Chapter Three

The Prophet’s Entering into His Ministry

1–3. Eating the scroll. 4–11. Comforting encouragement for the prophet to accept his calling. 12–15. The departure of the divine appearance and the prophet’s transfer to Tel-Aviv. 16–21. New clarifications concerning the prophetic calling. 22–27. The external condition of the prophet during the subsequent prophecies.

Ezekiel 3:1. And He said to me: “Son of man! Eat what is before you, eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel. Ezekiel 3:2. Then I opened my mouth, and He gave me the scroll to eat. Ezekiel 3:3. And He said to me: “Son of man! Let your belly be full, and fill your stomach with this scroll that I give you.” Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth like honey for sweetness. The Lord draws the prophet away from examining the scroll, reminding him of His demand to eat it with insistence (“eat—eat” or eat indeed; in Slavic, once, verse 1), and the prophet takes the scroll to his lips (verse 2), still not daring to swallow it; but the Lord clearly and definitely demands precisely the latter (for the third time). This is to show, of course, that the word of God communicated to him he should inwardly assimilate, as if transform into his own flesh and blood, so that later in his preaching he might draw it from within himself and speak inexhaustibly. Having eaten the scroll, contrary to expectation, the prophet found it sweet, and not simply sweet, but exceedingly so—like honey. This was a sign that the word of God, which the scroll contained, always is for a man “in joy and cheerfulness of heart” (Jer 15:16; Ps 118:103), that “it is infinitely pleasant to be an instrument and mouthpiece of the Most High and even the most difficult divine truths for a man with spiritual understanding have joyful and comforting aspects” (Hengstenberg). “The eating of the scroll is not so strange a symbol to antiquity and the East as it is for us. We sharply distinguish between bodily and spiritual life and think that nourishment serves only to maintain the former; but for ancient man food was more than physical support; in ancient Arabia sharing in food was also the beginning of sharing in life, binding those who eat together in spiritual strivings as well; food—this is direct nourishment of blood, which in its turn is the seat of the soul; let us remember that through tasting the fruit from the tree of knowledge one could gain spiritual knowledge; we can finally point to the Christian idea of the supper in the kingdom of heaven” (Bertholet). The LXX in verse 1 do not have the Hebrew proposal: “eat this scroll,” which is why it is considered a gloss from Jer 15:18, and in verse 3 instead of “belly” they have “mouth,” which is probably a scribe’s error: στομαχον—στομα σου.

Ezekiel 3:4. Then He said to me: “Son of man! Go to the house of Israel and speak to them with My words; Now Ezekiel is already ordained as a prophet, which is why he immediately hears from the lips of God the solemn stereotyped formula employed at the sending of prophets (Exod 3:10; Isa 6:8-9; Jer 1:7).

Ezekiel 3:5. for you are not being sent to a people of obscure speech and foreign tongue, but to the house of Israel, The sweetness that the prophet tasted upon eating the scroll, which showed him that the very preaching would give him divine comfort, should have quieted his fears about the burden of his service. But the Lord adds further that his relationship to the people cannot be said to be unbearably difficult: he will deal not with some foreign people whose language he would not understand. “With unclear speech and an incomprehensible language”; lit. “with thick lips (Slav. “deep-voiced,” which speak softly) and heavy, i.e. slow-moving (Slav. “slow-tongued”) language.” This may indicate that the circle of the prophet’s listeners will be the better part of the Jewish population (which was precisely exiled to Babylon by him and Jehoiachin), not the common people with their barbarous jargon and corresponding level of education, whereas in verse 6 the discourse concerns foreign languages and peoples.

Ezekiel 3:6. not to many nations of unclear speech and incomprehensible language, whose words you would not understand; but if I sent you even to them, they would listen to you; The sphere of the prophet’s activity will be not foreign-speaking peoples (as with Jonah) and not a whole series of them, but one kindred people. Language—the most striking characteristic of a people (hence the general term for both in the Slavonic tongue—“language”), and a Hebrew measured the degree of alienation and hostility toward a certain people by the measure of the incomprehensibility and strangeness of its language: Isa 33:19. Besides the purely physical difficulty (“whose words you would not understand”) such a mission would have been morally difficult: it would not have been animated by love and spiritual closeness to the listeners. But the Lord says with bitterness that the prophet’s mission even under such unfavorable conditions would have greater success than among Israel. The history of the apostles later demonstrated this. “It had come to such a pass in Israel: the prophet seems to anticipate the future Paul” (Ewald). The thought that less evil can be expected from the gentiles than from Israel is expressed more than once by Ezekiel: Ezek 5:6. In this verse the words “with unclear speech and incomprehensible language” are repeated from the previous verse, without which one could easily manage and which weaken the thought: “whose words you would not understand”; therefore these words are considered an addition from verse 5; they are not in the Peshitta.

