-
19. “I Will Be for Them a Mini-Temple”: Reading Ezekiel
- Jewish Publication Society
- Chapter
- Additional Information
19 “I Will Be for Them a Mini-Temple” Reading Ezekiel Primary Reading: Ezekiel 1–11, 16, 23, 33–40, 48. Location, Location, Location Ezekiel opens with a superscription that tells us exactly where and when he received his prophecy: (1) In the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, when I was in the community of exiles by the Chebar Canal, the heavens opened and I saw visions of God. (2) On the fifth day of the month—it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin—(3) the word of the LORD came to the priest Ezekiel son of Buzi, by the Chebar Canal, in the land of the Chaldeans. And the hand of the LORD came upon him there. This superscription sets Ezekiel apart from the other prophets we have explored in two ways: he begins to prophesy after the exile of 597 B.C.E., and he is prophesying outside of Israel in Babylon. As the JPS translation’s note at verse 1 observes, we are unsure which year “the thirtieth year” there refers to, but verse 2 places this dedication oracle in the summer of 593. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel is a priest,1 but unlike his older contemporary, he begins to prophesy only “by the Chebar Canal, in the land of the Chaldeans.” In other words, Ezekiel was standing near the Babylonian city of Nippur. Some of Ezekiel’s contemporaries may have had problems with this setting. After all, they probably conceived of prophecy—communications with the God of Israel—as being bound to the land of Israel. This would explain why the book of Jonah tells us that when that prophet wished to avoid heeding the divine will, he fled mi-lifnei YHWH (hv+hy$ yn@p4l<1m1), literally, “from before the LORD” (1:3). Similarly, many Israelites thought that God could only be worshipped within the 185 land of Israel (“How can we sing a song of the LORD on alien soil?”; Ps. 137:4). A belief that prophecy could not occur in foreign lands continued in later times; an early rabbinic midrash, the Mekhilta, states: “Before the land of Israel had been especially chosen, all lands were suitable for divine revelations; after the land of Israel had been chosen, all other lands were eliminated.”2 Though not everyone in Ezekiel’s community may have believed this, enough did that he felt the need to prove his legitimacy as an “off-site” prophet. Authentication is the main function of Ezekiel’s inaugural vision. That prophecy is long (more than 53 verses; 1:3b–3:16a) and detailed, because Ezekiel needs to prove that his mission is real. In the baroque quality of its detail it resembles the beginning of Deuteronomy (see “A Pious Fraud” in chapter 10), though it is even longer and stranger. Both books, for different reasons, needed to overcome obstacles to their being seen as legitimate. Ezekiel’s inaugural prophecy, like Isaiah 6 and Jeremiah 1, follows the typical form of a prophetic initiation or dedication.3 As with Isaiah and Jeremiah, Ezekiel’s call to prophecy contains the root sh-l-ch (clD, “to send”), reflecting the view that the prophet is a messenger of the divine (Isa. 6:8; Jer. 1:7; Ezek. 2:3). Like them, Ezekiel performs a symbolic action with his mouth (Isa. 6:7: Jer. 1:9; Ezek. 3:2). Just like Jeremiah, Ezekiel is told, “Do not fear” (Jer. 1:8; Ezek. 2:6 [three times], 3:9). By following the same script, Ezekiel is claiming to be a true prophet like Isaiah and Jeremiah. Yet Ezekiel exceeds the script when he sees “visions of God” (1:1). Jeremiah’s inauguration had been aural only (1:4–10), though it had been followed by a set of visions. Isaiah’s had been both aural and visual; he had seen “my Lord seated on a high and lofty throne; and the skirts of His robe filled the Temple” (6:1). Yet, Isaiah had described little about God’s appearance other than large size4 and being clothed. Isaiah had gone on to tersely describe seraphim—angels of sorts—and their function. In contrast, Ezekiel 1 describes God’s heavenly court in great detail—of the type that only someone “who was really there” might offer. More than that, he describes what God looks like. Ezekiel the priest, using priestly language, sees “the Presence of the LORD”: (1:26) Above the expanse over their heads was the semblance of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and on top, upon this semblance of a throne, there was the semblance of a human form. (27) From what appeared as his loins up, I saw a gleam as of amber—what looked like a fire encased in a frame; and from what appeared as his loins down, I saw what looked like fire. There was a radiance all about him. (28) Like the appearance of the bow which shines in the clouds on a day of rain, 186 How to Read the Bible [54.221.159.188] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 12:16 GMT) such was the appearance of the surrounding radiance. That was the appearance of the semblance of the Presence of the LORD. God is depicted indirectly: unlike the elders whom Exodus 24:10 portrays as seeing “the God of Israel” (see “In the Image of God” in chapter 6), Ezekiel sees only the “appearance