“There are hundreds of ways of interpreting the Bible--what makes you think that yours is correct?” While it is true that Christians disagree over a number of issues (e.g., the meaning of Genesis 1-2, the fulfillment of prophecy, the justifiability of war), there is far more agreement over the cardinal doctrines of Christianity than most people think. Almost all denominations share the foundational truths about God, man, sin, and salvation (what C. S. Lewis called “mere Christianity”). The vast majority of Christians, for example, concur with the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed.

When interpretive disagreement occurs, it is usually because of faulty or inconsistent methods of interpretation (hermeneutics). Some people, for instance, impose their own preconceived notions upon the pages of Scripture instead of allowing Scripture to speak for itself. But when the basic principles of interpretation are put into practice, most difficulties disappear. Here are fifteen principles along with specific exercises that will sharpen your skills in interpreting the Bible:

The Principle of Biblical Authority

Do not regard the Bible as a textbook; it is not merely an object to be observed but an oracle to be obeyed. Approach it with a proper attitude of reverence, care, and receptivity. It is alive with the Spirit of God, and it has the power to change the lives of those who respond to it. It is trustworthy and inexhaustible. There are always fresh truths within its pages, and the more deeply we mine, the more insight we will gain. It can transform our thinking and gradually move us from a human to a divine perspective.

Exercise: Inspiration has been defined as “God’s superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs” (Charles C. Ryrie). Read the following passages and briefly describe how each aids your understanding of inspiration: Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 5:17-18; 15:4; John 10:35; 17:17; Acts 28:25; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 3:15-16; Revelation 22:19.

The Extent of Biblical Authority

The authority of Scripture is not limited merely to matters of religious faith; it extends to all that it affirms, including historical events, geography, chronology, and the miracles of the Old and New Testaments. The Bible has been challenged in many ways--for instance, Daniel did not write the prophecies in the book of Daniel; Jesus did not feed the multitudes but inspired them to share their lunches. But if the Bible is not trustworthy in matters like these, how can we be sure that it is reliable in other areas? Either we place ourselves under the authority of Scripture or we do not. To fully understand its message, we must submit to it.

Exercise: According to John 7:17, what condition must be met to recognize Jesus’ true authority?

Scripture, Tradition, and Experience

The Word of God should be our final court of appeal for authority. As valuable as tradition and experience are, we must interpret them in light of Scripture. The church does not decide what Scripture teaches; Scripture determines what the church teaches. Tradition is an important authority, but it is not the ultimate authority. Many traditions, true and false, have surfaced throughout the history of the church. If a tradition or personal experience is clearly contrary to the teaching of Scripture, it is not of the Lord. On the other hand, experience supports the validity of biblical truth; if Christianity is true, it should be practical enough to change lives.

Exercise: A person decides to increase his giving over a period of several years and discovers that he is better off financially than when he began. Is he justified in teaching that the same thing will happen to others when they increase their giving?

Why or why not?

Scripture and Human Reason

Like tradition, reason is a significant authority. But it, too, must be placed under the dominion of Scripture. The Bible affirms a number of truths that seem impossible to resolve. How can Jesus Christ be fully God and fully man? How can the three Persons in the one Godhead be fully and completely God and not each other? These matters are not ultimately contradictory, but they do go beyond the limits of human comprehension. There are only two choices: submit our reason to the authority of Scripture and accept the tension, or submit Scripture to the authority of our reason and resolve the tension (e.g., play down the deity or humanity of Christ). Exercise: The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all, but man is responsible for his decisions. Compare Romans 9:6-21 with Romans 10:9-15. What do you do with the tension between these passages?

The Principle of Biblical Unity

This principle counsels us to treat the Bible as a complete book, since it is a unity in diversity. We should seek to relate each book we study to the central theme of Scripture: God’s loving plan to redeem and restore imperfect people through the perfect work of His Son. The better we grasp the big picture, the better we will be able to see the details in proper perspective.

The New Testament builds upon the Old, and requires a familiarity with the history and imagery of the Old Testament. Without this, many New Testament passages would be extremely difficult to understand. Hebrews 9, for example, assumes a knowledge of the structure and function of the tabernacle.

Exercise: How would you answer the charge that the God of the Old Testament is wrathful and judgmental, whereas the God of the New Testament is loving and merciful?

The Principle of Progressive Revelation

The Bible is a unified book, but as we study its pages, we should also remember that it is a progressive revelation. Over the fifteen or more centuries during which it was written, its portrait of God and His redemptive program was gradually enriched and clarified. It has been said that “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.”

This is not to say that the religion or ethical standards of the Bible evolved from a primitive to a sophisticated level. Rather, it means that the revelation of the person and character of God has become clearer through the course of biblical history (see Heb. 1:1-2). Since the fullness of God’s revelation is in the New Testament, we must avoid the temptation of reading the New Testament back into the Old. At the same time, we should avoid the opposite pitfall of projecting Old Testament civil or ceremonial laws into our own time (e.g., the dietary laws). Exercise: Read Hebrews 10:1-18 in light of this principle.

The Principle of Clarity

This principle tells us to let the Bible speak for itself. We should allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, since it is its own best interpreter and commentator. Move from the known to the unknown by interpreting unclear passages in the light of those which are clear. When wrestling with a difficult passage, consult other verses which deal with the same subject in a simpler way. Then bring the unclear into conformity with the clear. Everything that is necessary to salvation and sanctification is clearly revealed in Scripture.

It is also wise to gain familiarity with the gospels and epistles before tackling more difficult books like Ezekiel and Revelation.

Exercise: Compare Galatians 5:4 with John 10:27-29 on the issue of salvation.

Which passage is clearer?

The Principle of Correlation

To be truly biblical, a specific doctrine must incorporate everything the Word has to say about it. We build up our understanding of theology by comparing Scripture with Scripture. It is unwise to base any doctrine on one or two miscellaneous verses or on controversial, obscure passages.

This principle tells us to correlate the teachings of Scripture by using cross references. 1. Verbal cross references compare the use of a word or expression in several passages. 2. Conceptual cross references compare similar ideas or doctrines like the resurrection or redemption. 3. Parallel cross references compare passages that recount the same incident like the feeding of the 5,000 or the life of Hezekiah in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and Isaiah. Correlation involves both inductive reasoning (specific passages to general conclusions) and deductive reasoning (general premises to specific applications).

Exercise: Here are some difficult verses that have been used as proof texts for unbiblical doctrines: John 15:6; Hebrews 6:4-6 are used to refute the security of the believer. James 2:24 is used to show that works are necessary for salvation. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16 are used to teach that water baptism is a necessary condition for salvation. What is the problem in each case?

Exercise: Mormons use 1 Corinthians 15:29 to justify their practice of proxy baptism for unbelievers. How do you respond?

The Principle of Context

Interpret every passage in light of its immediate context (preceding and following verses, paragraph, chapter) and broad context (book, testament, Bible). A verse lifted out of its context can become a pretext. It is not as easy to twist the meaning of a verse when it is observed in its setting.

The first level of context is the material that surrounds the passage you are interpreting. For example, to interpret the three parables in Luke 15, it is important to notice that Jesus was addressing them to the Pharisees and scribes (Luke 15:1-3).

Exercise: Use James 1:2-4 to discover the kind of wisdom James had in mind in 1:5. Use Philippians 4:10-12 to interpret Paul’s statement in 4:13. The second level of context is the book in which your passage appears. Your approach should be appropriate to the Testament, whether Old or New, and it should also be consistent with the theme, purpose, and style of the book. The third level of context is the Bible as a whole. Relate the passage you are considering to the broad context of scriptural teaching. What contribution does it make to God’s plan in human history?

The fourth level of context is the culture and historical background in which the passage was written. See “The Principle of Background.”

The Principle of Normal Usage

Take the text at face value and interpret it in its normal or literal sense. Do not interpret it in a symbolic or allegorical way unless the context tells you that parables, symbols, or other figures of speech are being used. It is always better to identify the plain and natural sense of a passage instead of looking for hidden meaning. It cannot be literal and figurative at the same time. For example, “I am the door of the sheep” (John 10:7) is figurative because it uses an inanimate object to describe a living person; it cannot mean that Jesus is a wooden door. Only when the literal meaning does not fit the context, as in poetic or parabolic language, should we interpret a passage figuratively.

Exercise: How do you approach the story of Balaam and his donkey in Numbers 22:21-35? Should you understand it literally or figuratively? Why?

The Principle of Application

A passage normally has only one interpretation, though it may lead to a number of applications. This principle tells us to distinguish the single interpretation from the multiple applications.

The New Testament tells us that the events of the Old Testament have moral and spiritual applications for us today (see Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6,11; 2 Tim. 3:16-17), but this does not give us a license to read allegorical meanings into these events. It is true that the New Testament sometimes tells us that specific Old Testament events are symbolic of spiritual truths. For instance, Paul tells us that the rock that provided the Israelites with water in the wilderness is symbolic of Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). In Galatians, he uses the story of Sarah and Hagar as an allegory of the old and new covenants (Gal. 4:21-31). But this symbolic use of historical facts was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and as interpreters of Scripture, we cannot lay claim to the same authority. Unless the inspired writers of Scripture designate a secondary or “hidden” meaning in an event or a prophecy, we are on shaky ground when we look for such a meaning. If we try to impose more than one sense on a passage without biblical warrant, we will fall into the trap of spiritualizing, symbolizing, and allegorizing.

Therefore, we should normally look for a single meaning and prefer the clearest and most obvious interpretation when there is more than one possibility. Any applications we draw from a passage should be consistent with its meaning. We may, for example, observe the way Jesus used the simple analogy of water in talking with the woman at the well and decide to look for effective analogies when we have opportunities to share the gospel with others. But it would be wrong to apply the passage by concluding that we must use the analogy of water when we tell others about Christ.

Exercise: Some people interpret the Song of Solomon as a portrait of Christ and His bride, the church. Is this a valid interpretation? Is it a valid application?

The Principle of Background

This principle tells us to consider the historical background of the portion of Scripture we are interpreting. This, along with any relevant customs and geography, provides the proper backdrop to add to our understanding of the passage. Ask the question, “What did this passage mean to the people of that time and culture?”

The historical setting includes the situation of the author and his purpose for writing the book or epistle. Who wrote it? When was it written? What was the occasion? What are the historical references in the book? Who were the recipients? Who are the main characters?

