Ezekiel 4 - 5, 12, 24, 37 Enacted Parables

Ezekiel — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

Ezekiel 8 - 11 (2nd Vision)

00:00

Ezekiel 4 - 5, 12, 24, 37 Enacted Parables

EzekielSteve Gregg

This analysis examines the enacted parables found in Ezekiel 4, 5, 12, 24, and 37, as interpreted by Steve Gregg. Gregg explores the symbolic actions commanded to the prophet Ezekiel in these chapters, shedding light on their profound meanings and implications. By dissecting the bizarre and elaborate demonstrations, Gregg uncovers the messages conveyed by God through Ezekiel's unconventional methods, including foretelling the fall of Jerusalem and the sufferings of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Additionally, Gregg discusses the significance of these enacted parables in understanding the future of the Israelite nation and the establishment of a unified kingdom under one king.

Transcript

Ezekiel 4 Alright, today we are going to turn to Ezekiel chapter 4, and we will be studying Ezekiel chapters 4 and 5, but we're going to skip around also, besides those chapters, to chapter 12 and 24 and 37. Now, it might seem like a strange selection of chapters to look at, and of course you have not read all those chapters, unless you have recently read through the whole book of Ezekiel. I did not assign that you read that many chapters up through chapter 37.

As I said, if you read about five chapters a day, though we will sometimes cover material that you haven't yet read, you'll make it through the book in the time allotted. The reason I'm taking those chapters is because they all have something in common. They all contain enacted parables.

That is, parables that are acted out rather than spoken. Now, Ezekiel spoke parables also. Some parables of his were spoken, some were acted.

It would seem that the ones that were acted were not spoken. That is to say, they were not accompanied by speaking. Remember, his lips were sealed.

God had caused his tongue to cleave to the roof of his mouth, in chapter 3 and verse 26, so that he would not be able to speak unless he had a word from the Lord. And it seems like many of his actions were done silently and were left for the exiles who were with him to decide or understand what it was he was trying to say through these actions. And this is one of the more interesting or picturesque parts of Ezekiel's ministry, is how many of these parables he acted out.

He certainly was not unique in acting parables out. There were other prophets who had done so before him, but never with so great a number of actions as he did. For example, in 1 Kings chapter 11, there was a prophet named Ahijah who had taken a garment and torn it into 12 pieces and gave 10 of the pieces to Jeroboam.

This was during the reign of Solomon. And the prophecy that he uttered in giving these 10 pieces out of the 12 to Jeroboam was that the nation of Israel would be divided up and 10 of the tribes would be given to Jeroboam. There was another prophet named Zedekiah who was a false prophet.

He was one of the prophets of Ahab. In 1 Kings chapter 22 and verse 11, he took some horns made out of metal and fastened them to his head and began to push like a bull would push with his horns. He began to prophesy that in this way would Ahab push and prevail against the Syrians, which was a false prophecy.

The man is declared to have been a false prophet. Micaiah the prophet withstood him. Nonetheless, we have this man enacting a prophecy.

Elisha the prophet also was involved in at least one enacted prophecy, enacted parable. In 2 Kings chapter 13, when he called King Joash, or King Joash actually came to him on his own accord when Elisha was dying, and he told the king to shoot arrows out the window, the arrow of the Lord's deliverance. And remember how the king shot three arrows and then stopped.

And Elisha said if you shot five or six, you would have totally subdued your enemies. But each arrow represented one victory. And so the action of shooting these arrows represented individual victories that they would experience in the future.

Isaiah had an enacted parable. In Isaiah chapter 20, you might remember he was told to walk around naked with his buttocks exposed for three years. And this was to convey the idea that the Jews were going to go into captivity and they would be stripped naked and humiliated and be led away naked by their enemies.

Jeremiah, at least twice, enacted parables. In Jeremiah chapter 13, verses 1 through 14, he took the girdle and hid it down by the river until it was soiled and ruined. And this represented the ruin of the people of Judah who had been bound about God like a girdle but now were soiled and ruined.

And then there was another prophecy that he enacted in Jeremiah chapter 19 where he broke a clay pot and indicated that that would be also how Israel would be broken. This is how Judah would be broken in chapter 19 of Jeremiah, verses 1 through 10. So we have a couple of enacted parables from Jeremiah.

Also in the New Testament, Agabus, the prophet, in Acts chapter 21, took Paul's girdle and tied himself up with it and he said, So shall the man who owns the scripture be bound when he comes to Jerusalem. So you can see that the enacting of prophetic messages was done by others besides Ezekiel, but he was certainly the duke of enacted parables. He did far more than anyone else, about eight, I guess, all told, that are recorded.

You might ask what the value of these enacted parables is. Why are they enacted? The fact of the matter is sometimes they're not any more clear when they're enacted than if they were spoken. And so why bother to go through these actions? And probably the reason is it would make a more startling impression and it would be retained better.

I think you would agree that you have a tendency to retain in your mind things that you've seen a visual demonstration of better than things you've merely heard spoken. We only retain a very small percentage in our memory of the words that we hear spoken. But when there's an audiovisual presentation or even just a picture, it is said a picture is worth a thousand words, you can take in a glance a great number of things that are retained graphically in your memory, which if you attach some meaning to them, the message that they convey will be brought to your memory far more frequently than if you simply heard a message spoken.

It might just run off your memory like water off a duck's back and you might never remember what was said. Whereas if some very unusual thing was done that you saw, and of course Ezekiel's actions in many cases were very peculiar, it would cause people to remember them. I had a friend, Jerry Lucas, who was a basketball player, a Christian, who started seminars and wrote a book on how to improve your memory.

I had a memory device that he recommended where you picture in your mind the silliest, goofiest things you can and associate them with things you're trying to remember, like a person's name. I can't remember any of the examples. It's been years since I read his book.