of the semblance of the Presence of the LORD,” which in turn takes “the semblance of a human form.” Clearly, Ezekiel accepts the common biblical idea that seeing God directly is deadly (see, e.g., Judg. 13:22; contra Exodus 24). At the same time, he does not seem to accept what is implied in Deuteronomy 4:12, 15, and elsewhere, that God is incorporeal. (The latter view would become standard in medieval Judaism,5 but it was not standard yet in Ezekiel’s time.) By seeing God, Ezekiel proves that he has “stood in [God’s] council ” (Jer. 23:22)—and is a true prophet. In the Shadow of Exile We have explained the strangeness of the book’s opening passage by the unusual , exilic setting of Ezekiel himself: he needed to convince the people of his legitimacy as a prophet in exile.6 Another passage—a frequently misunderstood text—supports this interpretation. In the JPS translation, we read: (11:15) O mortal, I will save your brothers, your brothers, the men of your kindred, all of that very House of Israel to whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem say, “Keep far from the LORD; the land has been given as a heritage to us.” (16) Say then: Thus said the Lord GOD: I have indeed removed them far among the nations and have scattered them among the countries, and I have become to them a diminished sanctity in the countries whither they have gone. This section’s style is typical of Ezekiel. It begins with “O mortal,” ben adam (Md+a+~Nb<3), literally “son of man” but better understood as “member of humankind,” and thus “mortal.”7 The text continues by quoting a popular proverb that the people are fond of saying—this is also typical for Ezekiel. However, the end of verse 16 is quite odd: “I have become to them a diminished sanctity in the countries whither they have gone.” The phrase “a diminished sanctity” renders mikdash me’at (ei-m4 Dd<+q4m1). Given that the Bible frequently uses the term mikdash for the Temple in Jerusalem, many scholars once thought that this verse referred to the origins of the synagogue as an institution. Instead of worshipping at the full-scale Temple “I Will Be for Them a Mini-Temple” 187 in Jerusalem, they suggested that in Babylon, Ezekiel instituted the synagogue as a kind of mini-Temple.8 The verse, however, is better translated: “I [God] will be for them a mini-Temple in the countries whither they have gone.” The sentiment is striking: we do not need a physical building—a Temple—because the divine presence is with us, even if that presence is not housed in a building. (This sentiment contrasts strongly with Exod. 25:8, “And let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.”) Similarly, God said to Jacob when he left Israel for Egypt, “I Myself will go down with you to Egypt, and I Myself will also bring you back” (Gen. 46:4). The historical and geographical setting of Ezekiel also explains a great deal about the chapters that follow Ezekiel’s initiation. Most classical prophets went out to the people, but in Ezekiel’s case it seems that the people came to him: “Certain elders of Israel came to me and sat down before me” (14:1; cf. 20:1). Consider too his habit of making odd symbolic gestures (see especially chapters 4–5): such actions would have conveyed their message only if people were coming to his house—so as to hear his new oracles and to watch his latest weird activity. Because Ezekiel began his career after the exile of 597 in Babylon, much of his audience believed in the truth of the prophecies of retribution by Jeremiah and others (that the Temple was about to be destroyed and that another exile was inevitable). Thus, Ezekiel had a certain cachet as a post–597 prophet-inexile , something that Jeremiah lacked in Israel—where the population seemed more blithe (see, e.g., Jeremiah 28). In addition, the exiles probably were feeling cut off from God. Thus they would go visit Ezekiel to hear the latest divine news. This “news” he typically communicated in a straightforward, mostly prosaic fashion. Ezekiel’s communication style again suggests that he did not face the challenge of the earlier prophets, who had to go out to the people and win them over with clever rhetoric. In sum, many unique features of Ezekiel’s prophecies make sense if we read them with the proper historical and geographical background. Thus, the opening passage is not a model of an alien spacecraft, as some have suggested.9 Nor does it point to the lingering affect of childhood psychological trauma.10 Rather, it reflects Ezekiel’s successful campaign to show that he was a true prophet even though he was outside the land of Israel. Refuting Popular Beliefs One way that Ezekiel would get the Judeans in exile to listen was by being a careful listener himself, repeating what they said but then correcting it. Earlier I 188 How to Read the Bible [54.221.159.188] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 12:16 GMT) cited an instance where Ezekiel quotes a popular saying in order to show that it is false (11:15–16). Ezekiel offered Judeans something hopeful to replace their pessimistic beliefs. The famous dry bones unit (chap. 37) features the same