When Paul wrote to the Philippian church, he was in prison, waiting to know if he would be executed or released. Ten years before, he was a prisoner in Philippi (Acts 16:12-40). Background information like this will greatly aid our understanding of the themes and allusions in this epistle.

The physical setting includes any geographical references in the passage or book. The book of Amos, for example, begins with a catalog of judgments on the nations that surround Israel. A map will show how these catastrophes gradually spiral in on Israel herself (Amos 1:3-2:16). The physical setting also relates to references to plant and animal life.

The cultural setting includes information about manners and customs of Bible lands that would help our understanding of the meaning of a passage. Biblical and extrabiblical sources provide us with information about such things as ceremonial cleansing, idolatrous practices, wedding customs, oriental hospitality, and so forth. A knowledge of the historical, physical, and cultural settings will give us a better picture of what a passage meant to the people to whom it was written.

Exercise: How does Acts 13-15 aid your understanding of the epistle to the Galatians?

The Principle of Verbal Interpretation

We should understand words in a way that is consistent with how they were used at the time they were written.

Lexical study--Even without knowing the original languages, one can pick any word in the Bible, discover the Hebrew or Greek word from which it was translated, and learn the literal meaning of that word. This can be done with tools like Strong’s Concordance, Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, and Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. It is also helpful to compare translations. Comparative study--Using a concordance, you can determine how often a word is used and what writers used it.

Theological study--The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament and the Dictionary of New Testament Theology are excellent tools for discovering the theological usage of significant words. Be sure to interpret any word in relation to its immediate context.

Exercise: In what different ways is the word “faith” used in Romans 14:23; Galatians 1:23; 1 Timothy 5:11-12?

The Principle of Grammatical Interpretation

This principle tells us to be aware of the grammatical details of the sentences of Scripture. Sentences are units of thought that are governed by the rules of grammar. Obviously, it would be best to study grammatical constructions in the original language, but since this is not possible for most students of Scripture, much of the needed information is available in good Bible commentaries. When focusing on a particular verse, it is a good idea to see what more than one commentator says about it.

Exercise: Look up John 1:14 in two commentaries. What grammatical insight did you gain?

The Principle of Theological Interpretation

This rule tells us to discover the meaning of a passage rather than impose one upon it. Every interpreter has a theological perspective, whether he knows it or not. If we are not careful, our natural tendency will be to read our doctrinal view into Scripture by overlooking some passages and camping on others. When this happens, our theology becomes more authoritative than the Bible. Instead of interpreting a passage on the basis of a dogmatic system (eisegesis), we must be willing to modify our thinking according to what Scripture really says (exegesis).

Exercise: Read the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25:1-13. How do you think people of different theological persuasions would approach this parable? What do you think is the central point of the parable?

The Principle of Literary Form

As we saw in Section IV, the Bible uses a wide variety of literary forms. As interpreters, we must take these literary genres into account, because they control the meanings of sentences. We will look briefly at short figures of speech, parables (an extended figure of speech), and prophecy.

Interpretation of Figurative Language

We saw that we must understand a passage literally unless the context indicates that figurative language is being used. When this is the case, we should enjoy such imagery, because the abundance of figures of speech in the Bible adds beauty, appeal, and persuasiveness to the written Word.

The Bible accommodates divine revelation to the human mind by using human languages, idioms, thought forms, and experience. This is why the language used to describe heaven (e.g., jewels, gold, no tears), and hell (e.g., fire) is cast in terms of human experience.

When the Bible speaks of God, one of the most common figures of speech is anthropomorphism (e.g., His hands, feet, eyes, mouth). This does not mean that God has a physical body any more than Psalm 91:4 means that He is a giant bird (“He shall cover you with His feathers, and under His wings you shall take refuge”). By its very nature, figurative language should not be taken literally. However, this is not to say that there is no literal reality behind the figure. When Christ called Himself the bread of life, He did not mean that He was a baked loaf; the literal reality behind this figure is that He offers spiritual nourishment and life to anyone who trusts in Him.

When you encounter a figure of speech, first try to decide what kind of figure it is (use Section IV) and then determine the literal reality behind the figure. Be sure to interpret in light of the context.

Exercise: What kind of figure does Jesus use in Matthew 16:19? What is the literal reality behind the figure?

Some of the biblical symbols are explained by the Scriptures (e.g., the stars and lampstands in Rev. 1:20). We can use these symbols as a guide to assist us in interpreting those symbols that are not explained. Some symbols, like the lion, are used in more than one way, and we must not force them to mean the same thing. Use the immediate and broad context and exercise caution, especially when dealing with numerical, mineral, and color symbolism.

Interpretation of Parables

When working with parables, try to determine the one principal truth rather than getting caught up in analyzing the details. Normally, a parable has one major point of comparison. The purpose of the parable of the soils, for example, was to illustrate the basic responses to the proclamation of the Word. If we attempt to examine the meaning behind each of the elements (as in an allegory), we will get mired in speculation. Instead, each of the details should be related to the main point of the parable.

Another rule is to see how much of the parable is explained by the Lord (e.g., Matt. 13:18-23; 25:13), and to use the context for any other interpretive clues (e.g., Luke 15:1-3).

Exercise: What is the central point in the parable of the faithful steward in Luke 12:41-48 (cf. Matt. 24:45-51)?

Interpretation of Prophecy

As with other Scripture, we should interpret prophecy in a literal way unless the context or its use in the New Testament indicates that the language is figurative (e.g., Mal. 4:5-6 compared with Matt. 11:13-14; 17:10-13). When interpreting prophecy, give attention to the historical background and the context in which it appears. Try to correlate your passage with similar prophecies (e.g., the day of the Lord and the restoration of Israel).

A number of prophecies were completely fulfilled soon after they were made (e.g., the destruction of Assyria in Isa. 10:5-19). Other prophecies were partially fulfilled in the days of the Old Testament, with the remainder fulfilled in the New Testament (e.g., Isa. 7:14). Some were partially fulfilled in the first advent of Christ and await complete fulfillment in His second advent (e.g., Isa. 52:13-53:12). From the perspective of the prophet, one event appeared to be right after the other, since he did not see the valley between the first and second mountain ranges. It is helpful in interpreting prophecy to be aware of these distinctions.

Exercise: Compare Luke 4:17-21 with Isaiah 61:1-2. What part did Christ leave out, and why?

The Principle of Limitation

There are many difficult passages in Scripture, and scholars continue to debate over their meaning. Figures of speech, prophetic symbolism, obscure historical and cultural allusions, lexical and grammatical difficulties, and other problems mean that we cannot be sure of the correct interpretation of some texts. At times, we need to admit our ignorance and acknowledge our limitations. It is better to humble ourselves than to dogmatically cling to uncertain interpretations. There are times when we should say, “I don’t know,” or, “I lean in this direction, but I can’t be sure.” There is a hierarchy of doctrines in Scripture--some are far more important than others. The more important the truth, the clearer the biblical revelation. Central truths like the character of God, the person and work of Christ, the way of salvation, and the fundamentals of Christian living are explicitly developed in the pages of Scripture. It is wise to concentrate on the essential truths rather than major on the minors.

When in doubt, we should check our results by standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before. The great nineteenth-century preacher Charles H. Spurgeon observed, “It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.”

The Principle of Openness

It is essential that we approach the Scriptures with conscious dependence on the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit. We must also be willing to put aside our theological bias and be open to whatever He desires to communicate to us through His Word.

For many people, the real problem is not so much in interpretation (understanding) as it is in application (moral response). Mark Twain understood this well when he said, “Most people are bothered by those passages in Scripture which they cannot understand. The Scripture which troubles me most is the Scripture I do understand.”

Una delle Principali difficoltà nel descriverei Sadducei è che tutto ciò che sappiamo di loro proviene dai loro avversari. Loro stessi non hanno lasciato nessun testo scritto della loro storia, la loro organizzazione o i loro punti di vista. Essi appaiono sulla scena proprio prima del grande scisma tra gli Ellenisti e gli Hasidim/Chassidim e poi spariscono in quanto gruppo nella grande distruzione del 70 D.C. Giudicando dai commenti del Nuovo Testamento, nel Mishnah e nel Josephus, essi formano un gruppo con caratteristiche difficili nel rapportarsi agli altri gruppi.

Il Nome “Sadducei”

Non c’è dubbio che il nome “Sadducei” sia collegato alla forma verbale ebraica Sadaq che vuol dire “essere giusto”, però non è chiaro il modo in cui sia collegato. L’opinione più comune è quella di associare il nome Sadaq al nome di persona Sadok. Se è collegato a questo nome – sia il Sadoc al tempo di Salomone o il Sadok del tempo successivo – il raddoppiamento della seconda consonante è difficile da spiegare in modo etimologico. Al momento non c’è un’analisi soddisfacente del nome.

L’Origine dei Sadducei

Il Significato del nome lo si ricollega alle teorie relative all’origine della setta. In riferimento a ciò che si è detto prima, una teoria dice che i Sadducei sono stati nominati così da Sadok, il padre delle famiglie dei sacerdoti ai tempi di Salomone: sarebbe quindi un nome appropriato per il gruppo che in Gerusalemme per tanto tempo fu caratteristica dei sacerdoti:¹ non essendoci però evidenza di ciò, questa teoria non può avere sviluppi. Oltretutto non tutti i Sadducei erano sacerdoti e alcuni dei membri della comunità a Qumran erano sacerdoti della linea dei Sadociti. In più gli Asmonei posero fine al sacerdozio Sadocita così come a quello degli Ellenisti: ciò avrebbe comportato l’utilizzo del termine Sadducei come un appellativo senza la vera essenza di ciò.

Una seconda ipotesi è che i Sadducei furono nominati così da Zadok, un discepolo di Antigone di Socho. Antigone insegnò a Boeto e Zadok. I suoi insegnamenti mettevano in risalto il fatto che essi avrebbero dovuto servire Dio senza darsi pensiero della ricompensa.² A causa di ciò – come dice tale teoria – essi conclusero di non credere alla resurrezione o nella vita dopo la morte. Boethus creò i Boetusiani, che potrebbero essere gli Erodiani ai tempi di Gesù. Il figlio di Boeto fu incaricato come sommo sacerdote da Erode. L’altro discepolo, Zadok, sarebbe stato uno dei primi leader nel gruppo che prese il suo nome.