But the idea was that if somebody has a name and the name sounds a little bit like two other words that you could think of, and those two other words might not be in any way related to each other, try to relate them together in a ridiculous way so that you get this ridiculous picture in your mind. He said the more ridiculous the picture is, the more it will remain in your memory because things that are ordinary are quickly forgotten. But things that are bizarre, of course, you don't forget them very quickly.

So that is perhaps why Ezekiel was told to do so many bizarre things. Not that his actions made his properties any clearer. In fact, in some cases, his enacted parables are a little more difficult to sort out and to fully analyze and understand than his spoken parables are.

So it's not a matter of clarity that they add, but probably the value is his possibility of retaining them in the mind and making a startling and striking expression on the mind. And we have three of these enacted parables in chapter four. We have one in chapter five.

And we have two in chapter twelve. And one each in chapters twenty-four and thirty-seven. And we'll cover them individually.

Now, of course, subject matter will change as we move that far through the book. But the only reason I take them all together is so that we might see all the peculiar actions that Ezekiel had to do in the course of his ministry. Now, remember I said that the first twenty-four chapters of Ezekiel were written before the fall of Jerusalem, which is the first six years of his ministry.

And therefore, everything up through chapter twenty-four, which is all the enacted parables that I made reference to with the exception of the one in chapter thirty-seven, all of them will have to do with the coming fall of Jerusalem. The other material besides the enacted parables that will occupy this half of the book will be spoken parables. And we'll treat them separately also probably tomorrow.

And then, of course, there is also a vision in chapters eight through eleven. All the material in chapters one through twenty-four, or where we are now in chapters four through twenty-four, will either be encompassed in this vision in chapters eight through eleven or in the enacted parables or the spoken parables. And so we plan to have one lecture today on the enacted parables, perhaps one tomorrow on the spoken parables, and then hopefully one more on the second vision.

That will bring us halfway through the book and halfway through our lecture series. All right, now let's look at Ezekiel chapter four. In some cases, the actions that Ezekiel is commanded to do are very elaborate so that we would be inclined to expect an elaborate meaning or an elaborate explanation.

But sometimes the explanation is a very simple one, as you'll see. I mean, a lot of times it will take more time to read the actions that he did than it will be to summarize what they were implying or what the meaning was. In fact, sometimes a very elaborate set of actions is merely to convey the truth that Jerusalem is going to be besieged and nothing more is implied in it.

And so we can appreciate the statement that a picture is worth a thousand words. It takes so many words to explain what he did. In fact, we don't even have a thousand words on each of them, which means that we have an inadequate description in some cases, and we don't know exactly how he carried out some of these things.

Just a general skeletal picture is given to us of the things he was supposed to do, and there are many questions left unanswered as to how he carried them out. The first of these enacted parables depicts the fact of the siege of Jerusalem. Now, remember that Ezekiel was making these actions and giving these prophecies at a time when Jerusalem had not fallen and was not besieged, and there were many false prophets among the exiles where Ezekiel was who were saying that Jerusalem would neither be besieged nor fall and that those Jews who had already been taken into captivity would soon be returning to Jerusalem.

Ezekiel's message cut right across the grain of those predictions, and so he stresses repeatedly in his actions the fact of the coming siege and fall of Jerusalem. I might add also that this first sign in verses 1 through 3 of chapter 4 is the very opening of his public ministry. In chapter 2 and 3 he had been called to the ministry, and in the end of chapter 3 he had sat silently with the exiles of Tel Aviv for seven days, but he had said nothing to them yet or done nothing to get their attention.

But the very fact that he had been sitting silently for seven days no doubt had caused a great amount of curiosity. Remember, he was not recognized as a prophet prior to this. He was just an ordinary man of the priestly family before this, but now he saw a vision of God at the River Kibar.

He came back and he sat in youth for seven days. No doubt a lot of people were amazed by this, and news got around through the little exile community that something strange was going on with Ezekiel, and perhaps it became common for people to come by Ezekiel's house and see what he was up to. And so he did most of his demonstrations outside his house, and probably there were crowds that came to gather every day to see what he was going to do next, at least after a while.

The first thing he did is recorded in verses 1 through 3. Thou also, Son of Man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it the city, even Jerusalem. And besiege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it, and set the camp also against it, and bring battering rams against it round about. Moreover, take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city, and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged.

And thou shalt lay siege against it, and this shall be a sign to the house of Israel. Now, mostly we can see what he was told to do. He was supposed to take a tile, or possibly in the Hebrew a brick, or some would even understand this to be translated brickwork, which would refer to possibly the outward bricks of his house, that he portrayed as a picture on the wall of his house.

How much space was needed to portray all these things he had to portray, we don't know, but it is generally assumed that he took a tile or a brick, and laid it out in the sand outside his house, and drew a picture of the outline of the city of Jerusalem. And as far as setting siege against it, and setting forts and mounts and camps against it, and battering rams against it, it is not clear whether he drew those things also on the tile, or whether he had little models that he set up there, or how exactly he did this. This is one of those things we would know if we were there, but we don't know simply from reading the sketchy description.

Some way or another he portrayed the idea of the siege, whether drawing or models we are not told. But then there is a part that is a little more difficult to understand. He was to take an iron pan, and apparently to set it between himself and the tile that had the city drawn on it, and it says in the middle of verse 3, and set thy faith against it, and it shall be besieged, and lay siege against it, and it shall be assigned to the house of Israel.

Now, exactly how he was to carry this out is not certain. Apparently he took a big metal baking pan, and held it between his own face and the tile, and how he set his face against it, we can't say that he just sat and made mean faces at it, or something, we are not really told how this is portrayed, nor are we told exactly how we are to understand the iron pan. A variety of interpretations have been suggested.

Most of them are not extremely satisfactory. Some have felt that the iron pan represents God's protection around the city, and Ezekiel himself represented the armies, and that they were separated from the city by this protection of God. But that would be the opposite of the meaning of what Ezekiel was trying to say.