tactic , quoting the people as saying: “Our bones are dried up, our hope is gone; we are doomed” (v. 11).11 In another passage he gives a slightly longer rebuttal of a proverb: (12:22) O mortal, what is this proverb that you have in the land of Israel, that you say, “The days grow many and every vision comes to naught?” (23) Assuredly, say to them, Thus said the Lord GOD: I will put an end to this proverb; it shall not be used in Israel any more. Speak rather to them: The days draw near, and the fulfillment of every vision. (24) For there shall no longer be any false vision or soothing divination in the House of Israel. (25) But whenever I the LORD speak what I speak, that word shall be fulfilled without any delay; in your days, O rebellious breed, I will fulfill every word I speak—declares the Lord GOD. The same pattern we saw in chapter 11 appears here: “O mortal,” followed by the proverb, and then by the rebuttal. This unit likewise ends with the common prophetic formula “declares the Lord GOD,” which typically concludes an oracle. Much more significant is the proverb that he rebuts in chapter 18. There we read: (18:1) The word of the LORD came to me: (2) What do you mean by quoting this proverb upon the soil of Israel, “Parents eat sour grapes and their children’s teeth are blunted”? (3) As I live—declares the Lord GOD—this proverb shall no longer be current among you in Israel. (4) Consider, all lives are Mine; the life of the parent and the life of the child are both Mine. The person who sins, only he shall die. The proverb “Parents eat sour grapes and their children’s teeth are blunted” might be rendered into modern English as “The parents eat Snickers® and the children get cavities.” It must have been popular, since it appears also in Jeremiah 31:29: “In those days, they shall no longer say, ‘Parents have eaten sour grapes and children’s teeth are blunted.’” The two prophetic books, however, give a different meaning to this proverb’s disuse. In Jeremiah, the proverb will only become false in the future—in the idealized time of the eschaton. But according to Ezekiel, the proverb is already false; he understood God to say that now, in his own time, “all lives are Mine [and will be judged so individually]; the life of the parent and the life of the child are both Mine [as individuals]. The person who sins, only he shall die” (v. 4). Ezekiel therefore refutes the proverb at length. First, he treats the case of a “I Will Be for Them a Mini-Temple” 189 righteous man who begets a wicked son, who in turn begets a righteous man (18:5–20). From this case he concludes: “The person who sins, he alone shall die. A child shall not share the burden of a parent’s guilt, nor shall a parent share the burden of a child’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to him alone” (18:20). Then, he proceeds to telescope these three generations into one, teaching that when wicked people repent, or righteous people become wicked, God will judge them according to their later behavior. This is another way of saying : Even though you have been exiled for your sins, all is not lost. Indeed, “it is not My desire that anyone shall die—declares the Lord GOD” (v. 32). This leads to the unit’s grand conclusion: “Repent, therefore, and live!” (ibid.). We can imagine that the exile community was feeling a huge burden of guilt. If so, this unit (chap. 18) must have meant a lot to them. Ezekiel’s address is so long, detailed, and repetitive because he is refuting not only a popular proverb, but also an authoritative set of beliefs.12 We saw earlier that the Decalogue presumes intergenerational punishment, describing God as “an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generations of those who reject Me” (Exod. 20:5; see “The Decalogue” in chapter 8). Other biblical texts suggest that retribution functions on a corporate level, so that the community as a whole receives rewards and punishments (e.g., Deut. 11:13–21; see “Deuteronomy as a Treaty” in chapter 10). Genesis adopts such a view concerning Sodom, where the issue is not whether the righteous people will be saved, but how many are needed to save the city (18:22–33). According to these views, individuals cannot change their destiny in the face of family or community evil. Thus, Ezekiel is arguing against two beliefs found in a variety of biblical texts—intergenerational punishment , and corporate (communal) responsibility and retribution. That is why he needs to make his point so forcefully. Likewise, an oracle in Ezekiel 14:12–23 makes this point repeatedly, stating that if a city were wicked, “should Noah, Daniel, and Job be in it, as I live— declares the Lord GOD—they would save neither son nor daughter; they would save themselves alone by their righteousness” (v. 20; cf. vv. 14, 18). The Daniel mentioned here is not the same as the one in the biblical book of that name— the names are spelled differently; the Daniel there is later than the Daniel of Ezekiel. Here the reference is to Danel, a righteous Canaanite who features in an Ugaritic epic.13 Thus, “Noah, Dan[i]el, and Job” represent three righteous nonIsraelites