Modern interpreters have fascinated themselves with Ezekiel’s psychological state. Beginning in the late 1800s, scholars began to interpret Ezekiel’s behavior in this section as signs of psychosis or trauma. David Halperin’s 1993 book, Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology, even viewed these chapters as Ezekiel reenactment of being neglected during infancy, something Halperin concocted from a hermeneutically bizarre interpretation of Ezekiel 16:4–5.
While Ezekiel’s sign-acts continue to puzzle readers, most scholars took Halperin’s book as a warning and returned to more responsible approaches. In the next two articles, we consider the sign-acts of Ezekiel 3:22–5:17.
Though Ezekiel and Jeremiah are best known for their action prophecies, other such actions are found in 1 Kings 11:29–31, 22:11 (see also 2 Chron. 18:10); 2 Kings 13:14–19; Hosea 1:29, 3:1–5; Isaiah 20:1–6; and Zechariah 6:9–15.1 But how do we interpret these passages? They often are viewed as visual aids, although this hardly does them justice. Instead, it is better to view them as rhetorical nonverbal communication used to heighten the persuasiveness of the message. Iain Duguid goes further, proposing that we treat the sign-acts as “‘affective aids,’ aimed not at people’s eyes but at their hearts and wills. . . . They are designed not merely to help people see the truth, but to feel the truth.”2
In Ezekiel, however, the sign-acts also play a role in shaping Ezekiel’s personal, vocational identity as a priest. By acting out the prophetic message for the sake of impacting the exiles, Ezekiel also finds himself embodying priestly actions. As we look at the actions in 3:22–5:17, we’ll consider how each one not only persuades the audience but also ritually forms Ezekiel in his priestly prophetic ministry.
Aren’t Prophets Against Ritual?
We Protestants can easily conflate ritual with empty ritual. John Calvin was undoubtedly right when he critiqued the Roman Catholic religion of his day: “Hereby it doth easily appear what horrible confusion doth reign in Popery. There is there a huge heap of ceremonies, and to what end but that they may have instead of one veil of the old temple an hundred.”3 And yet Calvin also saw that bodily actions play an important role in knowing God’s truth. While reflecting on Psalm 51:7, he explained this relationship between body and mind well:
He speaks of hyssop, in allusion to the ceremonies of the law; and though he was far from putting his trust in the mere outward symbol of purification, he knew that, like every other legal rite, it was instituted for an important end. The sacrifices were seals of the grace of God. In them, therefore, he was anxious to find assurance of his reconciliation; and it is highly proper that, when our faith is disposed at any time to waver, we should confirm it by improving such means of divine support. All which David here prays for is, that God would effectually accomplish, in his experience, what he had signified to his Church and people by these outward rites; and in this he has set us a good example for our imitation. It is no doubt to the blood of Christ alone that we must look for the atonement of our sins; but we are creatures of sense, who must see with our eyes, and handle with our hands; and it is only by improving the outward symbols of propitiation that we can arrive at a full and assured persuasion of it (emphasis added).4
While ritual can be done in a rote, thoughtless way, it can also be done intentionally, as a fitting bodily response to important theological truths. Look around on a given Sunday and you will notice several rituals that, though not mandated in Scripture, are fitting for practicing the truths proclaimed. What do the deacons do with the offering plates after the collection? Do congregants stand or sit during Scripture readings? Do congregants close their eyes and bow their heads during the benediction? Do they come forward for communion? Many such customs reflect the desire to respond bodily in intentional, biblically consistent ways.
In sum, not every ritual is empty and sinful. The prophets who condemned the ritual of the Israelites—particularly as it was practiced while robbing the poor (e.g., Isa. 61:8; Mal. 1:13)5—presumably still engaged in rituals as prescribed in the ceremonial law. We should not be hesitant to associate Ezekiel’s sign-acts with ritual, recognizing that ritual is common to us all and not something that is, in fact, formulaic and sinful.6
Action Prophecy #1: Ezekiel Bound and Mute (3:22–27)
In our last article, we considered how Ezekiel’s muteness showed that he could not intercede as a legal “man of rebuke.” We also saw how his muteness structured the book as a whole due to its relationship to the watchman commission in 3:16–27 and 33:1–22. Having already considered his speechlessness, in this article we’ll note the role of the significance of the “ropes” in 3:25.7
While it is true that ropes paint a picture of Ezekiel as bound to speaking only God’s Word, the kinds of ropes described here (Hebrew `abotîm) play an important role in priestly passages. These bind the ephod and breastplate (with the stones engraved with the names of the twelve tribes) to the high priest (see Exod. 28 and 39), symbolically and ritually binding the priest and the people. Admittedly, there is no mention of priestly objects being bound to Ezekiel via the ropes, but there is something striking about objects used to underscore priestly solidarity with the people being placed upon Ezekiel as the priestly prophet. The next sign-acts will build on this.
Action Prophecy #2a: Ezekiel’s Siege (4:1–3)
This action is often delineated into separate sign-acts: besieging the siege model (4:1–3) and Ezekiel’s laying on his side (4:4–8). But considering this as a single act with two separate sub-actions or ritual rites makes the best sense of the repetition of “siege” (vv. 2–3, 7–8).