He was not trying to portray the idea that God was protecting the city, but that God was going to judge the city. Some have felt that the iron pan represented God's determined hostility against the city, which is a possibility. But then what does Ezekiel himself represent? There are some who have suggested that the pan represents the iron, or invincible, armies of Babylon coming against the city, and Ezekiel setting his face behind it and against it, against the city that is, represents the fact that he, as God, stood behind the invaders.

That is, God was behind this invasion, and he was sort of pressing it on, or bringing it upon them. To my mind, of the various interpretations I've heard, suggested that is the most probable, as far as keeping within the meaning of what Ezekiel was trying to say, probably that the iron pan represented the invincible forces of Babylon coming against the city, and Ezekiel's face being set behind it and against the city would simply show that behind this invasion was God. God was bringing it about and initiating the whole thing.

The next sign he acted out had to do with the length of time that Israel and Judah would be punished. This also has some difficulties in interpretation, but they're not insoluble. Verse 4 says, Lie thou also upon my left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it, thou shalt bear their iniquity.

For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days. So shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days.

I have appointed thee each day for a year. Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it. And behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege.

Now, this particular action obviously consisted of his being bound with chains, and laid on one side for several days. Now, as I said yesterday, so say I now again, I don't know whether this meant he was to sleep at night for three hundred and ninety days on his left side, and then for forty days after that to sleep on his right side. It doesn't seem likely, since most of the people would not see him sleeping at night, therefore it would hardly be a sign to them.

Nor does it seem likely that he is supposed to be laying on his side all day long, or twenty-four hours a day, for three hundred and ninety days, and then forty more days. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense either, because there were too many other things he was supposed to be doing. Like, as we'll see next in the same chapter, he's supposed to prepare food for himself, and eat it for that period of time.

He obviously had to do some work. He couldn't just lay around on his side all day long. The most likely way to see that he did this was that there was a certain period of time every day that he came out of his house for a public demonstration, a prophetic demonstration.

And the people came to expect this, and that there were times when people would come by to see what he was going to do now. And for three hundred and ninety days in a row, he would come out and he'd lie on his left side, with his hands chained, or his body somehow chained, to portray the idea of the city being locked in, locked in and suffering. Not only the siege was here implied, but the actual punishment of both Israel and Judah.

And each day that he lay on his left side and then on his right side represented one year. Now it says, I will lay upon thee the iniquity of the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The wording almost makes it sound as though he's going to vicariously take upon himself their suffering.

And we're familiar with that kind of language when Jesus took upon us, God laid upon him the iniquity of us all. And in the case of Jesus taking on our suffering, we know that he suffered instead of us. And because he suffered, we don't have to suffer quite the same.

He took suffering for us so that we might not suffer what he suffered exactly. I mean the punishment and the judgment. But that obviously is not the meaning here, although the wording sounds the same.

Ezekiel is not relieving Israel or Judah of their suffering, because they did suffer. Both nations did, for periods resembling the number of days, one day per year, that he lay on his side. So it doesn't seem that he took it away from them, but rather he just in a sense identified with them.

For 398 days he identified with Israel, lying on his left side, because it was considered that since the temple in Jerusalem faced east, if you stood facing the same direction as the temple, Israel to the north would be on your left side, and Judah on your right side, to your right as you face east. Therefore, left symbolized the north to a Jewish mind, and therefore the north kingdom of Israel. The right side that he laid on for 40 days represented Judah, the southern kingdom.

And each day that he lay there represented one year of punishment. Now, though of course he couldn't have laid on his left side and his right side both on the same day or at the same time, it was necessary that he lay on his left side for 390 days, and then 40 days on his right side. And therefore it would be a total of 430 days that he carried out this action.

However, in the fulfillment of what he was illustrating, the 40 years of Judah's punishment run concurrent with the last period of Israel's punishment. That's the two periods end the same time. And therefore they overlap each other in the actual fulfillment.

Of course, he couldn't portray that. He couldn't lay on the left and right side at the same time. Therefore, he had to first portray the 390 days and then the 40 days.

But in the fulfillment, the time of Judah's punishment ended at the same time as the time of Israel's punishment. Now, what are the years that are portrayed here? First of all, they are rounded off. He's suggesting that the northern kingdom would suffer for a total of 390 years and the southern kingdom for 40 years.

But they are rounded off. In the case of the northern kingdom, there have been many suggestions made as to when the time is supposed to begin and end. I won't go over all the theories I've read.

Some of them are totally groundless, I think. But to me, the likely way to understand this is that the time of 390 years of the punishment of the northern kingdom begins at the establishment of the northern kingdom. When Jeroboam took the ten tribes and set up the gold calf in Bethel and the one in Dan, you might say, well, they weren't punished at that time.

They just began their history at that time. But in a sense, they were alienated from God from the beginning. When the divided kingdom began at 930 B.C. I've got it here on the timeline.

The kingdom divided in 930 B.C. And if we consider the end of Israel's suffering taking place at the same time as the end of Judah's suffering, then we would say that is when Cyrus liberated the Jews in the year 539 B.C. And you can tell by simple calculation that that is a difference of 391 years, almost exactly 390, which is the number of days that Ezekiel lay on his left side. So you might say, well, why would we say that the northern kingdom, their suffering ended in that year when really Cyrus' decree only affected Judah and the captives in Babylon did not affect the Israelites who had been taken to Assyria. And the answer to that is as far as the Israelites who were taken to Assyria, their captivity was never ending.

I mean, that was permanent. But there had been members of the ten tribes who prior to the fall of the northern kingdom, members of the ten tribes had come down and defected and come back to join Judah. So that there were Levites, for instance, who were appalled by the gold calf in the north and they came back down to join Judah.