Una terza ipotesi dice che il nome è semplicemente collegato al termine Saddiq, cioè “i giusti” (Saddiqim al plurale).³ Questo sarebbe stato in contrasto e allo stesso tempo molto simile agli Hasidim - cioè “gli uomini pii” – il primo titolo del gruppo dal quale avranno vita i Farisei.⁴ Questa teoria, così come le altre, è etimologicamente difficile. Il modo in cui è scritto il termine “Sadduceo” lascia pensare al termine come ad un passivo: cioè “i giusti” sarebbe una forma attiva.

Queste sono delle teorie possibili riguardo il nome della setta, quindi senza una soluzione convincente riguardo il problema sul nome dei Sadducei, possiamo spostare la nostra attenzione in modo soddisfacente alla breve descrizione della setta. Anche qui queste descrizioni fanno nascere ancora più domande riguardo le loro credenze.

La Natura dei Sadducei

La maggior parte degli studi riguardo i Sadducei fanno supporre che tutti i capi sacerdoti e gli altri leader dei Giudaismo erano Sadducei.⁵ Il testo del Josephus non dice questo, ma dice soltanto che quei sacerdoti che erano Sadducei venivano dalla classe dirigente. Il Josephus soltanto una volta si rifersice ad un Sadduceo, Anania il sommo sacerdote.⁶ La sua identificazione era in armonia con la classe di appartenenza: proveniva dal più alto grado della società ed era ingiusto in modo severo.⁷ Probabilmente un numero relativamente piccolo della classe dirigente era Sadduceo, ma non c’è modo di conoscere in termini numerici.

La classe Sadducea in genere era formata dagli aristocratici benestanti.Ciò non è però confermato dalle fonti, ma è una conclusione ragionevole dato dal fatto che vivevano vicino al Tempio e si trovavano meglio nel soddisfare i loro bisogni mischiandosi con la nobiltà.⁸ Il Josephus dice che essi riuscivano a persuadere soltanto i ricchi⁹ facendo comprendere tra le altre cose che avevano un piccolo gruppo come loro che li seguivano dato che i Farisei erano sostenuti dalle masse. La classe Sadducea forse si è sviluppata in origine al di fuori dei membri conservatori dell’aristocrazia, i sostenitori di Onias III,¹⁰ e mentre la classe ebbe la fiducia dei ricchi, non tutti i Sadducei erano ricchi.

Secondo il Josephus,¹¹ molti Sacerdoti appartenevano ai Sadducei, ma non tutti i sacerdoti erano Sadducei. Il Nuovo Testamento mostra una stretta relazione tra i Sacerdoti e i Sadducei (Atti 4:1 e 5:17). Secondo il Josephus, Anania, un Sadduceo, ebbe cinque figli i quali diventarono tutti Sommi Sacerdoti. Mentre è probabile che i membri dell’aristocrazia sacerdotale erano Sadducei, molti sacerdoti erano Farisei. Furono i sacerdoti dei Farisei che furono mandati a chiedere a Giovanni (Giovanni 1:19-24). Secondo Atti 23 sia i Sadducei che i Farisei crearono il Sanhedrin perché l’apostolo Paolo sostenne i membri che erano Farisei al suo fianco.

I Sadducei si ritrovavano più nella posizione di Leader, ma molto più spesso dovevano sottomettersi alle richieste dei Farisei.¹² Poiché il Popolo sosteneva i Farisei, i Sadducei furono forzati ad osservare la tradizione orale dei Farisei. I Sadducei non desideravano fare questa cosa, ma preferivano essere liberi dalle usanze e trattare soltanto la legge scritta. Le Leggi scritte che erano lasciate senza interpretazione erano poco chiare, il chè vuol dire che i Sadducei potevano decidere liberamente il significato di tali leggi.¹³ I Farisei, però la spuntavano persino quando un Sadduceo era un Sommo Sacerdote. Secondo il il Yoma 1:5 quando il Sommo sacerdote era un Sadduceo, i Farisei lo costringevano a bruciare incenso - secondo il loro punto di vista del Levitico 16:13 - dopo essere entrato nel Santo dei Santi. Secondo il Yoma 19b, un Sadduceo ha spiegato che essi si attenevano a ciò perché avevano paura dei Farisei.

La descrizione dalla letteratura raffigura i Sadducei come dei cattivi ed arroganti perché avevano il potere e competevano con altri per questo.¹⁴ Furono chiamati rozzi, rudi per i loro simili, come degli alieni, e pronti a discutere con gli insegnanti del gruppo che seguivano.¹⁵

Gli Insegnamenti dei Sadducei

La Scrittura e Tradizione. I Sadducei avevano quello che si chiama un atteggiamento conservatore verso la Scrittura: essi limitavano l’autorità della Legge scritta interpretata letteralmente e non erano aperti al cambiamento. La Domanda che si pone riguarda quanto della Scrittura accettassero come Parola di Dio. Dal Testo del Josephus sappiamo che i Sadducei odiavano le tradizioni dei Farisei e accettavano soltanto la Legge scritta.¹⁶ Riprendendo questa espressione del testo nel Josephus e il fatto che Gesù si limitò a discutere contro i Sadducei nel Pentateuco, i Padri della Chiesa, hanno concluso che i Sadducei accettavano solamente la Legge di Mosè come Scrittura.¹⁷ Ciò potrebbe sembrare un malinteso da parte dei Padri: quando il Josephus dice che i Sadducei hanno rigettato tutto tranne la legge scritta, probabilmente si vuole dire che essi non permettevano nessuna deduzione legale o dottrinale dai profeti. Molto più probabile essi volevano dire che si opponevano alle tradizioni scritte. Secondo il Talmud, nelle discussioni i Sadducei erano attaccati da altri libri della Bibbia e usavano tali argomentazioni a loro favore? Ciò suppone in modo forte che i Sadducei consideravano questi anche come Scrittura.

I Farisei avevano un vasto nucleo di interpretazione orale che era diventato obbligatorio: era questo a cui si opponevano i Sadducei. L’opinione che afferma che i Sadducei prendevano le scritture in modo letterale e rigettavano la tradizione orale non è una cosa accurata. Tutti i gruppi giudaici hanno incominciato col testo letterale ed hanno aggiunto la loro comprensione del testo giustificando il loro modo di vivere.¹⁸ I Sadducei avevano la loro Halakah personale, ma non affermavano che essa fosse divinamente autoritaria come erano le interpretazioni¹⁹ dei Farisei. Sebbene i Sadducei si attenevano alla Scrittura come l’unica autorità, essi credevano anche che essa potesse essere modificata dalla logica, specialmente nelle questioni dottrinali. Se le interpretazioni dei Farisei erano vincolanti, allora altri potevano decidere per se stessi cosa potesse significare. Da questo punto di vista i Sadducei non erano visti conservatori dai Farisei perché secondo i Farisei, i Sadducei non stavano salvaguardando la fede tradizionale.

Come tutti i giudei, i Sadducei credevano che la Torah, la legge di Mosè, si ritrovava su un piano maggiore rispetto alle altre Scritture.²⁰ Non c’è una chiara evidenza che i Sadducei si attenevano di meno alla regola rispetto ai Farisei. Loro rigettavano completamente il materiale apocalittico o qualsiasi altro sincretismo greco. Forse i Sadducei credevano che solo la Torah fosse canonica e che la Torah fosse enormemente più importante delle altre Scritture, ma non c’è un evidenza in ciò. Comunque la protesta rilevante del fatto che i Farisei avessero esteso il “canone” nelle loro interpretazioni può essere dimostrato. Giustamente i Sadducei hanno rigettato la legge orale dei Farisei ma forse è perché essi volevano la libertà per proseguire da soli.

Una delle aree di discussione trai Sadducei e i Farisei riguardava il calendario.In Levitico 23:15-16 si inizia con la tabulazione per la festa della Mietitura usando l’espressione “dall’indomani del Sabato”. I sadducei dicevano che il “Sabato” significava lo Shabat e quindi la festa della mietitura ricadeva la Domenica.I Farisei, invece, stabilivano che lo “Shabat” era il primo giorno della Pasqua Ebraica qualsiasi fosse il giorno e quindi la festa della mietitura.²¹ Sandmels osserva che insieme a questo, i calendari sono sempre delle discussioni di alto profilo fino al Nicea – la Pasqua era nella settimana della pasqua Ebraica – ma il Nicea lo ha sciolto dal calendario Giudaico.²²

Libertà Umana e Determinismo. Secondo il Josephus²³ le tre sette principali non sono in accordo riguardo la volontà umana. Gli Esseni sono molto deterministici, i Farisei mettono insieme determinismo e libero arbitrio, ma i Sadducei credevano che tutti gli eventi umani fossero risultato della libertà umana. Il dubbio qui è se il Josephus stia facendo una distinzione troppo sottile per mettersi in armonia o meno con le idee della filosofia greca. Forse la severità dei Sadducei ha dato l’idea che essi fossero limitati al libero arbitrio: i Sadducei giustificano troppo ciò.Il fatto che i Sadducei non credevano all’intervento apocalittico di Dio nella storia potrebbe aver dato l’impressione che essi avessero rifiutato il fato e consideravano tutto sotto il controllo umano.²⁴

Risurrezione. E’ chiaro il fatto che i Sadducei rinnegassero la dottrina della risurrezione. In Atti 23:6-8 si parla di come questo argomento avesso creato divisioni nel Sinedrio in quanto i Farisei credevano alla risurrezione dei morti e all’immortalità dell’anima. Si parla dei Sadducei riguardo a ciò anche in Matteo 22:23 e Atti 4:1-2. Ciò è probabile perché la risurrezione è stata una cosa fondamentale per il Cristianesimo tanto che il Nuovo Testamento si incentra su questo punto.

Il Josephus conferma che i Sadducei rinnegavano la resurrezione, l’immortalità dell’anima, i premi eterni o il “mondo a venire”.²⁵ I Sadducei si incentravano sul fatto che la nazione di Israele rimanesse in questo mondo e non in un mondo a venire.

Ci sono alcuni riferimenti nel Mishnah che trasmettono questa tradizione di credenze. Secondo il Berachot 9:5 la Benedizione finisce con “di secolo/in eternità”. Poiché i Sadducei dicevano però che esisteva un solo mondo, i saggi cambiavano la benedizione in “di eternità in eternità”. Più importante, comunque, è il Sanhedrin 10:1, il quale descrive la credenza comune che tutto Israele ha una parte nel mondo a venire.

