116, 119, 132, 137, 142, 144, 145, 147, 150, 160, 230 34:26–28 148 34:26–27 117, 147, 189

256 Ezekiel (cont.) 34:26 11, 124, 129, 130, 145 34:27–28 147, 148 34:27 12, 17–19, 90, 119, 125, 144, 145, 148, 160 34:28–30 148 34:28 119, 137, 144, 147, 160 34:29 16, 88, 125, 147 34:30–31 79 34:30 132, 147, 148 35 26, 33, 105, 106, 111, 117, 118 35:1–15 xvii, 35, 39, 105, 107, 112, 117 35:1–9 26 35:1 111 35:2 22, 23, 34 35:3–4 107 35:3 23, 62, 111 35:4 111, 112 35:5–9 107 35:5 44, 60, 106 35:6 69, 107 35:7–8 10 35:7 62, 63, 111 35:8 111 35:9 111, 112 35:10–13 107 35:10 xv, 13, 41, 42, 44, 92, 105, 108, 109, 119, 121, 127, 228 35:11 44, 69, 107 35:12–13 37, 114

Index of References 35:12

xv, 43, 62, 64, 92, 105, 109, 110, 112, 119, 125 35:13 110 35:14–15 107 35:14 9, 111 35:15 62, 110–12, 114, 214 35:16 228 35:36 111 36–37 124 36 42, 105, 116, 121, 125, 230 36:1–15 xv, xvii, 27, 35, 39, 45, 50, 105–7, 112, 117– 19, 121, 123, 166, 226 36:1–14 30 36:1 11, 22, 23, 34, 35, 111 36:2–5 64 36:2 11, 37, 41, 42, 44, 48, 64, 92, 96, 105, 107, 108, 119 36:3–6 107 36:3 40, 42, 62, 63 36:4 10, 22, 23, 34, 35, 39, 45, 62–64, 105, 120, 121 36:5 16, 39, 40, 42, 45, 63, 96, 105, 109, 110, 227, 228 36:6 10, 17, 22, 23, 34, 39

36:7 36:8–11 36:8

45, 79, 105 110, 117 20, 37, 38, 107, 111, 114, 120– 22, 189 36:9–14 114 36:9–11 40, 41, 46 36:9 20, 43, 63, 119, 120, 125, 166 36:10 63, 64, 120, 123, 127 36:11 45, 120, 121, 123– 26, 189, 230 36:12–15 107 36:12–14 38 36:12 38, 40, 64, 110, 111, 114, 120, 214, 227 36:13–15 42, 50 36:13–14 50 36:13 xv, 37, 38, 40, 42, 50, 119, 120, 125 36:14 38, 42, 50 36:15 38, 42, 47, 50, 121, 166 36:16–38 28, 30, 113, 117, 118, 166, 226 36:16–19 118 36:16 123 36:17–23 160 36:17–18 136 36:17 17, 18 36:18 13, 51, 228 36:19 15, 45, 123, 216 36:20–23 118, 156 36:20–21 190

36:20

xv, 6, 16, 40, 44, 121 36:22–32 65 36:22–23 190, 231 36:23 130 36:24–38 118 36:24–28 77, 134–36, 138, 142, 160, 167, 230 36:24 15, 17, 45, 75, 122, 135, 136 36:25 123, 135, 138–40, 190, 228 36:26–28 114 36:26–27 130, 135, 136, 140, 141 36:26 85, 123, 132, 135, 136, 141 36:27 117, 135, 138, 141, 142 36:28 16, 18, 132, 135, 136, 142 36:29–30 117, 189 36:29 88, 125, 130, 140 36:30 13, 88, 125, 189 36:31–32 26 36:31 48, 49 36:32 48 36:33–38 117 36:33–35 64 36:33 63, 64, 123, 127, 139, 140 36:34–35 189 36:34 12, 62, 63, 125

257

Index of References 36:35

16, 21, 62, 125, 127, 160, 167 36:36 62, 63, 125, 127 36:37 123 36:38 91, 123 36:38:8 64 37 27 37:1–14 116, 117, 141, 167 37:1 10 37:2 10 37:3 117 37:4 35 37:5 141 37:6 141 37:9 141 37:10 141 37:11 6, 35, 71, 117 37:12 17, 122 37:14 17, 18, 117, 141 37:15–28 116, 127, 130, 137 37:16–20 122 37:16 98, 127 37:19 127, 128 37:21–28 116 37:21 17, 75, 122, 123 37:22 19, 34, 42, 116, 128, 201 37:23 128–30, 132, 139 37:24 81, 90, 116, 117, 128, 142, 217 37:25–28 148 37:25 15, 16, 18, 80, 82, 90, 112, 116, 128, 182, 229