There were members of all of the ten tribes that rejoined Judah, so much so that Jeroboam and other kings of the northern kingdom had to set up guards at the border to try to keep their people from defecting and going back to Judah. So there were people from all ten tribes that joined Judah. And therefore when the Babylonian captivity took place, though it was principally Judah that was taken, there were representatives from all the ten tribes.

And though it was principally Judah that was restored by Cyrus, still there were members of the ten tribes, the other ten tribes as well, that came back. Which is why in the days of the New Testament, we can see the twelve tribes are still recognized as having some representation in Israel, even though they were mainly Judah that were there. The Jews were principally of Judah, but like James addresses his epistle to the twelve tribes, which really the northern kingdom of the ten tribes had been dissolved and exterminated.

There really wasn't any ten tribes left, but there were representatives to the point where there could still be said to be, the twelve tribes of Israel still had representation, still existed. So the end of the sufferings of Israel and Judah, both would have to be put at the time of Cyrus releasing the Jews to go back to their land. Otherwise there is no time that we could picture as the end of Israel's suffering, because it's a permanent thing that is not changing.

Therefore it's not entirely arbitrary, and it seems absolutely necessary that we put the end of the 390 years at Cyrus' declaration in 539 BC. And if you measure back about 390 years, the closest thing you get is the division of the kingdom in 930 BC. Therefore we would see that what God is saying is that Israel has been suffering the wrath of God ever since they divided from Rehoboam, ever since the kingdom divided.

You can see that 390 years is so close to 391 that what is happening here is just being rounded off. Now in the case of the suffering of the southern kingdom, it's a little more difficult because as you can see from the timeline here, the first deportation to Babylon took place in 605 BC. And the return under Cyrus is 539, a total of what? We've got 19 years here, plus that would be 68 years I think.

I think it would be 66 years. It's not exactly 40 there. However, we might think that Ezekiel would be inclined to measure from his own deportation, which would make the figure 58 years or 59 years, still not 40 years.

On the other hand, he might be likely to measure from the time that Jerusalem fell, since that's what he was mostly predicting. He was predicting the siege and fall of Jerusalem, which took place in 586, and the description there would be 47 years. Now if he is thinking of that gap, then it is entirely conceivable that he might round off 47 to 40, especially considering the symbolic value of the number 40.

The number 40 would convey the idea of the wilderness wanderings, and if you consider this also, if you add the 390 to the 40, you get the number 430, which is the exact number of years the Jews were in Egypt, and therefore the numbers have symbolic value as well as having a historic fulfillment. He's not being exact in the number of years that the fulfillment would take, although it's very close. He's rounding off the numbers, but he rounds them off in a way that would seem to bear a symbolic value.

The 40 years is really rounding off, probably in his mind, the 47 years there. Of course 40 would convey a lot of things, the number of judgment. It rained 40 days and 40 nights on the earth when God judged it in the flood.

The Jews wandered 40 years in the wilderness, which was a judgment upon them for having received the report of a spy who had spent 40 days searching out the land. God, remember, said, I'll give you one year for each day. The spy spent 40 days wandering in the land, I'm going to give you 40 years wandering in the land.

That's sort of what happens here. Ezekiel is substituting one day for a year in the symbolic action. At any rate, the mathematics of the thing are not the easiest to sort out, unless we can appreciate the fact that he's not being exact.

He's being very close to exact, but he's mainly choosing the numbers, rounded off as they are, for the value of what they represent. 40 is a significant number to the Jews, and 430, when you combine the 390 with the 40, you get 430, which would tend to remind them of the Egyptian captivity and tend to see this punishment in principle as identified with it. Now, the next time enacted parable is also in this chapter, beginning at verse 9. It has to do with what he was to eat.

And it says, Take thou also to thee wheat and barley and beans and lentils and millets and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and there must be bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, 390 days shalt thou eat thereof. Now, he couldn't be lying on his side the whole time, or else he'd have no time to make bread. And he'd have to make it, of course, every day to eat, so he couldn't make over a year's supply of bread at one time and then go into this laying down scene.

So he'd have to be lying on his side for only a part of the day, obviously. And thy meat, which thou shalt eat, shall be by weight, 20 shekels a day, from time to time shalt thou eat it. Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hen, from time to time shalt thou drink.

And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of a man in their sight. Now, that does not mean that he should add dung to the mixture of the food, but rather he would use dung as fuel for the fire to bake it. When it says you bake it with dung, it doesn't mean that dung becomes one of the ingredients, but rather that it's the fuel for the fire.

And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I drive them. Then said I, Our Lord God, behold, my soul hath not been polluted, for from my youth up until, even until now, I have not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces, neither came the abominable flesh into my mouth. Then he said unto me, Lo, I give thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.

Moreover, he said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem, and they shall eat bread by weight and with care, and they shall drink water by measure and with astonishment, that they may want bread, or lack bread and water, and be astonished one another, and consume away for their iniquity." Now, this action actually has two thoughts tied in. As the last verses show, the fact that he ate his bread measured and rationed as he did, conveyed the thought that during the siege conditions there would be shortage of food, and therefore they would be living under famine conditions. And by the way, the amount he ate there was eight ounces of bread a day, and a fraction over a pint of water.

I mean, one could hardly live on such a thing. It seems to me unlikely, again, that he was eating only that to survive for 390 days. To live on that for 390 days doesn't seem very conceivable, or else he'd be emaciated at the end of the time.

Now, he might have. God could have just worked it that way. But it's also possible, of course, that this was all just part of his daily demonstrations.

He could have been eating regular meals in his home, but when he would come out for his demonstration, he would measure out this food, and it was to convey the idea, this is how you'd be eating. Not necessarily that he had to eat that way full time, but as he was demonstrating these things publicly, he would measure out this amount of water and bread, and he'd put it on display for the people. At any rate, the idea is that it's famine rations, and that because of the siege of Jerusalem, there would be famine rations.