Ezekiel 3:7. but the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you; for they are unwilling to listen to Me, because the whole house of Israel is stubborn and hard-hearted. If nevertheless the people of Israel will not listen to the prophet, the reason is different. “The house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, for they are unwilling to listen to Me.” With like tenderness God once comforted Samuel (1 Sam 8:7-8) and the Savior comforted the apostles (Luke 10:16). The deeper reason for this lies in the natural spiritual qualities of Israel: it is a people with a “stubborn brow” (like horned animals; LXX: φιλονεικοι “unyielding,” because they read “matza” instead of “matzach” for “brow”—“ssa,” strife) and a “hard (callous) heart.” Despite the closeness of the expression to Ezek 2:4, the thought here is different: here it is a characterization of Israel from the psychological side, there from the historical (“they and their fathers”).

Ezekiel 3:8. Behold, I have made your face hard against their faces, and your forehead hard against their foreheads. To the stubbornness of the people God opposes an equal stubbornness of the prophet—stubbornness, of course, “in the noble sense of true prophetic courage, that will not allow itself to be broken by anything in the struggle” (Ewald).

Ezekiel 3:9. Like diamond, harder than stone, I have made your forehead; do not fear them and do not be afraid before their faces, for they are a rebellious house. The LXX read instead of “shamir” (“diamond”) a similar-looking adverb “tamid” (“always”), and instead of “matzach” (“forehead”) “matza” (“strife”): “and your prophetic struggle with their stubbornness will always be harder than stone.”

Ezekiel 3:10. And He said to me: son of man! take all My words that I shall speak to you into your heart and hear them with your ears; Having encouraged and armed the prophet for the struggle with obstacles, the Lord reminds him of the first condition of proper discharge of prophetic service—attentive reception of the revelations received. “Take it into your heart and hear with your ears”—a rhetorical inversion (hysteron proteron), as in Isa 64:4.

Ezekiel 3:11. Get up and go to the exiles, to the people of your own nation, and speak to them and say to them: “Thus says the Lord God!” whether they listen or whether they refuse. At the conclusion of the Lord’s address to the prophet, the immediate sphere of his service is indicated: the exiles, the people of your nation (no longer worthy to be called Mine). Consequently, Ezekiel was not a writer—prophet only.

Ezekiel 3:12. Then the Spirit lifted me up; and I heard behind me the sound of a great thundering: “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His place! The command to go to the people of Israel is at once realized upon the prophet in that the “Spirit” lifts him up and, as is evident from verses 14 and 15, carries him to Tel-Aviv. At the same time the vision disappears before him; but this happens in such a way that the prophet himself is removed from it by a higher power, so that it remains behind him (“behind me”); just as he did not himself produce the vision, so he cannot retain it by his own will; he is entirely in the power of the previously mentioned “Spirit” (see verse 2). Seized by the Spirit, ready to begin his journey, the prophet hears behind him “a great voice of thunder” (lit. the voice of great shaking), saying (Slav. “the voices of those speaking,” i.e., the living creatures; Heb. does not say): “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His place.” To whom the voice belonged is not stated; on the basis of Rev 4:8; Isa 6:3 it is supposed to be the four living creatures, and that on their part it was a song of praise or thanksgiving for the prophet’s calling. The original text gives the impression that this was the voice of the earth itself, as if seized with astonishment and ecstasy at the stopping of God’s Glory in this place. The voice explained to the prophet something in the vision: the Shekinah, which the former priest was accustomed to imagine in the darkness of the Holy of Holies, he now sees outside the temple; let him know that the temple is not the exclusive or even the chief place of her dwelling; she is more fully revealed in another mysterious realm of life and being, where she has more worthy bearers, where she is blessed more worthily than “blessed be the Lord from Zion” (Ps 134:21).

Ezekiel 3:13. and also the noise of the wings of the living creatures brushing against one another, and the sound of the wheels beside them, and the sound of a great thunder. The rumbling of the shaking (Russ. tr.: “great thunder,” cf. verse 12) was combined (hence the secondary mention of it in this verse) with the noise of wings and wheels of the living creatures of the vision, not drowning out the latter, which was no less loud. Along with its force, this deafening noise was distinguished by harmony, for it came from the brushing (Slav. tr.: “rustling”) wings and wheels strictly coordinated with them in movement, which spoke of the departure of the Lord’s Glory (cf. Ezek 10:16). The LXX begin the verse with a word that seems not to belong here, “vide” (i.e., “a voice”), but is well attested by Exod 20:18; Rev 1:12, which, as incomprehensible, could easily have fallen from the text.