La Dottrina della risurrezione la si accenna agli inizi del Vecchio Testamento, ma è chiaramente insegnata in Daniele.²⁶ Forse i Sadducei non hanno dato molta importanza a quest’opera che è così apocalittica.

Gowan crede che ciò apparisse in ritardo e non disponibile nel loro pensiero didattico,²⁷ ma per certo anche se nel caso di Daniele l’idea della risurrezione la si datò in ritardo, le idee pronunciate facevano capire che tale argomento era già in atto molto tempo prima di queste discussioni. Se Daniele è stato scritto davvero prima, allora ci sarebbe stato tempo a sufficienza affinché l’insegnamento diventasse parte della fede giudaica. A Saldarini, il quale riflette l’opinione comune, non piace l’idea che il credere nella vita dopo la morte fosse stabilito dal giudaismo del secondo secolo.²⁸ I Farisei sembrano aver pensato per certo che fosse così, ma i Sadducei erano conservatori: essi non avrebbero accettato probabilmente nessuna cosa che proveniva dalla letteratura apocalittica o che possa essere stata formulata con chiarezza ai primi tempi. Nonostante ciò, il dilemma principale riguardava più probabilmente se ciò fosse insegnato o meno nella Legge: questo era il problema di ogni Giudeo. E’ interessante notare che secondo il Sanhedrin 90b, i Farisei hanno comprovato la risurrezione di Esodo 15:1. Torneremo più tardi su questo punto.

Angeli. La Dottrina dell’angelologia è più difficile. Atti 23:8 dice che i Sadducei non credevano agli Angeli. Gowan crede che ci sia qualcosa che manca in questa frase perché degli angeli si parla chiaramente nel Vecchio Testamento, specialmente nel Pentateuco, e poiché i Sadducei accettavano il Vecchio Testamento, essi avrebbero dovuto credere negli Angeli.Questo argomento però non è convincente poiché è possibile non credere in cose chiaramente rivelate.²⁹ Gowan pensa che ciò che s’intendeva è un angelologia elaborata, però lo rinnega in quanto nota che neanche nel Mishnah si parla mai di angeli. Lui pensa piuttosto che i due soggetti vadano di pari passo e che la dottrina degli angeli che i Sadducei rifiutano si riferisca all’idea che i morti fossero trasformati in angeli.³⁰

I Sadducei hanno dipinto Dio e gli Umani come esseri indipendenti e distanti, sia in questa Vita che in quella dopo. I premi di giustizia sono per questa vita e quindi essi erano precisi sulla salute e sul beneficio che riportava ciò come evidenza della benedizione divina.

Osservazioni finali

La reazione verso i Sadducei era prevedibile. A dire il vero se essi non fossero stati disprezzati dai Farisei e dal popolo, sarebbero stati tollerati appena.³¹ Nell’opera pseudo epigrafica de I Salmi di Salomone, scritti nella metà del primo secolo A.C., i Sadducei sono chiamati semplicemente peccatori (4:2 ff). Nel mishnah i Sadducei sono citati come ignoranti della Legge, sordo muti, imbecilli e di minore importanza perché essi non ammettevano la legalità del governo riguardo l’Erub . Il Niddah 4:2 afferma che la figlia del Sadduceo è uguale alla donna Cutita o a quella Samaritana, probabilmente perché i Sadducei erano trascurati nelle loro leggi riguardanti la purezza. Infatti, i Sadducei sono raggruppati insieme ai Samaritani ed ai settari (i minim o gli “infedeli”, un termine usato per i Cristiani giudei [vedi Beracoth 9:5]). Nella tarda letteratura rabbinica essi sono descritti con toni più aspri, come se fossero degli eretici, neanche Giudei. Saldarini conclude che ciò non è esatto, ma che le frasi formano una forte difesa contro i Sadducei.³²

I Sadducei, dunque, erano la setta politica e religiosa costituita in maggior parte dagli aristocratici benestanti e conservatori di cui molti erano sacerdoti. Molto spesso prendevano alti incarichi al Tempio e insieme a questo una buona parte del beneficio. Essi si opponevano alle tradizioni non scritte, perché preferivano avere la libertà di interpretare le Scritture come volevano. Rinnegavano la risurrezione, l’immortalità dell’anima, i premi della vita a venire e in qualche modo anche gli angeli. La loro influenza diminuì finchè scomparirono verso il 70 D.C.

Saldarini aggiunge che per la gente esterna a loro, le differenze tra i Farisei e i Sadducei possa apparire di poca importanza, ma “all’interno della comunità tali differenze producono generalmente conflitti ferrei riguardo al controllo e all’influenza….”³³

Oggi ci sono Cristiani che assomigliano molto ai Sadducei di quei tempi, sebbene non lo siano in tutto. Sebbene essi affermino di essere cristiani, non credono in realtà alla resurrezione, specialmente alla risurrezione di Gesù. Per questi Cristiani, le dottrine degli Angeli (e demoni) sono delle espressioni mitiche riprese da una mentalità primitiva. Il loro cristianesimo è stato sottomesso alla mentalità moderna con il risultato che un sacco di insegnamenti dottrinali che vanno dai miracoli alle leggi di purità sono state troncate dalle interpretazioni e alle applicazioni conservatrici e gli è stato dato un nuovi obbiettivo. Per certo molti conservatori vedono questi “Cristiani” come dei non credenti, seguaci di un’altra fede, ma spesso è difficile comprendere cosa crede davvero il liberale moderno.

Il Problema è che i molti che credono in questo modo hanno una posizione di leadership nelle chiese, nei seminari e nelle denominazioni. Forse non sono benestanti (non tutti i Sadducei lo erano), ma poiché erano tutti ben istruiti sembra che essi a vederli si considerassero aristocratici, al di sopra della fede semplice dei cristiani comuni. La loro istruzione e la loro posizione probabilmente ha creato degli ostacoli alla loro fede. Sfortunatamente ciò ha impresso anche molti altri e ha dato do a questi Cristiani di avere dei seguaci.La loro affermazione di poter recuperare il vero punto centrale del cristianesimo può semplicemente essere un impedimento per rigettare quello per cui non riescono a credere o non riescono a mettere in pratica.

¹ IDB, s.v. “Sadducees,” di A. G. Sundberg, 4:160.

² Aboth de R. Nathan, c. 5.

³ Edersheim, Life and Times, I:323.

⁴ Sandmel si chiede se non sia anche un epiteto derisorio usato come disprezzo: “sedicente giusto” (p. 156).

⁵ Saldarini fa la lista di diversi punti di vista - sia antichi che moderni – riguardoi Sadducei (p. 299).

⁶ Dal Josephus, Antiquities, 20.9.1 (199-203).

⁷ Saldarini, p. 299.

⁸ Sandmel, p. 157.

⁹ dal Josephus, Antiquities, 13.10.6.

¹⁰ dal Gowan, p. 185.

¹¹ Josephus, Antiquities, 20.9.1.

¹² Josephus, Antiquities, 18.1.4.

¹³ Saldarini, p. 117.

¹⁴ Saldarini, p. 300.

¹⁵ Ibid., 110.

¹⁶ Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6 [403].

¹⁷ Moore, Judaism, I:68.

¹⁸ Saldarini, p. 303.

¹⁹ Gowan, p. 182.

²⁰ Oesterly and Box, The Religion and the Worship of the Synagogue, pp. 27, 138.

²¹ Sandmel, p. 158.

²² Ibid., p. 440.

²³ Josephus, Wars, 2.8.14 [162-166]; Antiquities, 18.1.3-4 [12-17].

²⁴ Saldarini, p. 300.

²⁵ Josephus, Antiquities, 18.1.4 [16]; Wars, 2.8.14 [165].

²⁶ Ci sono molti passi biblici che sembrino includere l’idea della resurrezione e per certo l’immortalità. Il problema è che i passi biblici come Salmo 49 e Salmo 73 usano un modo di parlare che in altri passi possono essere interpretati in modo diverso ( vedi le spiegazioni di A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1930], pp. xcv-xcvii). Certamente il desiderio di essere sepolti nella terra aveva come motivo una speranza per il futuro ma alcuni accenni non hanno chiaramente spiegato che i morti risorgeranno come si afferma in Daniele.

²⁷ Gowan, p.183. Hanno riconosciuto Daniele come Scrittura? Gli Esseni lo hanno fatto di sicuro. Non c’è stata discussione di questo nell’argomento trattato. Eppure, il testo con tono sarcastico per qualsiasi giudeo era di considerarlo o meno nella Legge (Sandmel, p. 157).

²⁸ Saldarini, p. 307.

²⁹ Gowan, p. 184.

³⁰ Gowan, p. 184; vedi anche Solomon Zeitlin, “The Sadducees and the Belief in Angels,” JBL 83 (1964):67-71.

³¹ Josephus, Antiquities, 18.1.4; 13.10.6.

³² Saldarini, p. 302.

³³ Saldarini, p. 305.

PARAGRAPH DIVISIONS OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS*

* Although they are not inspired, paragraph divisions are the key to understanding and following the original author's intent. Each modern translation has divided and summarized the paragraphs. Every paragraph has one central topic, truth, or thought. Each version encapsulates that topic in its own distinct way. As you read the text, ask yourself which translation fits your understanding of the subject and verse divisions.
 In every chapter we must read the Bible first and try to identify its subjects (paragraphs), then compare our understanding with the modern versions. Only when we understand the original author's intent by following his logic and presentation can we truly understand the Bible. Only the original author is inspired—readers have no right to change or modify the message. Bible readers do have the responsibility of applying the inspired truth to their day and their lives.
  Note that all technical terms and abbreviations are explained fully in the following documents: Brief Definitions of Greek Grammatical Structure, Textual Criticism, and Glossary.

READING CYCLE THREE (see "Guide to Good Bible Reading")

FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S INTENT AT PARAGRAPH LEVEL

This is a study guide commentary which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.

Read the chapter in one sitting. Identify the subjects (reading cycle #3). Compare your subject divisions with the four modern translations above. Paragraphing is not inspired, but it is the key to following the original author's intent, which is the heart of interpretation. Every paragraph has one and only one subject.