The first sub-action is the building of a model. He is to take a clay tablet and carve a city upon it. This was not an uncommon practice in the ancient world. The inscribed clay map of the Old Babylonian city of Nippur, dating from around the 14th century BC, provides an analogy for what Ezekiel may have carved of Jerusalem.
From here, the prophet surrounds the map with models of siege implements. Ezekiel 4:2 lists several items: a siege wall for observing the siege and preventing people in the city from escaping; a mound or ramp piled against the city wall that would enable siege engines better access for undermining the walls; and battering rams, which would climb the ramp and strike the walls with a heavy, blunt ram, and also serve as a platform for archers. Ezekiel even builds model camps for the soldiers besieging the city. This is a very detailed model! Why is he doing this? Because Ezekiel himself is laying siege to the city (vv. 2–3).
But then something unexpected happens. Verse 3 says that Ezekiel is to place an “iron plate,” like a cooking griddle, between himself and the city. It is to be an iron wall between himself (the besieger) and the city (the besieged). Many writers have interpreted this as God’s presence being symbolically cut off from Jerusalem—i.e., the Lord, acted out by Ezekiel, is separated from Jerusalem by an impenetrable, iron wall and will no longer show patience and mercy.
When we study the plate itself, however, we actually see a picture of mitigation of the Lord’s wrath. This type of plate (Hebrew mahavat) is only mentioned five times in the Old Testament. The four occurrences outside Ezekiel are all in the context of the sacrificial system of the tabernacle or temple. Three times in Leviticus, the plate is used to prepare the grain offering (2:5, 6:21, and 7:9). Once in 1 Chronicles 23:29, it is found in a list of Levitical, priestly duties. While translations usually translate the plate here as the food item usually prepared on the plate—e.g., “what is baked in the pan” (NKJV), “the baked offering” (ESV), “the round cakes” (NET)—others preserve the non-food nature of the word “plate” itself—“the baking” (CSB) or “the work of the pan” (YLT). It is simplest to just translate the word in 1 Chronicles 23:29 as “plate,” thereby treating it as a uniquely priestly item used in priestly work.
What does this all mean for Ezekiel’s besieging sign act? Two things seem to be conveyed. First and foremost, Judah will know that God is going to punish her rebellion precisely as He said He would in passages like Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, 30–32. She will one day be besieged as was the northern kingdom and find herself looking down the barrels of Babylon’s fiercest implements of war.
Second, the perceptive viewer (and reader) will sense that God’s wrath will not be total, something also taught in the passages we just mentioned. Though it is subtle, we find a wisp of the remnant theology that Ezekiel will detail later in the book. In the act of placing the plate, Ezekiel acts out the role of a priest, performing the role of an intermediary who mitigates the Lord’s wrath. Jerusalem will eventually be restored and purified (see 16:50–63) and will receive a stunning new name: “the Lord is there” (48:35).
Isn’t this something? Already we’re seeing a glimmer of what we learn more fully in the New Testament:
“My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; for whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives. If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.” (Heb. 12:5b–8)
Of course, exile will still be painful. All discipline is (Heb. 12:11). For many in Judah, exile with harden their hearts against the Lord even further. But the true believers, caught up in exilic pain that did not differentiate between themselves and their nominal countrymen, needed to know that God had not forgotten them.
In his classic book, Precious Remedies against Satan’s Devises, Thomas Brooks notes that some of Satan’s schemes—his “devices” as translated in 2 Corinthians 2:11 of the KJV and NKJV—involve keeping believers “in a sad, doubting, questioning and uncomfortable condition.” He explains: “Though he can never rob a believer of his crown, yet such is his malice and envy, that he will leave no stone unturned, no means unattempted, to rob them of their comfort and peace, to make their life a burden and a hell unto them, to cause them to spend their days in sorrow and mourning, in sighing and complaining, in doubting and questioning.” And what does this tempt them to say? “Surely we have no interest in Christ; our graces are not true, our hopes are the hopes of hypocrites; our confidence is our presumption, our enjoyments are our delusions.”8
Though Ezekiel will devote sustained attention to watching against covenant despair beginning in chapter 33, the “precious remedy” against Satan’s despairing device offered here is a glimpse of the mediatorial, priestly plate that deflects the full force of God’s wrath. A remnant will remain (6:8; 12:16; 14:22) because God still has a beloved son, Israel, whom He will purify through discipline.
Action Prophecy #2b: Ezekiel’s Side (4:4–8)
As noted previously, verses 4–8 continue to relate to Ezekiel’s model siege (4:7 makes this clear). But we begin to see the suffering Ezekiel experiences as God’s chosen priestly-prophetic instrument. My Mid-America Reformed Seminary colleague, Dr. Mark Beach, puts it strikingly: “Up to this point, Ezekiel could act a bit more like a spectator, but now God requires him to be part of the action. He is called upon to suffer in his body as he enacts this ‘street-theater’ sermon—a sermon that isn’t finished in, say, 30 minutes. No, this is a sermon that will go on for 390 days and then 40 more.”9
Commentators have debated the time it took for Ezekiel to perform these signs as well as the meaning of the numbers 390 and 40. Concerning the time: as 430 days total would seem to extend beyond Ezekiel 8:1 which took place 413 days after the vision in 1:2, it is suggested that Ezekiel may have performed both acts concurrently (i.e., for 40 of the 390 days, Ezekiel would spend time on both sides of his body). But there are numerous unknowns here.10 It seems almost certain, however, that Ezekiel would not have spent every waking hour bound, seeing as God commands him to perform more sign-acts in 4:9–5:4 for which he would need to be up and mobile. This was a busy season of prophetic action for Ezekiel!