37:26–28

30, 137, 144, 146, 148–50, 167, 178, 212, 222, 223, 230, 231 37:26–27 145 37:26 116, 124, 131, 132, 136, 137, 142, 145, 148–50, 160, 168, 230 37:27 132, 137, 148–50, 168 37:28–30 149 37:28–29 148 37:28 91, 131, 137, 148, 149, 168 37:29 149 37:30 149 38–39 xvi, 16, 26, 27, 30, 32, 115, 116, 119, 150, 151, 153, 155, 157, 159, 161, 165, 166, 226, 230 38:1 151 38:2–23 152 38:2–9 152 38:2–3 152 38:2 14, 152, 156, 161 38:3–7 156 38:3 152, 156, 161 38:4 153, 155 38:5 162 38:6 162 38:7 156

258 Ezekiel (cont.) 38:8 15, 16, 18, 19, 45, 119, 122, 153, 156, 158– 60, 166 38:9 16 38:10–13 152, 153 38:10 156, 157 38:11–12 40, 156 38:11 16–18, 21, 119, 160, 167 38:12 9, 19–21, 45, 88, 162 38:13 160, 162 38:14–16 152 38:14 119, 152, 156, 157, 160 38:15 162 38:16 16, 18, 40, 152, 153, 156–60, 166, 227 38:17–22 152, 153 38:17 90, 152, 154, 155 38:18–19 155 38:18 17, 18, 152, 157, 159 38:19 17, 61, 155, 157, 159, 163 38:20 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 127, 156, 163 38:21 152, 156 38:22 156 38:23 149, 152, 157, 160 39:1–29 152 39:1–8 152 39:1 152, 156, 161, 163

Index of References 39:2–5 153 39:2 18, 162 39:3–4 156 39:4 12, 164 39:5 152 39:6 152, 161 39:7 152, 156, 157, 160, 165, 167, 230 39:8 152 39:9–10 152 39:9 155 39:10 12, 152, 155 39:11–16 152, 153, 164 39:11 11, 157, 164 39:12 16, 56, 165 39:13 152, 164, 165 39:14–16 56 39:14–15 165 39:14 16, 165 39:15 11, 16, 165 39:16 16 39:17–20 152, 153 39:17 12, 152, 163 39:18 9, 156 39:19 163 39:20 152, 164 39:21–29 152, 153, 166 39:22 152, 157, 161 39:23 152, 154 39:24 139 39:25 15, 80, 112, 152, 157, 161, 190, 231 39:26–27 154 39:26 17, 18 39:27 15, 45, 122, 149

39:28 39:29

17, 152 120, 151, 152 40–48 xvi, xvii, xviii, xxi, 15, 16, 18, 26–28, 30–32, 52, 116, 128, 134, 151, 168–72, 174, 175, 178, 182, 210–12, 214, 222, 223, 226, 231 40–46 190 40–42 169, 178, 180 40:1–44:3 172 40:1–43:11 172 40:1–42:20 171, 172, 174, 223 40:1–4 172, 174 40:1–2 151, 178 40:1 xx 40:2 11, 15, 16, 89, 169, 174, 183, 223 40:3 185 40:4 37, 185 40:5 172, 185, 203 40:34–38 180 40:44–46 169 40:46 171 40:49 185 41:4 183 41:16 13 41:20 13 41:30 211 42 172 42:6 13 42:13–14 169 42:13 211

42:15–20 172 42:15 172 42:16 172 42:17 172 42:18 172 42:19 172 42:20 172, 183, 184, 211 43 27 43:1–46:24 171 43:1–12 xv, 168, 169, 171– 76, 180, 192, 223, 231, 232 43:1–9 30, 41 43:1–6 27 43:2 9, 41, 176– 78, 183 43:3 41, 174, 176, 178 43:4 176 43:5 169, 176, 178, 179 43:6 179 43:7–9 181 43:7 11, 178, 180–82, 223 43:8 181, 182 43:9 178, 181, 182, 223 43:11 172 43:12 10, 11, 172, 183, 188, 231 43:13–46:24 172, 174, 183, 223 43:13–46:18 172 43:13–27 169, 172 43:13 13 43:19 171 43:20–27 170 43:24 189 44:1–46:24 172 44:1–4 169, 172 44:1–3 172