1. First paragraph

2. Second paragraph

3. Third paragraph

4. Etc.

CONTEXTUAL INSIGHTS

A. Chapters 1-3 are a literary unit which functions in several major ways.

1. Ezekiel's initial vision of YHWH in Babylon

2. Ezekiel's sense of YHWH's call to the prophetic ministry

3. The images and visions continue in chapter 8

4. The holiness of God, symbolized in the portable throne chariot (the imagery of the Ark and a chariot are linked in I Chr. 28:18) and its surprising appearance apart from the temple in Jerusalem

B. YHWH still wants a holy people to reflect His person to the nations! This revelatory people will be those taken into exile, not the ones left in Judah.

Israelites have always put too much emphasis on Jerusalem, as Stephen's sermon in Acts 7 shows.

WORD AND PHRASE STUDY

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT:1:1-3
 ¹Now it came about in the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, while I was by the river Chebar among the exiles, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God. ²(On the fifth of the month in the fifth year of King Jehoiachin's exile, ³the word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel the priest, son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and there the hand of the Lord came upon him.)

1:1 "in the thirtieth year" This seems to relate to the age of the prophet (because vv. 2-3 are a parenthesis, possibly by an editor, to clear up any misunderstanding of v. 1. The two dates [i.e., v. 1 and vv. 2-3] refer to the same time). This theory goes back to Origen. Thirty years of age was the time that priests began their ministry in the Temple (cf. Num. 4:3, 23, 30, 39, 43, 47). However, they began their training five years earlier (cf. Num. 8:23-25). Their length of service was to age fifty. This fits the length of Ezekiel's prophetic ministry (cf. 40:1). Ezekiel understood this vision as his call to the prophetic ministry.

▣ "on the fifth day of the fourth month" See Introduction, Date, D.

 SPECIAL TOPIC: Ancient near Eastern Calendars  

▣ "by the river Chebar" We know from archeological discoveries that this was a man-made irrigation canal from the Euphrates River, making a loop from near the city of Babylon, through the city of Nippur (cf. Ps. 137:1) and on to Erech (in all, about 60 miles).

▣ "among the exiles" Ezekiel's' specific ministry was to the Jews who were in exile, primarily those of Judea, but also the Northern Ten Tribes. Jeremiah's ministry was to those Jews left in Palestine, while Daniel's ministry was to the royal court of Nebuchadnezzar in the capital of Babylon. See Introduction, Date, C.

▣ "the heavens were opened" The verb (BDB 834, KB 986, Niphal perfect) denotes YHWH revealing Himself to Ezekiel. This phrase is parallel to "the windows of heaven were opened."

1. for judgment, Gen. 7:11; 8:2; Isa. 24:18

a. flood of water

b. no water

2. for agricultural blessings, II Kgs. 7:2,19; Mal. 3:10

3. here, for revelatory vision

In ancient cosmology reality is described as

1. heaven above (sun and moon, stars, God's throne, i.e., the three heavens)

2. heaven above the earth (as a dome with windows)

3. the earth (dwelling place of physical life)

4. Sheol (the place of the dead) below

▣ "I saw visions of God" There is a paradox in the Bible between those who claim to have seen God and the specific statements that no one can see God and live. Apparently it is possible to see visions of deity, but not to gaze intently on His form and especially His face (compare Exod. 24:11,12; Num. 12:8; Isaiah 6; Revelation 4 with Exod. 33: 20-23; John 1:18; 6:46; I Tim. 6:16; I John 4:12).

The word "vision" (BDB 909 I) is first used in Gen. 46:2, where it is parallel with "in visions of the night," which may imply

1. a dream (cf. Gen. 20:3,6; 31:10,11,24; 37:6,8,9,10.20)

2. a special trance

In Num. 12:6 it relates to God's call to prophets (cf. I Sam. 3:15; Dan. 10:16; Ezek. 1:1; 8:3; 40:2). It is inferior to His face-to-face revelations to Moses (cf. Num. 12:8; Deut. 34:10). Still, it was divine revelation. These words are not Ezekiel's words, nor or the visions his imagination. YHWH is revealing His personal presence with the exiles!

It is also interesting that the very same Hebrew letters also mean "sight" or "appearance." This meaning is far more common than "vision." A few times the two meanings, "vision" and "appearance," overlap (i.e., Ezek. 8:4; 11:24; 43:3[thrice]; Dan. 8:16,27; 9:23; 10:1).

1:2 All of the book of Ezekiel is in the first person except 1:2,3, which seem to be a later scribal or editorial addition to explain the date of v. 1. Note the parenthesis in NASB.

It must be admitted that moderns do not know when, who, or how the OT books were produced. It is a faith assumption and biblical claim that they are uniquely from God (inspiration) through selected human instruments (authors, editors, and scribes).

Verse 2 reflects II Kgs. 24:14, which makes the date either 592 or 593 b.c. Ezekiel was exiled when he was 25 years old, but did not begin his ministry until five years later.

▣ "King Jehoiachin" See Appendix: Kings of the Divided Kingdom."

1:3 "the word of the Lord came" This is the repeated formula (cf. 1:3; 3:16; 6:1; 7:1) denoting divine revelation. It remains uncertain how the revelation came.

1. verbal

2. imagery

3. main truths and Ezekiel chooses the genre

But what is sure, it was YHWH's revelation, not Ezekiel's. 

▣ "to Ezekiel the priest" Ezekiel was from the priestly line of Zadok (cf. II Sam. 8:17; 15:24-36), while Jeremiah was from the priestly line of Abiathar (cf. I Sam. 22:20-23; II Sam. 8:17; 15:24-36), who was exiled to Anathoth by Solomon (cf. I Kgs. 2:26-27,35).

▣ "son of Buzi" This person (BDB 100) is mentioned only here in the OT. It seems to be related to the Hebrew root meaning

1. despise (BDB 100 I)

2. contempt (BDB 100 II)

3. a proper name (uncertain meaning)

a. second son of Nahor, Abrahams' brother, Gen. 22:21, possibly related to a tribe of Arabia mentioned in Jer. 25:23

b. a person of the tribe of Gad, I Chr. 5:14

The very fact that nothing else is known about Buzi implies that he was well known to the original recipients.

▣ "the Chaldeans" Herodotus (450 b.c.), Hist. I, uses this term to refer to an ethnic group (cf. II Kgs. 24:1-4; Dan. 5:30), as well as a priestly class (cf. Dan. 2:2; 3:8; 4:7; 5:7,11), whose usage goes back to Cyrus II. Even before this, Assyrian records used the term (BDB 505) in an ethnic sense (cf. R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 1113). Also read the good discussion of the possibility of a confusion of two similar terms (i.e., Kal-du vs. Kasdu) in The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 7, pp. 14-15 or Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, series 1.

Because Gen. 11:28 states that Ur of the Chaldeans was the home of Terah and his family, Chaldeans may have been ethnically Semitic (i.e., same racial group as the Hebrews).

▣ "the hand of the Lord came upon him" This is an anthropomorphic phrase used often for God's presence, power, and inspiration (cf. 1:3; 3:14,22; 8:1; 33:22; 37:1; 40:1; I Kgs. 18:46; II Kgs. 3:15; Isa. 8:11; Jer. 15:17). See Special Topic: Hand at 37:1.

SPECIAL TOPIC: GOD DESCRIBED AS A HUMAN (ANTHROPOMORPHIC LANGUAGE)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1:4-14
 ⁴As I looked, behold, a storm wind was coming from the north, a great cloud with fire flashing forth continually and a bright light around it, and in its midst something like glowing metal in the midst of the fire. ⁵Within it there were figures resembling four living beings. And this was their appearance: they had human form, ⁶Each of them had four faces and four wings. ⁷Their legs were straight and their feet were like a calf's hoof, and they gleamed like burnished bronze. ⁸Under their wings on their four sides were human hands. As for the faces and wings of the four of them, ⁹their wings touched one another; their faces did not turn when they moved, each went straight forward. ¹⁰As for the form of their faces, each had the face of a man; all four had the face of a lion on the right and the face of a bull on the left, and all four had the face of an eagle. ¹¹Such were their faces. Their wings were spread out above; each had two touching another being, and two covering their bodies. ¹²And each went straight forward; wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go, without turning as they went. ¹³In the midst of the living beings there was something that looked like burning coals of fire, like torches darting back and forth among the living beings. The fire was bright, and lightning was flashing from the fire. ¹⁴And the living beings ran to and fro like bolts of lightning.

1:4 "a storm wind coming from the north" God is sometimes identified with a storm (i.e., Sinai, cf. Exodus 19). The north is often used in the OT for impending judgment (i.e., Jer. 1:12-14; 4:6; 6:1). But here it is a symbol of acceptance and renewal. YHWH Himself is coming to be with the exiles (in Isa. 14:13 a northern mountain is God's dwelling).

▣ "a great cloud with fire flashing fourth continually" This would have reminded Ezekiel and his readers of Exod. 19:9,16,18, the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant when YHWH visits Mt. Sinai/Horeb and gives the Ten Words to Moses (and, the rabbis say, the oral law).

The literal phrase is "and fire taking hold of itself." This exact phrase is also found in Exod. 9:24 (i.e., BDB 77 and BDB 542, KB 534, Hithpael participle).

All of the prophets refer to the Mosaic Covenant. They judge Israel in light of her disobedience (cf. Deuteronomy 27-29) to its commands. Ezekiel will contrast

1. the current temple practices (cf. chapters 8-11) with a future temple (cf. chapters 40-48)

2. current shepherds (i.e., leaders) with a future leader (cf. chapter 33)

His readers had no other categories to relate to a restoration by YHWH than this one! The New Covenant (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:27-38) and its focus on individual faith and faithfulness (i.e., chapters 18, 33) would be a shocking revelation which would have seemed to depreciate both the Mosaic Covenant and Israelite corporality!

▣ "something like glowing metal" Throughout the book of Ezekiel his visions are described in terms "like" (BDB 198) or "similar to." It is obvious that Ezekiel is doing the best that he can in describing that which is not normative.

Notice the different phrases used to describe this vision.

1. bright light or brightness (BDB 618 I) around it

2. glowing or gleaming metal in the midst of it

a. "amber" - LXX, NKJV, NRSV, NJB, JPSOA

b. "bronze" - TEV

c. "brass" - NEB

d. "electrum" (mixture of gold and silver) - LXX, Vulgate

The word's origin and meaning are uncertain (found only in 1:4,27; 8:2), but context denotes a brilliant, glowing substance (cf. 1:4,27; 8:2 only). YHWH is often seen as a light phenomenon (cf. Exod. 13:21; II Sam. 22:13; Ps. 89:15; 90:8; Ezek. 1:4,27; 8:2; Rev. 22:5).