Ezekiel 3:14. Then the Spirit lifted me up, and took me away. And I went in bitterness, in the wrath of my spirit; and the hand of the Lord was strong upon me. “And the Spirit lifted me up and took me. And I went.” It cannot be proved that this was a miraculous carrying of the prophet through the air by the wind. Besides the strangeness of such an assumption, the expression “I went” contradicts it in this case; the prophet, consequently, walked in the proper sense, but walked seized by the Spirit. Here there is evidently meant that semi-miraculous, semi-natural translation from place to place that other prophets also underwent: Elijah (1 Sam 18:12), Elisha (2 Sam 2:11) and even apostles (Acts 8:39). What it consisted of is difficult to say. This extraordinary journey the prophet undertook “in bitterness, with a troubled spirit”; the particular state in which he was during the vision had not yet passed: “the hand of the Lord was strong upon me.” “With a troubled spirit,” in Heb. “chamat” a hapax legomenon; it is more correctly translated as: “in irritation.” The prophet’s bitterness and irritation are commonly thought to have been caused by the wickedness of Israel. But this wickedness could scarcely have been revealed to him only during the vision. Therefore it may be more just to explain the prophet’s bitterness and irritation as an awareness of the heaviness of the work before him and indignation against it by his human nature; cf. the exclamation of Jeremiah: “I will not prophesy.” After being called to prophecy, ever heavier thoughts must have appeared to Ezekiel: he is the successor of Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the continuer of their work; but could one continue work that was nearly lost? What did these great champions of God’s Glory achieve by their incredible labors? Did Israel become better? “They are stubborn, like their fathers, to this day,” the Lord Himself said about Israel when He sent him. It is not for nothing that the prophet required two more revelations, two more callings (Ezek 3:16 and following, and Ezek 3:22 and following) to undertake public service. The LXX were afraid to discern here a thought of any bitterness and irritation: the first concept they convey as “lifted up,” μετεωρος, i.e., went half-raised in the air, probably reading “ram” instead of “mar” (Vatican cod. omits); and the second as “in impulse, ορμη, of my spirit,” i.e., with strong zeal for preaching.