who lived long before Ezekiel. Following the principle expressed in chapter 18, “they would save themselves alone by their righteousness.” Because 190 How to Read the Bible [54.221.159.188] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 12:16 GMT) retribution is personal and not corporate, their meritorious deeds would not benefit the community as a whole. A Good Listener and a Crude Speaker Ezekiel did not need to use lofty poetry or rhetoric, because (as noted earlier) people wanted to hear him: he was their primary connection with God in a society without a Temple. He listened to people’s belief that God had abandoned them; then he replied so as to contradict their despair. Yet to suggest that it was his theological message alone that attracted people would be an exaggeration. In 33:32, God is portrayed as saying to Ezekiel: “To them you are just a singer of bawdy songs, who has a sweet voice and plays skillfully.” This suggests that Ezekiel attracted listeners as much because of his style as because of his message. Calling Ezekiel a “bawdy” (or “erotic”) poet is striking, but it does fit the content of Ezekiel 16 and 23.14 Many scholars actually consider these chapters to be pornographic—although this term is difficult enough to define in modern times, let alone for ancient texts from different cultures. In any case, these two chapters are sexually explicit. Chapter 16 uses the root z-n-h (hnz), “to whore, fornicate,” thirteen times; chapter 23, seven times. One passage claims, “At every crossroad you built your height and you made your beauty abominable by opening your legs to anyone who passed by. Increasing your harlotry, you harloted with the Egyptians, your big-membered neighbors . . .” (16:25–26)15 while another describes the Judeans’ behavior in this manner: “They harloted in Egypt, in their youth they harloted; there their breasts were squeezed, there they pressed their virgin nipples” (23:3). Such “bawdy” talk probably attracted some of Ezekiel’s audience. The Structure of Ezekiel The Book of Ezekiel is much more orderly than the two other large prophetic books. Its chronological setting during the Babylonian exile may have contributed to this. In addition, its editor may have been better, or that person redacted more lightly, so that it contains fewer insertions that disrupt earlier literary units. Two ordering principles are evident in the book: a chronological structure, and a collation of material into large thematic units that fit the chronology. “I Will Be for Them a Mini-Temple” 191 The oracles of Ezekiel are arranged chronologically (with one exception) and can be dated in this way:16 Chariot Vision 1:1 June 593 B.C.E. Call to Be a Watchman 3:16b June 593 Temple Vision 8:1 August/September 592 Discourse with Elders 20:1 August 591 Second Siege of Jerusalem 24:1 January 588 Judgment on Tyre 26:1 March/April 587/586 Judgment on Egypt 29:1 January 587 Judgment on Egypt 29:17 April 571 Judgment on Egypt 30:20 April 587 Judgment on Egypt 31:1 June 587 Lament over Pharaoh 32:1 March 585 Lament over Egypt 32:17 April 586 Fall of Jerusalem 33:21 December/January 586/585 New Temple Vision 40:1 April 573 A second pattern overlaps with this first one: two “watchman” oracles frame a large section of the book between them. Both of them charge Ezekiel with forewarning both the wicked and the righteous among the people. The first oracle reads: (3:17) O mortal, I appoint you watchman for the House of Israel; and when you hear a word from My mouth, you must warn them for Me. (18) If I say to a wicked man, “You shall die,” and you do not warn him—you do not speak to warn the wicked man of his wicked course in order to save his life—he, the wicked man, shall die for his iniquity , but I will require a reckoning for his blood from you. (19) But if you do warn the wicked man, and he does not turn back from his wickedness and his wicked course, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have saved your own life. (20) Again, if a righteous man abandons his righteousness and does wrong, when I put a stumbling block before him, he shall die. He shall die for his sins; the righteous deeds that he did shall not be remembered; but because you did not warn him, I will require a reckoning for his blood from you. (21) If, however , you warn the righteous man not to sin, and he, the righteous, does not sin, he shall live because he took warning, and you will have saved your own life. 192 How to Read the Bible [54.221.159.188] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 12:16 GMT) The second such oracle reads: (33:7) Now, O mortal, I have appointed you a watchman for the House of Israel; and whenever you hear a message from My mouth, you must transmit My warning to them. (8) When I say to the wicked, “Wicked man, you shall die,” but you have not spoken to warn the wicked man against his way, he, that wicked man, shall die for his sins, but I will demand a reckoning for his blood from you. (9) But if you have warned the wicked man to turn back from his way, and he has not turned from his way, he shall die for his own sins, but you will have saved your