▣ "fire"

SPECIAL TOPIC: FIRE

1:5 "the four living beings" These throne creatures are first described in Exod. 25:18-22; 37:7-9. It is uncertain if there are two Cherubim (i.e., two on the mercy seat of the ark) or four (two at each end of the ark and two on the lid). This same confusion can be seen in Solomon's Temple (cf. I Kgs. 6:23-28; II Chr. 3:10-14). Jewish tradition has four and is the origin of the four of this vision.

I have always held to only two (on the lid) from Exodus with Solomon expanding the size of everything in the tabernacle when he built the Temple in Jerusalem (cf. I Kings 6). By the way, Ezekiel felt the same freedom (or revelation) to expand and change the temple further in chapters 40-48.

Just a note on the term "cherub" (BDB 500). Several possible sources.

1. Akkadian, lesser spiritual being

a. advisor to the gods

b. protector of the faithful (from Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, vol. 2, p. 319)

2. Assyrian

a. "to be gracious"

b. adjective, "great" or "mighty"

c. similar to the name of the winged bulls on the gates of Nineveh

3. BDB mentions possibility of "thunder cloud" (Ps. 18:11)

They are described again in chapter 10. They are the origin of the living creatures of Rev. 4:6-8. Their description changes from time to time, but it is obvious that they are the same group of angelic creatures (i.e., throne guardians). Ezekiel recognizes them as Cherubim in chapter 10, but not here in chapter 1.

SPECIAL TOPIC: CHERUBIM

SPECIAL TOPIC: SYMBOLIC NUMBERS IN SCRIPTURE

1:6 -10 See Special Topic above.

1:7

NASB"feet were like a calf's hoof"
NKJV, NRSV,"the soles of their feet were like the soles of calves' feet"
TEV"they had hoofs like those of a bull"
NJB"they had hooves like calves"

This is the only place this detail is mentioned. The Hebrew term "feet" is really "soles" (BDB 496 #3).

Remember this is imagery! It is a vision! Accuracy and detail are not the issue, but the overall effect. God is coming and the heavenly court with Him!

▣ "burnished bronze" This metallic imagery (BDB 887 and 638 I) describes heavenly beings.

1. here the Cherubim

2. the powerful angel in Dan. 10:6

3. the glorified Jesus in Rev. 1:15; 2:18

1:8 "wings" There are several angelic creatures who are said to have wings.

1. the Cherubim over the Ark of the Covenant, Exod. 25:20; 37:9; I Kgs. 6:24,27; 8:6,7; II Chr. 3:11-13; 5:7,8

2. the Seraphim of Isaiah's heavenly throne room vision, Isa. 6:2

3. the living creatures of Ezekiel's vision (i.e., called Cherubim in 10:1), Ezek. 1:8,24

4. the female angels of Zechariah's vision, Zech. 5:9

5. even used metaphorically of YHWH's special care (i.e., female bird, cf. Matt. 23:37), Ruth 2:12; Ps. 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4 (also see Gen. 1:2; Exod. 19:4; Deut. 32:11)

6. imagery of John in Revelation (cf. 4:8; 9:9 from Ezekiel)

7. regular angels do not have wings in OT or NT

1:9 "their wings touched one another, their faces did not turn as they moved" This is a vision of the mobile throne chariot of God. This imagery may go back to David's Psalm of praise in II Sam. 22:11. The living creature's wings and the wheels formed a hollow square with burning coals in its midst and over it all a blue ice-crystal canopy (cf. v. 22, in Rev. 4:6 it is the floor).

1:10 "all four had the face of the lion" The two Cherubim (BDB 500) are described in Exod. 25:20 as having one face that faced the middle of the Mercy Seat. In Revelation 4 each one had a separate face similar to the description here. The early church fathers tried to ascribe these different faces to the different gospel writers: Matthew, the lion; Mark, the ox; Luke, the man; John, the eagle. It is best to stay somewhat neutral on specific interpretations of these visions. Obviously it refers to some type of angelic order, which is very closely identified with "the" Throne of God!

1:11 "and two covering their bodies" Without trying to read too much into this phrase, there are several ways to take it.

1. sense of modesty (cf. Isa. 6:2, where "feet" may be a euphemism referring to the male sexual organs, cf. Ruth 3; I Sam. 24:3)

2. sense of preparation for action

3. in Isaiah 6 and Rev. 4:8 they had six wings.

1:12 "the spirit" This verse must be interpreted in light of vv. 20 and 21, which seem to imply the spirit of the four living creatures themselves (cf. v. 21c). However, it must be admitted that the language of v. 12 implies a separate personal will (i.e., God in the metaphor of His Spirit [i.e., Gen. 1:2]).

1:13 This verse tries to describe something that is occurring in the midst of the box formed by the Cherubim wings, the wheels, and the crystal covering. Whatever it was, it was below the throne (cf. v. 26). Notice the parallelism, which attempts to describe the indescribable.

1. burning coals of fire

2. torches darting back and forth among the living beings

3. bright fire

4. lightening flashing from it

One wonders how v. 14 is related to v. 13. The Peshitta, NKJV, and REB translate v. 13 as if it describes the living creatures themselves and not the coals of fire (LXX, NASB, NRSV, TEV, NJB). The answer to this confusion is rectified by JPSOA, which puts a full stop after the first phrase of v. 13, thereby relating it to the living creatures of v. 12.

I assume v. 13 does not describe the Cherubim, but is a sacrificial image going back to the tabernacle. It is uncertain if it refers to (1) coals on the altar of incense, which were used to make good smelling smoke which veiled the view of YHWH, who dwelt between the wings of the Cherubim over the Ark of the Covenant (cf. Exod. 30:1-10; 37:5-28) or (2) the sacrificial altar (cf. Exod. 27:1-8; 38:1-7) at the front of the entrance to the tabernacle/temple where sacrifices (cf. Leviticus 1-7) were brought and given to the priests. These sacrifices allowed sinful humans to approach a holy God!

▣ "lightning" I take this opportunity to discuss the accommodation used by God to communicate His true revelation to a particular historical/geographical people. There are two items that especially fit into an Ancient Near Eastern setting (i.e., multi-faced animals, spiritual guardians, and lightning). God chooses imagery that His people have seen in other religions, but now they apply to YHWH.

1. The three heavens described by Babylonians as made of gem stones (NIDOTTE, vol. 4, p. 164).

2. Lightning is a common weapon in the hand of Canaanite gods, which are usually depicted on mountains (cf. v. 4, "north," cf. Isa. 14:13).

3. The multi-faced angelic guardians are also common in Mesopotamia (and Egypt), where they guard the entrance of temples and palaces (cf. IVP, Bible Background Commentary, p. 690).

YHWH often takes the names of foreign deities to describe Himself.

1. King of Kings

2. winged disk (sun)

3. God of heaven

In this way He shows that He is the only true God. The only universal God of creation and redemption. We must be careful as moderns

1. not to make the images literal

2. not to assume cultural borrowing has theological significance of reality to the false gods of the nations

3. that biblical images are just that—images attempting to convey spiritual reality! History is theologically affected and theology is historically/culturally affected. This is how human communication works. We move from the concrete to the figurative and from the known to the new reality!

1:14 The question again has to do with the referent. It is

1. the living creatures, Peshitta, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, TEV, NJB

2. the central fire, JPSOA

It seems to me that vv. 5-12,14 describe the living creatures, but v. 13 describes a central fire (cf. 10:2,7; Isa. 6:6; Rev. 8:5). But the issue cannot be definitively solved. The MT (JPSOA) implies that it all refers to the living creatures.

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT:1:15-21
 ¹⁵Now as I looked at the living beings, behold, there was one wheel on the earth beside the living beings, for each of the four of them. ¹⁶The appearance of the wheels and their workmanship was like sparkling beryl, and all four of them had the same form, their appearance and workmanship being as if one wheel were within another. ¹⁷Whenever they moved, they moved in any of their four directions without turning as they moved. ¹⁸As for their rims they were lofty and awesome, and the rims of all four of them were full of eyes round about. ¹⁹Whenever the living beings moved, the wheels moved with them. And whenever the living beings rose from the earth, the wheels rose also. ²⁰Wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go in that direction. And the wheels rose close beside them; for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels. ²¹Whenever those went, these went; and whenever those stood still, these stood still. And whenever those rose from the earth, the wheels rose close beside them; for the spirit of the living beings was in the wheels.

1:15-19 "full of eyes round about" These wheels were beside the angelic beings (v. 15). There seems to be a wheel within a wheel at right angles to each other (v. 16), which symbolized immediate mobility (cf. v. 17; 10:11). The eyes around each wheel symbolizes the omniscience of God (cf. 10:12). From Babylonian literature "eyes" on wheels referred to jewels (cf. The IVP Bible Background Commentary, p. 691). In v. 19 the chariot throne rises from the earth that shows it is not earthbound (cf. 10:16-17).

Ezekiel tries to describe the wheels.

1. eight wheels

2. two beside each cherub

3. made of beryl (BDB 1076, cf. 10:9; Exod. 28:30; 39:13; Song of Songs 5:14; Dan. 10:6)

4. full of eyes (from 10:12 and Rev. 4:6,8 there were also eyes on the living creatures)

5. all of them were alike (v. 16)

The God of creation and covenant is not limited to the Promised Land! He goes and knows!

In Daniel's vision of heaven the Ancient of Days (i.e., YHWH) is also connected to fiery wheels (cf. Dan. 7:9) and angels (Dan. 7:10).

1:20-21 See note at v. 12. The word "spirit" (BDB 924) is being used in two senses.

1. God (i.e., in metaphor of "spirit," vv. 12,20)

2. the living creatures (v. 21)

"Spirit," in this context, is a way of expressing life/personality/being.

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT:1:22-25
 ²²Now over the heads of the living beings there was something like an expanse, like the awesome gleam of crystal, spread out over their heads. ²³Under the expanse their wings were stretched out straight, one toward the other; each one also had two wings covering its body on the one side and on the other. ²⁴I also heard the sound of their wings like the sound of abundant waters as they went, like the voice of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army camp; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. ²⁵And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings.

1:22 "something like an expanse" The Hebrew word means "that which is beat out" and usually refers to a concave, shallow dish (BDB 956). Here it seems to be a reference to the dome of the earth or the sky (i.e., "over the heads," cf. Dan. 12:3; Exod. 24:10). Its color was crystal, like ice (BDB 901), which implies a crystal blueness (see Rev. 4:6 for a foundation of the same color).