Ezekiel 3:15. And I came to the exiles at Tel-Aviv, who lived by the river Chebar, and I sat there, stunned among them for seven days. “Tel-Aviv” was not the prophet’s place of residence before the vision, for he says he came there, not returned, although this settlement too was on the river Chebar, i.e., in the region of its basin. Probably in the basin of the Chebar it was a more significant Jewish colony, in which local Jewish administration was concentrated, as evidenced by the fact that “elders of Judah” are found there (Ezek 8:1). Without doubt, this significance of this city or colony was the reason why Ezekiel, according to the general command “go to the exiles,” did not begin his preaching from the place where he lived, where he too was “among the captives” (Ezek 1:1), but goes to Tel-Aviv for this purpose, as Amos from Tekoa after his calling went to Bethlehem, and Jeremiah from Anathoth to Jerusalem. As for the name and location of Tel-Aviv, it is established that in Assyria, Mesopotamia, and Syria there were many places and cities with the prefix Tel (Ezra 2:59 and Nehem 7:61) mention the exiles who returned to Judah from Telmelan and Tel Harsha; besides, Tel-Birte, Tel-Bazer, Tel-Edan and others are known. “Tel” in Aramaic means “hill,” corresponding to the Assyrian “tillu,” cf. Arabic “tal”—“heap,” “pile.” This name is especially often applied to heaps of brick, which are so frequently encountered in the ruins of Babylonia. The second component of this name, “Aviv,” is purely Hebrew and means “ear of grain.” Consequently, the whole name would mean “a heap or pile of grain” (Jerome), which name could speak of the fertility of the place. But the combination in the name of an Aramaic-Babylonian word with a Hebrew one is suspicious; in Babylonian, the word for “ear of grain” is “subultu,” and the word “aviv” does not occur in the Babylonian language at all. And it is unlikely (Kraetzschmar thinks) that Jewish captives were settled in fertile places (it is noteworthy that the Peshitta translates “Tel-Aviv” as “hill of sorrow”), but rather in vast areas with sandy wastes called “til-abubu” and scattered throughout Babylonia; on one of such unnamed wastes the practical Nebuchadnezzar could settle the main mass of Hebrews so they could cultivate it; and the name of it subsequently became a proper name, Hebraized or changed intentionally, because later Jews could flatter themselves with the thought that the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar, who attracted the wise Daniel to his court, gave his fellow Jews the better piece of land, as once Pharaoh gave to Joseph’s brothers. The ancient city Tallaba at 37’ latitude and 54’ longitude is too far north for Ezekiel’s Tel-Aviv and does not correspond to the position of the Chebar established in the explanation Ezek 1:1, but corresponds to the former assumption of the identity of Ezekiel’s Chebar with one of the tributaries of the Euphrates near Carchemish. The LXX did not consider the word “Tel-Aviv” a proper name, a city name (probably because it stands without a preposition, which is truly strange and rough) and translated “lifted up (from “tala”—“to hang,” i.e., came to the captives carried by spirits) and went around” (reading instead of “aviv” presumably the similar-looking “asov” or “saviv,” i.e., went around those living on the Chebar). “And I sat there where they lived.” A phrase difficult to explain, especially in the form it has in Heb., “which lived there” Greek τους οντας εκει. Perhaps it is a closer definition of “those living on the Chebar” (there, i.e., in Tel-Aviv). And in the sense that the Russ. translation gives it, this expression can mean, apparently, only that the prophet came not to Tel-Aviv generally, but to the place where the Jewish captives lived; but the Russ. translation, like the Slav., reads instead of Heb. “vaesher” “and those”—“vayeshev” “and sat,” “sat,” i.e., remained. “And I remained there among them for seven days, stunned.” “Stunned,” in Heb. “mashmim,” which is otherwise translated as “in sorrow” (Ezra 9:3-4; Dan 8:27). The stunning is understood as being from the vision; the sorrow could have come from one of the causes indicated in the explanation of verse 14. Others also translate this word: “in silence” (Bertholet), “in amazement and confusion” (Kraetzschmar), one and the other from the vision (thus Ezekiel only slowly comes to himself from the state in which the vision brought him). The LXX translate this rare word: αναστρεφομενος, “walking,” i.e., the prophet for 7 days walked among the captives, perhaps becoming acquainted with them and studying the future field of his activity. In this state, whatever it was, the prophet spent 7 days: among Hebrews the time of solemn mourning lasted 7 days (Job 2:13; Gen 50:10 and many others); in general, 7 is a symbolic number applied to God’s deeds; and for Ezekiel, as a priest, it had special significance in its liturgical application, for example, with regard to ritual purity, consecration (Exod 29:29-30; Lev 8:33; cf. Ezek 39:9). The arrival of the prophet in Tel-Aviv could not have escaped the notice of its inhabitants (this is indicated by the remark “among them” and the reading of the LXX: “going in the midst of them”); by his strange mental state and appearance, and perhaps by his stubborn silence about what had happened to him (about the Chebar vision it is not said, as about others, that the prophet immediately told someone about it), Ezekiel must have aroused the wonder and curiosity of the people; and this prepared the soil in the hearts of the people for the reception of the prophet’s future speeches.

Ezekiel 3:16. And after seven days the word of the Lord came to me: A new revelation to the prophet, perhaps in the form of an inner voice of God, not heard from outside as during the vision (which is evident from Ezek 2:1-2), concerned the immediate tasks of his prophetic activity—in relation to contemporaries, whereas during his calling the broader tasks—in relation to the whole “house of Israel” were indicated. This revelation, coming 7 days after the vision and calling, could be the answer of God to the prophet’s reflections on how he should begin his difficult service, where to start. One should begin not with the people as a whole, but with individual persons—with hardened sinners and wavering righteous ones. The people as a whole could be regarded (for the time being) as lost, and one needed to save at least individual persons. At the same time the revelation comforted the prophet as to the apparent lack of success of his future activity: if by his rebukes he does not save the rebuked, he will at least save his own soul; his silence will destroy both the sinners and him.

Ezekiel 3:17. son of man! I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; and you shall hear a word from My mouth, and you shall warn them from Me. The comparison of the prophet to a watchman standing on a high tower and warning of approaching danger unseen by others indicates the special moral elevation of the prophet above his contemporaries and his spiritual foresight. Isaiah (Isa 56:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 6:17) used such a comparison; in Ezek 33:2 it is repeated and explained in detail. “You shall hear a word from My mouth and you shall warn them from Me.” The prophet is cautioned against bringing anything of his own, his own initiative and views into prophetic activity. Coming forward as a watchman only at critical moments in the life of the people and individuals, he should speak only what is divinely inspired and in the name of God. He is not an orator or public speaker. When God does not speak to him, he should be silent (cf. verses 26, 27).