But then there's another lesson involved. In fact, it was cooked over dung. Now, actually, to cook over cow's dung, which he ended up doing, was not considered an unclean thing particularly.

In the Middle East, they still use cow's dung for fuel, for fire. But the cow's dung represented human dung. We know that originally he was commanded to use human dung, and that was a highly unclean thing.

Even to our minds, there's hardly anything more abhorrent than human dung. You remember that in the Wilderness Wanderings, God specifically told the Jews that they had to bury their dung. When they would relieve themselves in the wilderness, they had to bury it, because God walked among them.

The picture being, of course, that he didn't want to be walking around with dung laying around on the ground. He wanted to make sure it was out of the way and out of sight, because it was clearly a filthy thing. We can appreciate that for the hygiene purposes ourselves, although the Jews wouldn't have known that part.

It was just something that was treated like an unclean thing. And to bake his bread over human dung just was too abhorrent to him, and he objected, and God let him use cow's dung instead. But still, the cow's dung was merely standing in for human dung, and represented human dung.

And the idea was that the Jews, it says in verse 13, would eat defiled bread among the Gentiles, for they would be driven. Which carries the idea, in addition to the lesson that they would eat under siege, famine rations, it adds the thought that when they are driven into Babylon, they will have to eat unclean foods. And so baking it over human dung was to convey that idea.

It was unclean, and they had to eat unclean foods. Why? Because they wouldn't be able to go to their kosher delis and meat markets in Babylon, as they usually do. So the Jews had to eat their meat specially drained of blood, and had to make sure it wasn't sacrificed to idols.

But in Babylon, they could never be sure of that. Of course, the early Christians in the Greek lands had similar issues they had to deal with. You know, meat sacrificed to idols, and so forth, which the first Caribbean deals with.

But the point here was that they would not be able to live a strictly kosher life, because they were going to be in exile among the Babylonians. And therefore, they'd eat unclean foods. Now, in verse 9, where it gives the ingredients in the bread, he was to use wheat and barley and beans and lentils and millet and fitches.

Fitches is otherwise translated to spelt. And put them in one vessel and make bread. Of course, most bread was made out of wheat or barley, and those were ingredients here also, but things like beans and lentils were hardly considered ingredients to make flour from and to make bread from.

And the idea here is that under famine conditions, people would not hold out for ordinary bread. They'd take anything that could be ground into flour and use it in bread because of the shortage of ordinary food. And the idea is that they'd just throw anything that could be ground down into the pot and grind it into flour and make their bread, because they'd have need of bread.

And I've heard people talk about Ezekiel 4-9 bread. In fact, in some health food stores, they sell bread by that name, and it's made with this formula. Of course, it doesn't tell what ratios they're supposed to contain.

I've heard some health food people mistakenly say that this is bread that's so nutritious that a person could live 390 days eating this bread alone, because they've understood that that's how Ezekiel lived. But realize that there's no sense in which this chapter is trying to tell us that this bread is especially healthy or that it would sustain life comfortably for 390 days. The fact of the matter is it's to portray famine ration.

It's not supposed to portray health and sustenance. It's supposed to portray inferior food. That's what it symbolizes, inferior food eaten because better food was not available.

And we don't know for sure that Ezekiel did survive on this food alone for that period of time. He may have eaten other meals besides. But the idea here is that he had to eat specially prepared food at least when he was demonstrating to the people his actions.

And it would be measured out. It would be prepared over dung, representing both famine rations in Jerusalem and unclean foods that they'd have to eat while they were in unclean lands. I might just add also in verse 14 where he objected to human dung, he said, I, O Lord God, from my youth up even until now I have not eaten of that which dies of itself or is torn in pieces.

Neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. Abominable flesh, according to Leviticus 7.18, was meat that had been kept for more than three days without being eaten. It was abominable.

It was an abomination that had to be cast out. We would appreciate the health reasons for that now. Without refrigeration in the wilderness we could see why that would be.

But it was just considered abominable. And the Jews, especially the priests, and Ezekiel was a priest, the devout ones would keep themselves from eating such things. Therefore it broke his heart to think that a habit of remaining totally and strictly kosher, which he'd maintained from his childhood up until his 30th year, that he had to break it now.

It's like if you've made a point of avoiding drinking or something like that all your life and there's a certain amount of pride you take in the fact that you've never been drunk. And then for you to be required to go and get drunk or something would just go against your grain so much, especially if you had scruples against it. And so God honored the scruples of the prophet and said, Okay, I'll let you use cow's dung instead of human dung.

You might remember a rather similar situation, although some of the principles were different, in Acts chapter 10 when Peter was on the housetop in Joppa and God showed him a vision of unclean animals being lowered on a sheet and told him, Arise and eat. And Peter said something like this. He said, I've never eaten, from my youth up I've never eaten unclean things.

And the Lord didn't let him off the hook though. Three times he commanded him to arise and kill and eat. And he would not modify the command for him as he did for Ezekiel.

There is a difference that makes it explainable why he did modify it for Ezekiel and he wouldn't for Peter. One is that Ezekiel lived under the old covenant. And therefore if he was commanded to eat that which was really unclean, he was being commanded to really violate God's laws, which would be kind of an unkind thing for God to do, for one thing, and rather inconsistent for God to do too, since he had forbidden him to eat unclean things.

And then for him to actually command him to break laws that were still in force, would seem rather inconsistent with God's character. It's possible that God intended for Ezekiel to object and God intended to substitute cows dung, but he needed to make the original command human dung to portray the idea that this was going to be an unclean thing. In Peter's case, however, of course, he was holding on to Jewish scruples that were no longer valid.

Peter still ate kosher, even though the law had been fulfilled in Christ prior to this. When Jesus died and rose from the dead, it's very clear that none of the laws about kosher diet needed to apply any longer to Christians. Peter, simply out of his Jewish preferences, abstained from eating unclean foods, and therefore he was not let off the hook, because God was actually trying to tell him that that which you have considered unclean, you are no longer to consider unclean.