▣ "awesome" This term (BDB 431, KB 432, Niphal participle) is used in several ways (NIDOTTE, vol. 2, p. 532).

1. fear during the wilderness wanderings of Israel, Deut. 1:19; 8:15

2. YHWH's redemptive acts during this exodus period, Deut. 10:21; II Sam. 7:23; I Chr. 17:21; Ps. 66:3,5; 106:22

3. YHWH's name, Deut. 28:58; Ps. 99:3; 119:9; Mal. 1:4

4. YHWH's presence, Jdgs. 13:6; Job 37:22; Isa. 64:3; Ezek. 1:22

5. eschatological redemptive acts, Joel 2:11,31; Mal. 4:5

1:24 This verse is an attempt to describe the sound of the chariot moving (i.e., the living creatures' wings)

1. like the sound of abundant waters (cf. 43:2)

2. like the voice (i.e., thunder, BDB 876) of the Almighty (cf. Rev. 1:15; 14:2; 19:6) or angel (cf. Dan. 10:6)

3. like a sound of tumult (BDB 242), like the sound of an army camp (i.e., "host," BDB 334, cf. Jer. 11:16)

The implication is that the voice of God directs their movement (cf. v. 25).

▣ "the Almighty" This is the term Shaddai (BDB 994, cf. Num. 24:4,16; Ruth 1:20,21; Ps. 91:1; Isa. 13:6; Ezek. 1:24; Joel 1:15). Usually it is combined with El (the general name for deity in the Ancient Near East, probably from the root "to be strong"). Shaddai's etymology is uncertain. Some scholars suggest

1. the all-sufficient One

2. the self-sufficient One

3. the compassionate One (same consonants in Arabic mean a woman's breast, BDB 994)

4. rain-giver

5. high (mountain) God

6. mighty or violent

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT:1:26-28
 ²⁶Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man. ²⁷Then I noticed from the appearance of His loins and upward something like glowing metal that looked like fire all around within it, and from the appearance of His loins and downward I saw something like fire; and there was a radiance around Him. ²⁸As the appearance of the rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the surrounding radiance. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell on my face and heard a voice speaking.

1:26 "a throne" It is described

1. above the expanse (i.e., crystal dome, cf. 10:1)

2. color was "sapphire" or "lapis lazuli" (BDB 705, cf. Exod. 24:10; 28:18; 39:11; Job 28:6,16; Isa. 54:11). Notice Ezekiel's descriptions of colors come from his training as a priest. These were the colors of the tabernacle and priestly garments.

3. usually YHWH's throne is in heaven (cf. Ps. 11:4; 103:19; Isa. 66:1) and the earth is His footstool (i.e., between the wings of the Cherubim over the Ark).

▣ "high up was a figure" The throne's occupant is described.

1. appearance as a man, v. 26

2. his loins and above like glowing metal, v. 27 (cf. 1:4; 8:2)

3. below loins like fire, v. 27

4. radiance around him (like a rainbow), v. 28

5. like the glory of YHWH, v. 28

As in Isaiah 6, YHWH is depicted as a human person, but He Himself (i.e., face) cannot be described! He is the awesome, holy one, who only accommodates His glorious appearance to humans (cf. Exod. 24:10-11; Dan. 7:9). However, Israelites usually believed that to see God meant death (cf. Exod. 33:17-23; Isa. 6:5). Often this seeing of God is related to "the Angel of the Lord."

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE ANGEL OF THE LORD

1:27 "brightness" This term (BDB 6) is often used to describe God and His presence (theopany).

1. by David, II Sam. 22:13

2. to an eschatological Israel, Isa. 4:5

3. of YHWH's portable throne chariot, Ezek. 1:4,13

4. of YHWH Himself, Ezek. 1:27,28; 3:23; 10:4

1:28 "the rainbow" This seems to represent the grace and mercy of God as expressed in the sign to Noah (cf. Gen. 9:13-17). God's purpose of a covenant people will not change, as He does not change!

▣ "the glory of the Lord" This (BDB 458) is the theme of Ezekiel (19 times, mostly in chapters 10 and 43). This is also a major theme in Isaiah (38 times). In many ways it is theologically parallel to "holy" (BDB 872) as in Exod. 29:43; Lev. 10:3 and especially Isa. 6:3. These terms stand for YHWH's uniqueness and majesty! His personal presence is overwhelming and awe inspiring (El Shaddai). He is the God of creation (Elohim) and redemption (YHWH). He is the ever-living, only-living source of life. He is always present with Israel!

SPECIAL TOPIC: CHARACTERISTICS OF ISRAEL'S GOD

▣ "I fell on my face" This is often what occurs in the presence of the divine or His representative (cf. 1:28; 3:23; 43:3; 44:4; Gen. 17:3,17; Dan. 2:46; 8:17; Rev. 1:17).

Paul House, Old Testament Theology, p. 329, compares this with

1. Moses' reluctance to serve (cf. Exodus 3-4)

2. Isaiah's sense of personal and corporate sinfulness (cf. Isa. 6:5)

3. Jeremiah's personal depreciation (cf. Jer. 1:6-10)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

This is a study guide commentary, which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.

These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought-provoking, not definitive.

1. What exactly did Ezekiel see and why?

2. Why is the description of the Cherubim different from that in chapter 10?

3. How does chapter 10 relate to chapter 1?

Copyright © 2012 Bible Lessons International

PARAGRAPH DIVISIONS OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS

READING CYCLE THREE (see "Guide to Good Bible Reading")

FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S INTENT AT PARAGRAPH LEVEL

This is a study guide commentary which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.

Read the chapter in one sitting. Identify the subjects (reading cycle #3). Compare your subject divisions with the four modern translations above. Paragraphing is not inspired, but it is the key to following the original author's intent, which is the heart of interpretation. Every paragraph has one and only one subject.

1. First paragraph

2. Second paragraph

3. Third paragraph

4. Etc.

WORD AND PHRASE STUDY

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT:3:1-3
 ¹Then He said to me, "Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel." ²So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll. ³He said to me, "Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your body with this scroll which I am giving you." Then I ate it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth.

3:1 "Son of man" See note at 2:1.

▣ Chapter 3 closes out the literary unit of 1-3, which is Ezekiel's call to the prophetic ministry. This call involves YHWH addressing him in several commands.

1. "eat," v. 1(twice), BDB 37, KB 46, Qal imperative

2. "go" (lit. "walk"), vv. 1,4,11, BDB 229, KB 241, Qal imperative

3. "speak," v. 1, BDB 180, KB 210 Piel imperative (Piel perfect in 3:4)

4. "feed" (lit. "cause to eat," cf. v. 2), v. 3, BDB 37, KB 46, Hiphil jussive (Qal stem in 3:2,3; 4:9,10[twice],12,13,14,16; 5:10[twice])

5. "come," vv. 4,11,24, BDB 97, KB 112, Qal imperative

6. "take into your heart," v. 10, BDB 542, KB 534, Qal imperative

7. "listen closely," v. 10, BDB 1033, KB 1570, Qal imperative

8. "get up," v. 22, BDB 877, KB 1086, Qal imperative

9. "go out," v. 22, BDB 422, KB 425, Qal imperative

10. "shut yourself up in your house," v. 24, BDB 688, KB 742, Niphal imperative

11. "let him hear," v. 27, BDB 1033, KB 1570, Qal imperfect

12. "let him refuse" (lit. "cease"), v. 27, BDB 292, KB 292, Qal imperfect used in a jussive sense

3:3 "Then I ate it, and it was sweet as honey to my mouth" This conveys the thought that God's word is significant and meaningful even when it is a message of judgment (cf. Ps. 19:10; 119:103; Jer. 15:16; Rev. 10:9, 10). That the holy creator God would be involved with sinful humanity is amazing! God's judgment is really a sign of His parental discipline (cf. Heb. 12:5-13).

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT:3:4-11
 ⁴Then He said to me, "Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them. ⁵For you are not being sent to a people of unintelligible speech or difficult language, but to the house of Israel, ⁶nor to many peoples of unintelligible speech or difficult language, whose words you cannot understand. But I have sent you to them who should listen to you; ⁷yet the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, since they are not willing to listen to Me. Surely the whole house of Israel is stubborn and obstinate. ⁸Behold, I have made your face as hard as their faces and your forehead as hard as their foreheads. ⁹Like emery harder than flint I have made your forehead. Do not be afraid of them or be dismayed before them, though they are a rebellious house." ¹⁰Moreover, He said to me, "Son of man, take into your heart all My words which I will speak to you and listen closely. ¹¹Go to the exiles, to the sons of your people, and speak to them and tell them, whether they listen or not, 'Thus says the Lord God.'"

3:4, 5 "the house of Israel. . .a people of unintelligible speech or difficult language" Ezekiel's primary ministry was to the Jews in exile. God was not sending him to a foreign people, as He did Jeremiah and Daniel. However, the irony of v. 7 is that they (foreign nations with strange languages) would be willing to listen, but Israel would not.

3:7 "the whole house of Israel is stubborn and obstinate" See note at 2:4. They will not listen to Moses or the Prophets (i.e., 20:8; Isa. 6:9-13).

3:8,9 "hard. . .harder" This word (BDB 305) is a play on the name of Ezekiel (BDB 306), which means "to harden or strengthen." God will equip Ezekiel to face head on the rebellious house of Israel (cf. 2:5-6; 3:9,26-27; 12:2-3; 44:6).

3:9

NASB"emery"
NKJV, JPSOA"adamant stone"
NRSV"the hardest stone"
TEV"as firm as rock"
NJB"a diamond"

This Hebrew root (BDB 1038) has several meanings.

1. thorns, briars, only in Isaiah (cf. 5:6; 7:23,24,25; 9:18; 10:17; 27:4; 32:13)

2. adamant, flint (i.e., hard stone), Jer. 17:1; Ezek. 3:9; Zech. 7:12

3. person's name, I Chr. 24:24

4. place name, Josh. 15:48; Jdgs. 10:1,2

Context determines meaning! Only #2 fits. Which hard stone is being referenced is uncertain.

▣ "Do not be afraid of them or be dismayed before them" See note at 2:6.

3:10 What an insight into how inspiration worked in this case. The prophet had to listen (cf. 2:8), receive (comprehend), and then speak the message to Israel.