259

Index of References 44:2 178, 189 44:3 182 44:4–46:24 172 44:4 169, 172 44:5–46:18 169, 172 44:5–31 173 44:5–8 173 44:5 37, 172 44:6–16 169 44:6 85, 173 44:7 131, 163, 221 44:8 131, 221 44:9–27 173 44:9 131, 221 44:10–14 171 44:10 96 44:11 131, 169 44:12 79 44:14 169 44:15 131, 163 44:16 131, 164 44:23 184, 214, 231 44:28–31 173 45:1–29 169 45:1–8 30, 169, 171, 173, 174, 192, 201, 203, 211, 223 45:1 16, 184, 203, 224 45:2 109, 203 45:3 183, 203 45:4 16, 183, 203 45:5 203 45:6 174, 184, 203, 206, 209, 210, 225 45:7–8 215 45:7 174, 184, 204, 208, 225, 232 45:8–22 169

45:8–9

183, 214, 215 45:8 16, 215, 217 45:9–46:18 173 45:9–12 173 45:9 173, 215, 217 45:13–46:15 173 45:13 211 45:16 211 45:17 182 45:18–20 170 45:22 165 46:2 182 46:3 165 46:9 165 46:12 182 46:13–15 169 46:13 169 46:14 169 46:15 169 46:16–18 173, 183, 214, 215 46:16 216 46:17 216 46:18 208, 215, 216 46:19–24 169, 172 46:24 169 47 126, 189 47:1–48:35 171, 172 47:1–12 31, 126, 130, 168, 169, 171–75, 184, 187, 192, 212, 222, 223, 230–32 47:1 173, 185 47:2 185, 189 47:3–5 185, 191 47:5 191 47:6 186, 191 47:7 186, 188, 189, 191

260 Ezekiel (cont.) 47:8 10, 186, 187, 190, 191, 224 47:9 188–90 47:10–15 199, 201, 224, 232 47:10 187–89 47:11 186, 187, 189 47:12 121, 173, 183, 188, 189, 192, 224 47:13–48:35 30, 31, 171–74, 223, 224, 232 47:13–48:29 xv 47:13–14 214, 217 47:13 16, 83, 173, 202, 209 47:14 16, 79, 82, 83, 111, 199, 206, 213, 214, 217, 222, 224, 232 47:15–20 xvii, 192, 193, 195, 196–99, 202, 207, 209, 212 47:15–17 193, 202 47:15–16 193 47:15 16, 193, 195 47:16 193, 195 47:17 193 47:18 15, 16, 187, 193, 195 47:19 196, 202 47:20 193, 196

Index of References 47:21–23

217, 220, 222, 223, 225 47:21 16, 214 47:22–23 214, 221, 232 47:22 217, 220, 221 47:23 220–22 48 201, 202, 206, 208, 213 48:1–35 201 48:1–29 217 48:1–20 192 48:1–7 206, 209, 214, 225, 232 48:1 173, 192– 95, 202 48:7 225, 232 48:8–22 201, 203 48:8–20 211 48:8 203, 204, 225 48:9–22 203 48:10 183, 203, 204 48:11 171 48:12 16, 183, 203, 231 48:13–14 209 48:13 184 48:14 16 48:15–20 225 48:15 109, 175, 203 48:16–17 203 48:16 173, 209 48:17 109, 175 48:18–19 204 48:18 175, 203 48:19 203, 206, 209, 210 48:20 192, 203

48:21

193, 204, 205, 208, 215, 225, 232 48:23–29 209, 225, 232 48:23–28 214 48:23–27 206 48:23 202, 225, 232 48:28 195, 202 48:29 16, 173, 174, 196, 202, 214 48:30–35 xv, 174, 209, 213, 225 48:30 173 48:35 108, 173, 175, 210, 225, 232 Daniel 2:28 158 8:17 60 9:16 89 9:20 89 10:14 158 11:34 99 11:35 60 11:40 60 12:4 60 12:9 60 Hosea 2:7 40 2:10–11 40 2:14 40 2:17 133 2:20 147 3:5 157 9:3 95 12:8 14

Joel 1:20 12 2:1 89 2:3 126 2:10 163 4:16 163 4:19 106

Haggai 1:1 170 1:12 170 1:14 170 2:2 170 2:4 170 2:23 170

Amos 6:14 194, 200 7:17 95 8:2 59

Zechariah 1:15 99 2:8 21 2:15 222 3:1 170 3:8 170 6:11 170 7:10 53 8:3 89 9:10 143 14:4–5 163 14:5 11 14:21 14

Obadiah 5 106 11 106 13 106 14 106 Micah 4:1 157 5:4 143 6:7 123 6:12 53 Nahum 3:1 52 Zephaniah 1:1–2:3 25 1:3 66 1:7 163 1:9 53 2:4–3:8 25 3:9–20 25 3:11 89