Ezekiel 3:18. When I say to the wicked man: “You shall surely die!”, and you do not warn him and do not speak to warn the wicked man from his wicked way, to save his life, then that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, and I will require his blood from your hand. “When I say to the wicked man,” i.e., I commission you to say in My name. It is possible that besides individual persons, under the wicked man and later under the righteous one is understood “an ideal being that embodies a type” (Hengstenberg). “You shall surely die.” First made with regard to the command in paradise (Gen 2:17), this threat has the same meaning here, embracing all earthly misfortunes culminating in death. “And you do not warn him”—“from fear, laziness, or connivance” (Jerome). “I will require his blood from your hand.” An expression borrowed also (like “you shall surely die”) from Genesis (Gen 9:5; cf. Ezek 13:22). A negligent prophet is punished by God as a murderer (by death). “If he who is guilty of death to the body, which in any case will sometime die, is considered such a grave criminal, how much graver is the crime of one guilty of the death of the soul, which would live eternally if it heard the word of correction” (St. Gregory the Dialogist).

Ezekiel 3:19. But if you warn the wicked man, and he does not turn from his wickedness and from his wicked way, then he shall die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your soul. “From his wickedness and from his wicked way.” The first means here a separate sinful act, and the second means the sinful direction of life.

Ezekiel 3:20. And if a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, when I place a stumbling block before him, and he dies, then if you did not warn him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds which he did shall not be remembered; and I will require his blood from your hand. “When I place a stumbling block before him,” i.e., temptation (Slav. “torment,” Greek βασανον “testing through torture”). What is called the permitting of God for temptation is meant; which in its proper sense cannot come from God (Job 1:12; Jas 1:13). “If you did not warn him, he shall die for his sin.” No such supposition was made of the wicked man (cf. verses 18 and 19) because with regard to the transgressing righteous man, the lack of timely rebuke can prove to be the sole cause of his spiritual death, whereas rebuke rarely saves a sinner. “And his righteous deeds which he did shall not be remembered.” A grave sin can so corrupt a righteous man that all his former virtues disappear without a trace from his soul. Besides, the prophet Ezekiel, as an Old Testament man, speaks more of the earthly fate of the righteous and the wicked than of the life beyond, where each is repaid according to his deeds.

Ezekiel 3:21. But if you warn the righteous man, so that the righteous man does not sin, and he does not sin, then the righteous man shall surely live, because he was warned; and you have delivered your soul. This verse does not maintain parallelism with verse 19 as fully as verse 20 does with verse 18. The following possibilities are given: a) the prophet does not warn, and the transgressor (wicked man or righteous man) perishes; b) the prophet warns, but is not listened to; c) the prophet warns and is listened to; with regard to a sinner options a and b are assumed, with regard to a righteous man a and c, which makes sense. “Then the righteous man shall surely live… and you have delivered your soul.” “You have gained two lives at once: for yourself and for him” (Blessed Theodoret). “And you save yourselves and us when you abandon iniquity; and we save you and ourselves when we do not remain silent about what is bad” (St. Gregory the Dialogist).