3:11 "go to the exiles" This is the specific group that Ezekiel is commissioned to speak YHWH's message to.

 ▣ "whether they listen or not" Some will respond, but others will not. There has always been a spiritual divide within national Israel. Some are covenant people by lineage only, but others are trusting, obeying, and heart-felt covenant followers!

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT:3:12-15
 ¹²Then the Spirit lifted me up, and I heard a great rumbling sound behind me, "Blessed be the glory of the Lord in His place." ¹³And I heard the sound of the wings of the living beings touching one another and the sound of the wheels beside them, even a great rumbling sound. ¹⁴So the Spirit lifted me up and took me away; and I went embittered in the rage of my spirit, and the hand of the Lord was strong on me. ¹⁵Then I came to the exiles who lived beside the river Chebar at Tel-abib, and I sat there seven days where they were living, causing consternation among them.

3:12 "the Spirit lifted me up" There is some doubt about to whom "spirit" refers in 1:12,20,21, but here and in 2:2 it obviously refers to the active presence of God. It may be true that a full-blown Trinitarian (see Special Topic at 2:2) understanding of God is absent from the OT. There are still texts (such as this one) that point toward a plurality in God.

There are several places in Ezekiel where this phrase is used implying that it is a literary way of introducing revelation (cf. 2:2; 3:12,14,24; 8:3; 11:1,24; 37:1; 43:5). Ezekiel is receiving active, personal revelation in the form of visions and words.

LXX"the voice as of a great earthquake"
NASB"a great rumbling"
NKJV"a thunderous voice"
NRSV"the sound of loud rumbling"
TEV"the loud roar of a voice"
NJB"a great vibrating sound"
JPSOA"a great roaring sound"

This noun (BDB 950) can refer to

1. the sound of an earthquake, I Kgs. 19:11-12; Ezek. 38:19; Amos 1:1; Zech. 14:5

2. the context of a loud voice, Isa. 29:6

3. the sound of military action

a. warriors, Isa. 9:4

b. war chariots, Jer. 10:22; 47:3

c. war horses, Job 39:24

4. the shaking of persons, Ezek. 12:18

5. the verb is used often of divine comings for judgment or blessing

In this context (cf. v. 13) it was the sound of YHWH's throne chariot lifting up and moving. Somehow the "lifting up" of the Spirit is equated with the lifting up of the throne chariot (cf. 1:12,20-21). With the sound of the movement of the throne chariot was a vocal statement of the attending angelic being, "Blessed by the glory of the Lord in/from His place." This is similar to the Seraphim of Isa. 6:3.

▣ "glory"

SPECIAL TOPIC: GLORY (DOXA)

3:14 "and I went embittered in rage of my spirit" This is a very difficult phrase. It has been translated in one of two ways: (1) Ezekiel is upset at having to give a hard message which will be rejected or (2) Ezekiel was filled with the righteous indignation of God at the sin of the Jewish nation (cf. Jer. 6:11). I think theory 2 fits the context much better.

▣ "the hand of the Lord" Notice the different ways the presence of YHWH is alluded to.

1. direct speech, vv. 1,4,16,24,27

2. the Spirit, vv. 12,14,24

3. the glory of the Lord, vv. 12,23

4. the hand of the Lord, vv. 14,22 (see SPECIAL TOPIC: HAND at 37:1)

The anthropomorphic metaphor denotes the reception of divine revelation (cf. 1:3; 3:14,22; 8:1; 33:22; 37:1; 40:1). For anthropomorphic language used of God see Special Topic at 1:3.

3:15 "Tel-abib" This is also the name of one of the Canaanite months (see Special Topic at 1:1), which was the month of the Exodus/Passover. Here it is a settlement by the Grand Canal close to the city of Nippur. The Hebrew word abib (BDB 1) means "green ears of grain." "Tel" (BDB 1068) means "mound."

NASB"I sat there seven days where they were living, causing consternation among them"
NKJV, Peshitta"I sat where they sat, and remained there astonished among them seven days"
NRSV, JPSOA"I sat there among them, stunned, for seven days"
TEV"I came. . .and for seven days I stayed there, overcome by what I had seen and heard"
NJB"I came. . .and there I stayed with them in a stupor for seven days"
LXX"I sat there seven days, conversant in the midst of them"

The Hebrew verb (BDB 1030, KB 1563, Hiphil participle) means "appalled," "awestruck," "devastated." But who does it refer to?

1. Ezekiel (i.e., the vision itself), NKJV, NRSV, TEV, NJB, JPSOA

2. the exiled Israelites of Tel-abib (i.e., the message of Ezekiel), LXX, NASB

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT:3:16-21
 ¹⁶At the end of seven days the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ¹⁷"Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. ¹⁸When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die', and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. ¹⁹Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself. ²⁰Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. ²¹However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself."

3:17 "I have appointed you a watchman" This is expanded in chapter 33. It is a concept used often in the prophets (cf. Isa. 56:10; Jer. 6: 17; Hos. 9:8). Remember the prophets functioned as God's covenant enforcers for the Mosaic covenant. Israel's obedience determined her destiny. The prophets reminded Israel of the consequences of disobedience (cf. Deuteronomy 27-28). How the people responded to the prophets' message (i.e., repentance or hardness) determined their future.

3:18-19 This is a major theological truth of both Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which deals with individual responsibility. The full theological discussion is in chapters 18 and 33.

3:18 "You shall surely die" This is a Qal infinitive absolute and a Qal imperfect of the same verb (BDB 559, KB 562), which denotes emphasis. In this setting it refers to physical death.

SPECIAL TOPIC: Where Are the Dead?

▣ "but his blood I will require at your hand" Being called to serve God is a great honor, but it also carries great responsibilities. If I know God's message and do not speak, it brings spiritual consequences, as does ignoring the message once given (cf. 3:20; 33:6,8).

The term "blood" (BDB 196) is a metaphor of death. The ancients knew that as the blood flowed away, so too, life. Therefore, the life was in the blood (cf. Gen. 9:5-6; Lev. 17:11,14).

3:20 "a righteous man"

SPECIAL TOPIC: RIGHTEOUSNESS

▣ "I place an obstacle before him" God tests all those who belong to Him (cf. Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; 16:4; 20:20; Deut. 8:2,16; 13:3; Jdgs. 2:22; II Chr. 32:31; Matt. 4:1; Heb. 12:5-13).

Ezekiel uses the metaphor of a stone or obstacle placed on the road (i.e., life's path) as a way of denoting judgment (cf. Jer. 6:21). The fact that God tests humans demands that humans have a God-given "free will" (cf. Gen. 1:26-27). If there is no personal responsibility there can be no ethical consequences! The interpersonal relationship desired by God of His human creatures demands a free will.

Ezekiel also emphasizes an individual aspect to faith and obedience that is unique in the prophets who usually address national Israel (cf. 3:20-21; 14:12-20; 18:5-32; 33:12-20).

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT:3:22-27
 ²²The hand of the Lord was on me there, and He said to me, "Get up, go out to the plain, and there I will speak to you." ²³So I got up and went out to the plain; and behold, the glory of the Lord was standing there, like the glory which I saw by the river Chebar, and I fell on my face. ²⁴The Spirit then entered me and made me stand on my feet, and He spoke with me and said to me, "Go, shut yourself up in your house. ²⁵As for you, son of man, they will put ropes on you and bind you with them so that you cannot go out among them. ²⁶Moreover, I will make your tongue stick to the roof of your mouth so that you will be mute and cannot be a man who rebukes them, for they are a rebellious house. ²⁷But when I speak to you, I will open your mouth and you will say to them, 'Thus says the Lord God.' He who hears, let him hear; and he who refuses, let him refuse; for they are a rebellious house."

3:22 "The hand of the Lord" See notes at 3:14.

▣ This is similar to 2:1. YHWH is initiating contact and preparing to communicate revelation.

1. "Arise," BDB 877, KB 1086, Qal imperative

2. "Go out," BDB 422, KB 425, Qal imperative

3. "I will speak to you," BDB 180, KB 210, Piel imperfect

3:23 "I got up and went out on the plain and behold the glory of the Lord was standing there" This experience was a major theological revelation. God's glory and presence were not limited to Palestine or the Temple. The exiles needed to know this. First, that God had not abandoned them and second, that God was not limited to the Holy Land!

Notice how "glory" is personified as "standing." The terms "glory" and "name" both stand for the personal presence of YHWH.

3:24 "The Spirit then entered me" This is the same "spirit" that controlled the living being of chapter 1 (cf. 1:12,20-21). It is the same "spirit" that entered Ezekiel and caused him to stand in 2:1-2. It is a way of referring to God Himself. Notice "He spoke with me" and the obvious antecedent is "the Spirit."

The Spirit of God is active in the OT in equipping humans to perform divine tasks or assignments.

1. design and building of the tabernacle, Exod. 31:3; 35:31

2. military deliverers, Jdgs. 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6,19; 15:14

3. political leaders, I Sam. 10:10; 11:6; 16:13; II Sam. 23:2

4. prophets, I Kgs. 18:12,46; II Kgs. 2:16; Ezek. 2:2; 3:12,14,24; 8:3; 11:24; 37:1; 43:5; Micah 3:5

5. Messianic, Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1; Luke 4:18-19

▣ "Go, shut yourself up in your house" Notice how specific God's message is. Ezekiel is claiming that his dramatic acts are direct commands from YHWH.

1. "go," BDB 97, KB 112, Qal imperative

2. "be shut up," BDB 688, KB 742, Niphal imperative

3:25 The question is, who does the pronoun "they" refer to?

1. other Jewish exiles

2. the Babylonian army besieging Jerusalem (cf. 4:8)

Whatever the exact meaning, it is clear from the context that there will be opposition to Ezekiel's message (cf. vv. 26-27). Ezekiel is declaring the complete destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the exile, which was not a popular message.

3:26 "I will make your tongue stick to the roof of your mouth" In context this is highly unusual, since God is commanding him to tell the message, but it may communicate the truth that the prophet is only to speak when God speaks. There will be a specific time to speak (cf. 24:27; 33:22). This reference to a divine silence is seen again in chapter 24:27: 29:21; 33:22.

This verse concludes with two commands.

1. "let him hear," BDB 1033, KB 1570, Qal imperfect used in a jussive sense

2. "let him refuse" (lit. "cease"), BDB 292, KB 292, Qal imperfect used in a jussive sense

Copyright © 2012 Bible Lessons International