life. These same two chapters also deal with Ezekiel’s silence—an issue that biblical scholars do not fully understand, since the voluble Ezekiel is nowhere directly depicted as being silent!17 Yet God suggests as much in telling him: “And I will make your tongue cleave to your palate, and you shall be dumb; you shall not be a reprover to them, for they are a rebellious breed” (3:26), while the other passage notes: (33:21) In the twelfth year of our exile, on the fifth day of the tenth month, a fugitive came to me from Jerusalem and reported, “The city has fallen.” (22) Now the hand of the LORD had come upon me the evening before the fugitive arrived, and He opened my mouth before he came to me in the morning; thus my mouth was opened and I was no longer speechless. Thus, Ezekiel’s hearing of the destruction of the city and the Temple in 586 represents a turning point in the book. Taking into account these factors—the “watchman” frame and the trope of silence—we can outline the book’s structure as follows: I. 1:1–3:15 Dedication as prophet II. 3:16–24:27 Oracles of retribution against Israel III. 25–32 Oracles against the nations IV. 33–48 Oracles of consolation (after the fall of Jerusalem in 586) This outline captures the ironic arc of the book: until the Temple was destroyed, Ezekiel was a prophet of retribution, explaining to the exiles why the destruction was about to transpire, even though he stressed the opportunity to repent (in contrast with Jeremiah 25). Once the news of the destruction arrived, Ezekiel “I Will Be for Them a Mini-Temple” 193 changed course; indeed, he shifted his tack by 180 degrees. He became a prophet of consolation. Next we will examine Ezekiel’s transformation, highlighting the contrasting themes between sections II–III and section IV. Although 3:16–24:27 and 33–48 are distinct parts of the book, they are best read and understood juxtaposed to one another. From Divine Abandonment to “The LORD Is There” According to ancient Near Eastern conceptions, deities resided in their temples, protecting their people and their temples while present at these holy sites. The biblical verse quoted earlier exemplifies this view: “Let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them” (Exod. 25:8). As we observed earlier in discussing Leviticus (chapter 9), some Israelites concentrated on ensuring that God remained at the Temple—protecting it and the people of the covenant. Various actions that gave offense could conceivably cause the deity to depart. Some scholars have called this motif of a god leaving a temple “divine abandonment .” It may be seen in the following inscription of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (681–669): “The lord of the gods, Marduk, was angry. He planned evil; to wipe out the land, to destroy its inhabitants . . . an evil curse was on his lips.” The gods and goddesses who dwell in it (i.e., the temple Esagila) fled like birds and went up to heaven. The protective gods [. . . ran] off and withdrew.18 Ezekiel, living in Babylon, knew and adopted this motif. He described the gradual departure of the Presence in several sections throughout the first eleven chapters: (8:3) He stretched out the form of a hand, and took me by the hair of my head. A spirit lifted me up between heaven and earth and brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the Penimith Gate that faces north; that was the site of the infuriating image that provokes fury. (4) And the Presence of the God of Israel appeared there, like the vision that I had seen in the valley. (10:4) But when the Presence of the LORD moved from the cherubs to the platform of the House, the House was filled with the cloud, and the court was filled with the radiance of the Presence of the LORD. (11:22) Then the cherubs, with the wheels beside them, lifted their wings, while the Presence of the God of Israel rested above them. 194 How to Read the Bible [54.221.159.188] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 12:16 GMT) (23) The Presence of the LORD ascended from the midst of the city and stood on the hill east of the city. Once the Presence had left the Temple, the Babylonians could destroy it. These chapters, however, not only describe “divine abandonment, ” but also justify in detail why God is leaving. God is furious, although the focus of divine anger—unlike in Amos and Isaiah—is not ethical concerns. True, some moral considerations are highlighted: “The iniquity of the Houses of Judah and Israel is very very great, the land is full of crime and the city is full of corruption” (9:9; see also chap. 22). More typical, however, are texts such as this one: (8:6) And He said to me, “Mortal, do you see what they are doing, the terrible abominations that the House of Israel is practicing here, to drive Me far from My Sanctuary? You shall yet see even greater abominations !” (7) Then He brought me to the entrance of the court; and I looked, and there was a hole in the wall. (8) He said to me, “Mortal, break through the wall”; so I broke through the wall and found an entrance. (9) And He said to me, “Enter and see the vile abominations that they are