Particularly Peter's lesson was, what God tried to get across was that Gentiles, which Peter and the Jews had always considered to be unclean, God was now willing to accept. And he was in fact preparing Peter to go to the house of Cornelius, the first Gentile household to be converted. And God said to him three times, what I have cleansed, don't you call unclean or common.

So even though the situation seems similar, there are some differences. Peter was not let off the hook. Ezekiel was graciously allowed to substitute cow's dung for human dung.

Now we'll turn to chapter 12. We have two enacted parables there. No, I'm sorry, we need to get to chapter 5. I didn't get into chapter 5 yet.

We need to do that. Sorry. The entirety of chapter 5 has to do with one parable, enacted.

We won't read all the verses of it, because of the characteristic repetition of the prophet's style of writing, we won't need to. We'll read part of it though, enough to get the picture. And thou, son of man, take a sharp knife, and take thee a barber's razor, and cause it to pass upon thine head and upon thy beard.

Then take thee balances of weight to divide the hair, and balances to weigh and divide the hair. Thou shalt burn with fire a third part in the midst of the city, when the days of the siege are fulfilled. And thou shalt lay a third part, and smite about it with a knife.

And a third part thou shalt scatter to the wind, and I will draw up the sword after them. Thou shalt also take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts. Then take of them again, and cast them into the midst of the fire, and burn them in the fire.

For thereof shall a fire come forth into all the house of Israel. Okay, then it says, Thus saith the Lord God, this is Jerusalem. I have set it in the midst of the nations and the countries that are round about her, since he has changed my judgments into wickedness and so forth.

And he goes and explains his complaints against them. And then he says in verse 12, A third part of thee shall die in the pestilence and with famine, shall they be consumed in the midst of thee. And a third part shall fall by the sword round about thee.

And I will scatter a third part into all the winds, and I will draw out a sword after them. Thus shall mine anger be accomplished, and I will cause my fury to rest upon them. And I will be comforted, and they shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken it in my zeal, when I have accomplished my fury in them.

Moreover, I will make thee waste and reproach among the nations that are round about thee in the sight of all that pass by. So it shall be a reproach and a taunt, an instruction and an astonishment unto the nations. And then it says in verse 16, When I shall send upon them the evil arrows of famine, which shall be for their destruction, and which I will send to destroy you.

And I will increase the famine upon you, and will break your staff of bread. So will I send upon you famine and evil beasts, and they shall bereave thee, and pestilence and blood shall pass through thee, and I will bring sword upon thee. I, the Lord, have spoken this.

Now, it's very clear, Ezekiel was to shave his head and his beard and weigh the hair out into three equal piles. And each of these piles would be given a different fate. One would be burned, one would be chopped up with a knife or a sword, and the other would be just cast to the wind to be blown about.

But before this was done, a few pinches, a few hairs, would be gathered and gathered into his skirt, tied up in the skirt of his robe, apparently. Now, the idea was that the land, or Jerusalem, Jerusalem is actually what it represents, Jerusalem will be shaved bare, just like Ezekiel's head was shaved bare. There would be no people left in it.

It would be like his head had no more hair on it. And the fate of Jerusalem's inhabitants were represented by these three piles of hair. He said a third of them, and it may not have been exact, it may simply represent a few, a minority of them will fall in this way, and a minority in this way, and a minority in this other way.

At any rate, there would be three separate fates to which these people would be brought. But being consumed with famine and pestilence in the city. Now, some of them, of course, were literally burned when the city was burned down, but that's not what the fire represents in this particular case.

Then he said a third of them will be slain by the sword around the city. Apparently, if they go out to fight against the Babylonians, or perhaps even if they go out to surrender, they will be slain by the sword. So some will die within the city due to the siege.

Others will fall outside the city in war. And then, of course, there would be the third. The Tabitha died, and either of those would be scattered.

And those, of course, represent the Jews that survived the destruction of Jerusalem, but were scattered in many nations. However, in God's skirts, he had bound up a remnant, represented by the few hairs that were saved bound up in Ezekiel's skirt. And this remnant, of course, would be his chosen people that he would later redeem and restore.

So that is what that long chapter is all about. It has a very simple meaning to understand. Now, chapter 12.

Two short enacted parables here. The first one takes 16 verses. The other one takes only four.

The word of the Lord also came unto me, saying, Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not. They have ears to hear, and hear not, for they are a rebellious house. Therefore thou, son of man, prepare thee stuff for removing, and remove by day in their sight.

And thou shalt remove from thy place to another place in their sight. It may be they will consider, though they be a rebellious house. Then shalt thou bring forth thy stuff by day in their sight, as stuff for removing.

And thou shalt go forth, and even in their sight, as they that go forth into captivity. Dig thou to the wall in their sight, and carry thee out thereby in their sight. Shalt thou bear it upon thy shoulders, and carry it forth in the twilight.

Thou shalt cover thy face, that thou see not the ground. For I have set thee for a sign unto the house of Israel. And so it tells how he did what he was told to do.

And what he was told to do, several things. First of all, he was to gather up some stuff to carry on his back, like a person who is quickly preparing to evacuate the city. Then he is to dig through the wall, apparently the wall of his house.

This may have meant that he had an adobe kind of house that could be dug through with some kind of a shovel or a tool. Or perhaps if it was a brick, digging through could represent just removing a certain amount of bricks out of the wall, so there would be a hole there for him to get through. And he was to carry this stuff on his back at night, but apparently the audience was to be alerted that he would be doing this, so they would be there to watch at night.

But he would carry this stuff out through the hole in the wall, and he would be covering his eyes so that he couldn't see. He would be sort of blindfolding himself symbolically, so he couldn't see. Now the interpretation of the actions is given a little later on here.