Concerning the meaning: though 40 is a number with significant symbolic meaning in the Bible (e.g., days and nights of rain in the flood, years of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness, days and nights Moses spent on Mt. Sinai, and days Jesus spent being tempted in the wilderness), 390 is not so much. Some have interpreted it as the length of time between key events (e.g., Saul’s reign to Josiah’s reform, David preparations for the temple to the year of the exile, the division of the kingdom until the end of the exile). The problem is that none of these commend themselves with sufficient clarity or precision.
Adding the two numbers yields 430, the number of years Israel suffered bondage in Egypt. This is certainly a more compelling proposal, though it still exhibits a conundrum: why is it divided as it is and how does that relate to the house of Israel (left side, 390) and Judah (right side, 40)? In the end, the mere fact of this laying bound would itself have an emotional impact on Ezekiel’s audience, as well as on Ezekiel himself. How precisely? Let’s consider the additional information of this sign act.
While Ezekiel 3:25 stated that the prophet would be bound in priestly solidarity to the people, here we read that Ezekiel is bound in a priestly position: laying on his side so that he might “lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it. According to the number of the days that you lie on it, you shall bear their iniquity” (v. 4). The Hebrew word translated as “iniquity” or “sin” (`aavôn) in the NKJV, KJV, NET, NASH, NLT, and NIV can also be translated “punishment” as it is in the ESV. Either way, this is difficult to understand.
“Bearing the sin” sounds wrong because Christian theology recognizes that this is impossible for a sinful human to do (e.g., Ps. 49:7; Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 14 & 16). “Bearing the punishment” also sounds wrong because this is impossible for a mere human to do (e.g., Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 17; Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 38). But to rightly understand these expressions, one must note that they are common priestly acts associated with rituals of expiation (see Exod. 28:38; Lev. 10:17, 16:22). While Ezekiel does not actually atone for Judah’s sins (Judah herself is punished via exile—i.e., she bears her own sin; cf. Ezek. 18:19–20), in his act of bearing the sin Ezekiel performs a priestly function of identifying with the people. He is a sign for them as he symbolically experiences the bondage of sin and punishment the exiles will face in exile, and he is a sign for them as he symbolically portrays the people’s greatest need: a substitute to bear their sin in their place.
Conclusion
In our next article, we will finish our study of these action prophecies and also look at some of the others that are found throughout the book. But as we conclude here, we have an opportunity to reflect on the One to whom Ezekiel ultimately pointed. Our Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the Old Testament, Aaronic priesthood in His own Melchizedekian priesthood (Heb. 7:11–28). Ezekiel’s sign-acts dramatized much of what the priests accomplished in their sacrificial rituals in the temple. And yet the sign-act nature of his actions showed that he was not actually doing the typologically redemptive work done in the temple. He was exiled from the place where God demonstrated His atoning work. His priesthood was modified due to his exilic setting.
From our New Testament perspective, however, we find in Ezekiel’s sign-acts something truly inspiring, for we know the One greater than Ezekiel and greater than the greatest of the Old Testament priests. Jesus is the priest forever (Heb. 7:21, 24) who does not just placard the need for a substitute, but who is that substitute. Listen to what Hebrews says He does in this role:
Therefore, He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever (Heb. 7:25–28).
Whatever discipline we face in our Christian pilgrimage, we know that we have a substitute who saves us “to the uttermost.” Ezekiel’s powerful action prophecies with their intense emotional impact drive us toward the even greater emotional impact that Jesus’s perfect work has upon us.
1. See Kelvin Friebel, “A Hermeneutical Paradigm for Interpreting Prophetic Sign-Actions,” Didaskalia 12, no. 2 (2001): 25–26. For a more general treatment, see idem, “Sign Acts,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets, eds. Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 707–13.
2. Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 93.
3. John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 92.
4. John Calvin and James Anderson, Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 294.
5. Cf. Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 84–89.
6 .E.g., James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009); Dru Johnson, Knowledge by Ritual: A Biblical Prolegomena to Sacramental Theology (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016).
7 .Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture citations are from the New King James Version (NKJV).
8 .These quotes from Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2021), 157.
9. J. Mark Beach, “Actions Louder than Words (2): Sympathetic Suffering,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 29 (2018): 195–96 (https://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files//pdf/journal/08beachjourna12018.pdf).
10. For helpful suggestions, see Peter Naylor, Ezekiel (England: EP Books, 2011), 90, 756 n.102.
Dr. R. Andrew Compton is professor of Old Testament studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary (Dyer, IN).