261

Index of References

Malachi 2:8 50 3:3 139 Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 26:1 21 Jubilees 8:19 21

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QSa 2:11–12 158 4Q174 1:11–12 158 Classical Sources Herodotus The Histories III, 91 Inscriptions KTU 1.4 IV 21–22 188 Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 37a 21 Midrash Tanuma Qedoshim 10 21

I n d ex of A ut hor s Achenbach, R. 218, 220 Aharoni, Y. 194, 195, 198 Ahlström, G. W. 106 Albertz, R. 1, 218–20 Allen, L. C. xx, 47, 48, 56, 70, 71, 89, 93, 107, 109, 114, 117, 132, 146, 154, 171, 172, 176, 185, 186, 190, 191, 204, 207, 210, 221 Anderson, F. I. 59, 60 André, G. 138 Astour, M. C. 155 Avalos, H. 195 Baltzer, D. 144, 146 Barthélemy, D. 50, 56, 72, 107, 154, 156, 182 Bartlett, J. R. 106 Batto, B. F. 143, 162 Begg, C. T. 82 Berg, W. 126 Bertholet, A. 217 Biberger, B. 161 Blenkinsopp, J. 154, 222 Block, D. I. xix, 3, 21, 28, 29, 52, 55, 56, 58, 60, 64, 66, 72, 78, 80, 82, 89, 93, 95, 97, 102, 103, 107, 109, 111, 116, 123, 128, 130, 131, 133, 134, 137, 143, 144, 146, 148, 152, 154–56, 158, 162, 163, 171–73, 176, 180, 182, 183, 186, 190, 191, 194, 197, 204, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 215–17, 221 Boadt, L. 32, 118, 155 Bøe, S. 14, 153, 156, 159, 162 Bogaert, P.-M. 58 Borghino, A. 144 Bourguet, D. 36 Bovati, P. 8, 65, 91 Brownlee, W. H. 35, 48, 58, 60, 61, 93, 133, 134 Brueggemann, W. xvi, 2, 3 Carley, K. xviii, 39 Carr, D. M. 102 Carvalho, C. L. 163

Casson, D. 33, 35 Cassuto, U. 26 Childs, B. S. 158, 163 Chrostowski, W. 17, 86, 97, 134 Clements, R. E. 5, 26, 188, 190 Clifford, R. J. 20 Clines, D. J. A. 8 Cody, A. 42, 162, 181 Cogan, M. 4, 215 Collins, J. J. 158 Cook, S. L. 153, 154 Cooke, G. A. 56, 58, 62, 99, 109, 181, 183, 204, 207 Davidson, R. M. 26, 27 De Vries, S. J. 159 Driver, G. R. 186 Dubberstein, W. H. 69 Duguid, I. M. 52, 128, 213 Dürr, L. 158 Ebach, J. H. 182 Eichrodt, W. 40, 46, 47, 56, 60, 61, 89, 93, 133, 134, 137, 164, 183, 186, 191, 207 Elliger, K. 146 Engelhard, D. H. 197 Erling, B. 158 Even-Shoshan, A. 8 Fabry, H.-J. 86 Farmer, W. R. 186 Fechter, F. 45 Fishbane, M. 28, 188 Fitzpatrick, P. E. 155, 163, 164 Fohrer, G. 25, 40, 94, 181, 207 Forsey, H. O. 111 Freedman, D. N. 59, 60 Fuhs, H. F. 25, 94, 99, 184, 204 Galambush, J. xviii, 35 Galling, K. 25, 40, 94, 109, 181, 207 Gerstenberger, E. 49 Gese, H. 217



Index of Authors

Goldingay, J. 103 Görg, M. 195 Gosse, B. xvii, 39, 102 Graffy, A. 71, 94, 96, 97, 99, 104 Granados Garcia, C. 66, 126, 139, 142 Greenberg, M. 18, 25, 47, 52, 53, 56, 58–62, 66, 70, 72, 76, 77, 82, 89, 93, 94, 97, 99, 102, 103, 107, 109, 120, 123, 125, 131–33, 137, 139, 190, 204, 207, 208 Grill, S. 163 Grisanti, M. A. 17 Habel, N. C. xvi, xviii, 35, 39 Hals, R. M. 56, 93, 94, 99, 107, 116, 132, 133, 146, 154, 170, 191 Hamilton, J. M. 187 Herion, G. A. 187 Hieke, T. 146 Holladay, W. L. 11 Horst, F. 110, 111 Hossfeld, F.-L. 93, 138, 139, 144, 146, 153, 154, 163 Hurvitz, A. 133 Hutchens, K. D. xvii, 35, 38, 40, 46, 48, 55, 56, 60, 62, 80, 82, 89, 101, 107, 129, 144, 146, 157, 164, 186, 194, 196, 198, 199, 204, 208, 211, 213 Illman, K.-J. 143 Jeremias, J. 60 Joyce, P. M. 25, 45, 62, 64, 65, 89, 93, 94, 99, 128, 140, 170, 171, 204 Kallai, Z. 194 Kasher, R. 184 Keck, E. 99 Keller, B. xvii, 9, 18, 57 Kellermann, D. 218, 221 Kim, S. J. 212 Klein, A. 107, 145, 146 Klein, R. W. 99, 153, 199, 204 Koch, R. 140 Konkel, M. 173, 194, 198, 204 Koole, J. L. 103 Kratz, R. G. 4 Krüger, T. 70, 93–95, 132 Kutsko, J. F. 27, 88, 89, 99, 124, 126