It's a portrayal of Zedekiah. At the time that the Babylonians came back to destroy the city, Zedekiah, the king, that had been set up as supposedly supposed to be a puppet ruler under Nebuchadnezzar, he was the uncle of Jehoiakim. Now if I could just refresh your memory, Jehoiakim was the king who was taken into captivity at the same time Ezekiel was, with 10,000 others.

At the time Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiakim out, he set up Jehoiakim's uncle, Zedekiah, as king, who was supposed to be obedient to Nebuchadnezzar and be sort of a puppet ruler. But Zedekiah rebelled, bringing the wrath of Nebuchadnezzar upon him. And when Nebuchadnezzar came and besieged the city, Zedekiah sought to escape through a hole in the wall.

And yet he was captured, and he and his sons were taken by the Babylonians, and his sons were slain in sight, and then his eyes were gouged out, and he was taken away to Babylon where he died. Now Ezekiel is acting out the part of Zedekiah, trying to escape from the city by night through a hole in the wall, carrying a little bit of stuff on his back, trying to get out with what little he could carry, and in covering his eyes he was representing the fact that Zedekiah would be blinded. Of course his eyes were poked out, he was taken blind to Babylon.

And so that is what is being portrayed here. We can read on to see the explanation. Verse 8, And in the morning came the word of the Lord to me, saying, Son of man, hath not the house of Israel, the rebellious house, done to thee? What doest thou? Say unto them.

Now here his mouth was open so he could give an explanation. Thus saith the Lord God, this burden concerneth the prince of Jerusalem. That would be Zedekiah, who was at that time in Jerusalem as king.

Ezekiel declines to call him the king. He refers to him only as a prince. And all the house of Israel that are among them.

What happens to the king is just an emblem of what will happen to the people in general in the city. Say, I am your sign. Like as I have done, so shall it be done unto them.

They shall remove and go into captivity. And the prince that is among them, Zedekiah, shall bear upon his shoulder in the twilight, and shall go forth, and they shall dig through the wall to carry out thereby. He shall cover his face that he see not the ground with his eyes.

My net also will I spread upon him. And as God's spread, he's capturing Zedekiah through the Babylonians, the Lord doing it. And he shall be taken in my snare.

And I will bring him to Babylon, to a land of the Chaldeans. Yet shall he not see it, though he shall die there. Of course, he doesn't state specifically that he'll be blinded, but that is how it was fulfilled.

And he was taken to Babylon without seeing it. And I will scatter toward every wind all that are about him to help him. And all his bands, and I will draw out the sword after them.

And they shall know that I am the Lord when I shall scatter them among the nations and disperse them in the countries. But I will leave a few men of them from the sword, from the famine, and from the pestilence. This seems to go back to chapter 5, and the hairs that were bound up in the garment.

That they may declare all abominations among the heathen, whether they come. And they shall know that I am the Lord. Now, the next enacted parable is very short, only four verses long.

And it just has to do with how he's supposed to eat this bread. For these 309 days he's supposed to eat it shaking. He's supposed to emulate or act out a person who's paranoid, a person who's trembling for fear.

And he says, moreover the word of the Lord came to me. Son of man, eat thy bread with quaking, and drink thy water with trembling and with carefulness. And say unto the people of the land, Thus saith the Lord God of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and of the land of Israel, They shall eat their bread with carefulness, that means worry or anxiety.

And drink their water with astonishment, that their land may be desolate from all that is therein, because of the violence of all them that dwell therein. And the cities that are inhabited shall be laid waste, and the land shall be desolate, and ye shall know that I am the Lord. So this action is quite simple.

What he had to do is when he was eating the food, he had to shake a lot and tremble as though he were in terror. After that, the remainder of chapter 12 is not an enacted parable, since we've covered most of chapter 12, we might as well just finish this chapter off, though it's not part of the enacted parables. It is mainly a statement of the fact that the judgment is nearer than the false prophets are saying.

That the people's general opinion was if there was destruction to come on Jerusalem, it would not be anytime soon. Remember he says, hey, it is soon. In verse 21, And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Son of man, what is that proverb that you have in the land of Israel, saying, the days are prolonged, and every vision faileth? Meaning the vision of destruction, it's failing, it's not going to happen, or if it does, the days are prolonged, it will be a long time before it happens.

Tell them therefore, thus saith the Lord God, I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel, but say unto them, the days are at hand, and the effect of every vision, that is, the fulfillment of the vision is near, it's not far away. For there shall be no more any vain vision, nor flattering divination within the house of Israel. He's referring to the fact that the false prophets were having visions and divinations and coming up with their predictions.

He said their visions were vain or empty. They were not, of course, from God. So there won't be any more of these false prophecies coming out when they see the collapse of Jerusalem.

For I am the Lord, I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass, it shall be no more prolonged, for in your days, O rebellious house, I will say the word, and I will perform it. Thus saith the Lord God. Again, the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Son of man, they of the house of Israel say, the vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of times that are far off.

Therefore say unto them, thus saith the Lord God, there shall none of my words be prolonged any more, but the word which I have spoken shall be done, saith the Lord God. So obviously this latter part of chapter 12 is an affirmation that they should not look for a long time of peace in the future before these things come true, but rather that these he's predicting are near at hand, and they certainly were. They were within five years of the time that he predicted them.

And we don't know really quite how late some of those prophecies were made. But they were certainly made within that six year period at the beginning of his ministry. Now if you'd turn with me to Ezekiel 24.

In Ezekiel 24, we have of course the end of this phase of Ezekiel's ministry because we have the record of the siege of Jerusalem, which was shortly thereafter followed by its collapse and its fall. So the first part of the chapter records a parable, a spoken parable about the siege. And we won't take that now, we'll take that next time when we talk about the spoken parables.