Ezekiel 3:22. And the hand of the Lord was upon me there, and He said to me: Arise and go out to the plain, and there I will speak to you. Ezekiel 3:23. And I arose and went out to the plain; and behold, the glory of the Lord stood there, like the glory which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. The repetition of the Chebar vision, so majestic and exceptional, within such a short interval of time (soon or very soon after the revelation Ezek 3:16, as shown by the absence of a date in verse 22 when there is one in verse 16; in any case less than a year; cf. verses 1, 2, and Ezek 8:1) could have been caused by the prophet’s continuing hesitation to begin his service in view of the well-founded expectation of its fruitlessness. It is unjustly supposed that after the revelation Ezek 3:16 and following the prophet began his preaching, but was forced to be silent, and therefore in Ezek 3:25-27 he is given a new program; if this had been the case, why would it not be said, and leave between verses 21 and 22 a “gaping hole” (Bertholet). If an inner revelation sufficed to clarify certain puzzles generated in the prophet by the calling address (Ezek 3:16-21), then to actually introduce the prophet into his service and give him detailed and precise instructions for activity an external revelation, a new appearance of God, was necessary. “Go out to the plain”—for the sake of seclusion, which was required for the vision. “Plain” more accurately from Heb. “a level place,” surrounding the hill on which Tel-Aviv was located. “And the glory of the Lord stood there.” Consequently, the prophet found her already there, and on the Chebar she came to the prophet; similarly in the following vision of chapters VIII-XI the prophet finds her already in the temple. Coming to earth, God seems not to leave it even now and until the events of chapters VIII-XI. “Stood” shows that under the glory of the Lord the entire phenomenon is meant, not for example the One sitting on the throne; this is also indicated by the following words: “like the glory which I saw by the river Chebar,” the phenomenon repeated before the prophet in full completeness. Although it is not excluded that “the glory of the Lord” is used here in a narrower sense—of the human Image seen on the Chebar: 1) the expression is not so decisive as in Ezek 43:3; 2) the repetition of the entire phenomenon here was not as necessary as in chapters VIII-XI and in XLIII; 3) here only the Image of the Lord was needed, as in Ezek 8:2. The mention of the Chebar shows that this river did not flow near Tel-Aviv.

Ezekiel 3:24. And the Spirit came into me and set me on my feet, and He spoke to me and said: Go and shut yourself in your house. God gives the prophet the most unexpected and seemingly strange instructions (and this is why, incidentally, a new appearance of God was needed) about the first steps of his ministry. Ezekiel should not like his great predecessors go about the streets and alleys with threatening speeches; let him sit quietly in his own house. That “shut yourself in your house” should be understood this way, not in a narrow and literal sense, is evident from Ezek 8:1; Ezek 14:1 and from the four symbolic acts immediately following this command, which to have sense must have been seen by at least occasional visitors to the prophet. The prophet’s confinement in his house was to have a term, indicated in verse 27, similar to his silence, and like the latter, could not be absolute. By this confinement one could test how the prophet’s countrymen would behave toward him. Jerome sees in the confinement and the binding of the prophet with bonds (verse 25) the first symbolic act already, indicating the siege of Jerusalem. But chapters I-III as a whole, as is evident from Ezek 3:26-27, are devoted, as an introduction to the book, to the description of the prophet’s calling to prophetic service in general.

Ezekiel 3:25. And you, son of man, behold, they will lay bands upon you and bind you with them, and you shall not go out among them. So that the prophet might better carry out this confinement in his house, difficult for a man of public initiative (especially in the East), God desires to bind him. As is shown by Ezek 4:8, this bondage reached such a point at times that the prophet could not turn from one side to the other. The reference is clearly to real muteness, a paralytic state of the prophet’s body, affecting his tongue as well (verse 26). “They will lay,” “they will bind”—clearly impersonal expressions, the logical subject of which is a heavenly power; but it is noteworthy that in the next verse—about the tongue—there is already a personal construction; the LXX have here too a personal but passive construction: “behold, bands shall be given upon you.” “These bands could perhaps have been imposed upon the prophet in a visible manner in the vision” (Maldonatus). The whole expression is too decisive for the following understanding: “The malice and stubbornness of the prophet’s countrymen will be like bands with which, bound by them, he will not be allowed free action in the discharge of his service” (Trochon).

Ezekiel 3:26. And I will make your tongue stick to the roof of your mouth, and you shall be mute and shall not be a reprover to them, for they are a rebellious house. Ezekiel 3:27. But when I speak with you, I will open your mouth, and you shall say to them: “Thus says the Lord God!” Let him who has ears to hear listen; and let him who refuses, refuse; for they are a rebellious house. Unlike previous prophets who did not cease in their rebukes of wickedness, the preaching of Ezekiel, at least at first, will be silent. For this purpose the prophet’s tongue will physically be inactive (perhaps periodic muteness), serving as a striking sign of the uselessness of prophetic rebukes for the people. Experience showed that the stubbornness of the people cannot be broken by rebukes; one must wait until it is broken in another, more decisive way—by the fall of Jerusalem, after which alone the prophet’s mouth will open (Ezek 33:21-22). Until that time the prophet’s mouth will open only for the transmission of direct and, probably, particularly necessary revelations of God, namely rebukes (Ezek 3:17 and following). That the prophet did not remain completely silent even before the fall of Jerusalem is shown by Ezek 11:25. But after this event the prophet could freely, not only by the will of God, use his tongue, and his prophetic speeches flowed more abundantly, not by exceptional circumstances alone, not for rebukes alone; from that time his comforting speeches began.