263

Lapsley, J. E. 120, 140 Leene, H. 135 Lemche, N. P. 14 Levenson, J. D. xvii, 191, 197, 200, 204, 208, 221 Levey, S. H. 99 Levin, C. 95 Levine, B. A. 194, 201, 220 Lilly, I. E. 118 Lipiski, E. 110, 111 Liwak, R. 4 Lott, J. K. 195 Lundbom, J. R. 90 Lust, J. 76, 122 Lyons, M. A. 144–46 Maass, F. 139 Macholz, G. C. 204, 208, 209 Maisler, B. 194, 197 McCarter Jr., P. K. 5 Mein, A. 52, 128, 153 Mettinger, T. N. D. 179 Meyer, I. 63 Middlemas, J. 179 Milgrom, J. 144, 146, 173, 186 Mozgol, A. 180 Neiman, D. 181 Nihan, C. 146, 219 Obinwa, I. M. C. 147 Odell, M. S. 153, 160 Ohnesorge, S. 125, 126, 139 Okopie-Sławin’ski, A. 20 Ollenberger, B. C. 4 Ottosson, M. 126 Parker, R. A. 69 Patton, C. L. 99 Payne, D. 103 Pikor, W. 7, 28, 29, 58, 85, 97, 124, 146, 188 Plöger, J. G. 17 Pohlmann, K.-F. 25, 26, 47, 56, 61, 94, 97, 132, 170 Pons, J. 74, 86 Propp, W. H. C. 96

264

Index of Authors

Rad, G. von 110 Renaud, B. 132, 133, 143–46, 149 Rendtorff, R. 29, 118 Renz, T. 133, 134 Reventlow, H. G. 45, 52, 133 Riesener, I. 7 Ringgren, H. 90 Roberts, J. J. M. 3, 4 Robson, J. 141 Rohland, E. 3 Rost, L. 17 Roth, R. L. 195 Rudnig, T. A. 183, 198 Rüterswörden, U. 90 Ruwe, A. 99 Sawyer, J. F. A. 7 Schmidt, H. H. 17 Schmold, H. 43 Schottroff, W. 45, 156 Schwartz, B. J. 76, 82 Sedlmeier, F. 25, 56, 97, 99, 116, 134, 138, 147 Seebaß, H. 157 Shea, W. H. 26 Sicre Díaz, J. L. 95 Simian-Yofre, H. 90 Stadelmann, L. I. J. 10–12, 20 Stendebach, F. J. 86 Stevenson, K. R. xvii, 33, 39, 180, 204, 210, 211 Strecker, G. xvi Strong, J. T. 179

Tadmor, H. 4, 215 Talmon, S. 20, 21, 60 Tengström, S. T. 86 Tooman, W. A. 55, 153, 158 Trier, J. 7 Tuell, S. S. xvii, 99, 170, 180, 198 Van Dyke Parunak, H. 26, 172 Van Seters, J. 102 Vaux, R. de 197, 203 Vogt, E. 93, 184 Wagner, S. 91 Weimar, P. 71, 218 Weinfeld, M. 197, 200 Wendebourg, N. 159 Wevers, J. W. 26, 35, 40, 61, 62, 93, 94, 99, 107, 109, 154, 181, 186, 194 Wilkinson, J. 188 Willi, T. 15 Wilson, R. R. 64 Wolff, H. W. 140 Worschech, U. 187 Wright, C. J. H. 22, 35, 110, 111, 189 Younker, R. W. 195 Zenger, E. 71 Zimmerli, W. xix, xx, 14, 18, 47, 48, 56, 58–61, 69, 71, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 102, 108, 109, 113, 128, 132, 134, 155, 156, 158, 160, 164, 171, 183, 184, 186, 191, 194, 204, 208, 215, 217