practicing here.” (10) I entered and looked, and there all detestable forms of creeping things and beasts and all the fetishes of the House of Israel were depicted over the entire wall. (11) Before them stood seventy men, elders of the House of Israel, with Jaazaniah son of Shaphan standing in their midst. Everyone had a censer in his hand, and a thick cloud of incense smoke ascended. We do not know whether the activities described here really happened.19 Either way, the point here is that Ezekiel imagines that God is letting the Temple be destroyed for cultic infractions, not for ethical violations. Ironically, while committing these cultic sins, the people of Israel think: “The LORD does not see us; the LORD has abandoned the country” (8:12). They are dead wrong: God does see them and has not yet abandoned the country, but—as a result of their “abominations”—is about to do so. If a main theme of the retribution section is divine abandonment, it should not surprise us that the main theme of the consolation section is the return of the divine Presence. Chapters 40–48 describe Israel after its future restoration and return from exile. These chapters focus on the new Temple to be built in Jerusalem.20 This unit ends by declaring that the city will eventually be renamed “The LORD Is There” (48:35). Jerusalem’s new name will be a reversal of the divine abandonment described earlier in the book. The last section reverses other earlier motifs as well. Instead of Israel’s being “I Will Be for Them a Mini-Temple” 195 victim of the Day of the LORD, chapters 38–39 famously recount the war of Gog21 and Magog, where Israel’s enemies will fall. In 36:2, Ezekiel prophesies “to the mountains of Israel,” overturning his earlier prophecy of rebuke of 6:2, also addressed “to the mountains of Israel.” Chapter 34 is especially clever in its reversal. It begins like a prophecy of retribution: “O mortal, prophesy against the shepherds [i.e., kings] of Israel. . . . Thus said the Lord GOD: I am going to deal with the shepherds!” (vv. 2–10). However, it moves from retribution to consolation , noting that these derelict kings will be replaced by God as king and by an ideal Davidic king: “Then I will appoint a single shepherd over them to tend them—My servant David. He shall tend them, he shall be a shepherd to them. I the LORD will be their God, and My servant David shall be a ruler among them— I the LORD have spoken” (vv. 23–24).22 One can imagine the Judeans in exile, feeling their own guilt (and the guilt of their ancestors, despite his reassurances in chapters 14 and 18). They must have wondered: “Do we really deserve to be forgiven and restored?” A phrase appearing in the book fifty-eight times (out of seventy-two times in the Bible) relates why Israel will be redeemed: it is not because of their merit, but so that “they shall know that I am the LORD.”23 The following section from the prophecies of consolation makes clear what this ubiquitous phrase means: (36:21) Therefore I am concerned for My holy name, which the House of Israel have caused to be profaned among the nations to which they have come. (22) Say to the House of Israel: Thus said the Lord GOD: Not for your sake will I act, O House of Israel, but for My holy name, which you have caused to be profaned among the nations to which you have come. (23) I will sanctify My great name which has been profaned among the nations—among whom you have caused it to be profaned. And the nations shall know that I am the LORD—declares the Lord GOD—when I manifest My holiness before their eyes through you. . . . (32) Not for your sake will I act—declares the Lord GOD—take good note! Be ashamed and humiliated because of your ways, O House of Israel! . . . (36) And the nations that are left around you shall know that I the LORD have rebuilt the ravaged places and replanted the desolate land. I the LORD have spoken and will act. In other words, Israel is God’s people; and now that God has punished Israel because it broke the covenant, that punishment—their downtrodden state— could be mistaken as a sign of His weakness. Thus, God will restore Israel not because they are deserving, but because their continued punishment is liable to reflect poorly on Him. 196 How to Read the Bible [54.221.159.188] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 12:16 GMT) The various prophecies of consolation fit together quite tightly, and address the same themes as the rest of the book. Since God is with this people in exile, functioning as a mini-Temple, Israel need not feel hopeless. Likewise, since God will not place the sins of the parents on the children, Israel need not feel guilty. God will overturn earlier prophecies of doom. God will forgive Israel, not for their sake, but for the sake of God’s “holy name.” Thus, like contemporary books written by a single author, the parts of the Book of Ezekiel fit together. This coherence, however, is most evident when the book is read as a product of its time and place: an ancient Babylonian text, written in response to the tribulations of the Babylonian Jewish community. “I Will Be for Them a Mini-Temple” 197 ...