But there is in a sense an acted parable in verses 15 through 27, the latter half of the chapter. And this is an interesting and poignant action that he had to go through. His wife died on the day of the siege, and he was commanded not to show outward signs of mourning, as would be ordinarily done when someone close to you dies.

And there's a number of things that the Jews did when mourning, and covering their mouth, and taking their shoes off and things like that. And God tells him not to do any of those things, not to show any of the outward signs of mourning for his wife. And then the Jews were expected to ask him why he's not mourning for his wife, and then he would utter an interpretation, and that's what we'll read right now.

Ezekiel 24, verses 15 through 27. Also the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke. This is a reference to his wife.

Yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down, forbear to cry, make no mourning for the dead, bind the tire of thine head upon thee, apparently meaning keep your turban on and don't take it off as you would if you were mourning, put thy shoes upon thy feet, rather than taking them off as they would in mourning, and cover not thy lips, and eat not the bread of men. Probably the bread of men means the bread of mourning, the kind of food they would eat on mourning. So I spake unto the people in the morning, and in the evening my wife died.

And I did in the morning as I was commanded. And the people said unto me, Will thou not tell us what these things are to us, that thou doest so? Then I answered them, The word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Speak unto the house of Israel. Thus saith the Lord God.

Behold, I will profane my sanctuary. The excellency of your strength, the desire of your eyes, and that which you are so pitious, and your sons and your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword. And ye shall do as I have done.

Ye shall not cover your lips, nor eat the bread of men, and your tires shall be upon your heads, and your shoes upon your feet, and ye shall not mourn nor weep, but ye shall pine away for your iniquities, and mourn one toward another. Thus Ezekiel is unto you a sign. According to all that he hath done shall ye do.

And when this cometh, ye shall know that I am the Lord God. Also thou son of man, shall it not be in the day when I take from them their strength, the joy of their glory, the desire of their eyes, and that whereupon they set their minds, their sons and their daughters, that he that escapeth in that day shall come unto thee to cause thee to hear it with thine ears. In that day shall thy mouth be opened to him which is escaped, and thou shalt speak, and be no more dumb, and thou shalt be a sign unto them, and they shall know that I am the Lord.

Now these last verses simply state that although of course Jerusalem was besieged at this particular time, the night that Ezekiel's wife died was the exact day that Jerusalem was besieged. But news of that would take some time to reach the exiles a thousand miles away in Babylon. You see, Tel Aviv where these were was about a thousand miles away from Jerusalem.

And news traveled slow. I was told somewhere that when George Washington died, that it took something like three weeks for news of it to reach the capital of the country. You know, I mean he died wherever he died, in his home.

And for the news of George Washington's death to reach the capital took three weeks or something like that. It's incredible. I mean we're so used to now, you know, Time magazine comes out every week, and it's got news to date to the day before, you know, and it's distributed all over the world the next day.

I mean we're so accustomed to instant news that we forget that it takes time for news to travel when you don't have electronic gadgets to help convey it. And so there's a period of time from the siege of Jerusalem to the time that news actually came from one of the people who escaped. And God told Ezekiel, on the day that this messenger comes and escapes and tells you the news of it, then this dumbness that had come upon him would end.

Now remember, he wasn't completely dumb in the sense that he couldn't ever speak. But apparently for this six year period, he could only speak when God gave him a word. The rest of the time he was incapable of speech, but that condition would end when news would come to him of the fall of Jerusalem, and then he would have his normal powers of speech restored.

About his failure or refusal to mourn for his wife, as God told him not to mourn for her, the actual meaning of this is hard to appreciate. We can see the connection, of course. God makes it clear that as Ezekiel's wife was the desire of his heart that was being taken away from him, so Jerusalem was the desire of the exiles' hearts and of their eyes and what they pitied, it says in verse 21.

And therefore, as Ezekiel's wife was taken from him, so Jerusalem would be taken from the people. The hard part is to understand what is meant by the fact that they would not mourn, they would not show outward forms of mourning. Why wouldn't they? We're not told why they wouldn't, it's just told that they wouldn't.

And the fact that Ezekiel was commanded not to do so when his wife died was simply to portray the fact that they would not mourn when Jerusalem fell. Now, what is the thought here? Some have felt like it's trying to portray the fact that these people are so callous that when Jerusalem falls, they won't even mourn. But that hardly can be the meaning.

After all, the idea was that Ezekiel's wife, he was not callous to her death, she was the desire of his eyes. He would experience a deep inner groaning, but he wouldn't be able to express it outwardly. And so also to the Jews, Jerusalem was the desire of their eyes.

It was not that they were callous to the fall of Jerusalem, they would be stunned by it. And some have felt maybe this lack of outward mourning is just to tip out the fact that it would be such a stunning thing to them when they hear that Jerusalem has fallen, that they'd be in shock. Sometimes you go into physical shock when you're suddenly injured badly and your nerves go into shock and you don't feel any pain immediately even though some horrible thing has happened to you, yet later the pain catches up with you.

And that sometimes emotionally happens to people too. When they lose a loved one or something, a lot of times they don't immediately feel the grief of it, and later they feel it because they went into something like shock. That may be what's implied here.

It may also be saying that even though you will want to mourn outwardly, because you are captives in Babylon and because the fall of Jerusalem represents a decisive victory for Babylon, your mourning outwardly would be considered an offensive thing to the Babylonians. Therefore you would be too afraid to mourn outwardly, though you'll feel like weeping and crying that you'll have no opportunity because you're in captivity and you would not dare show outward signs of mourning over such a great victory the Babylonians accomplished. Therefore you'll be, because of your captivity, unable to show those signs of remorse outwardly, although you would like to.

You'll just be, because of your captivity, unable to. So that's another possibility. The third possibility is that God is strictly just forbidding them to mourn over Jerusalem because Jerusalem doesn't deserve to be mourned over because the judgment coming upon it is earned by their wickedness.

Of course there would not be an exact parallel there with Ezekiel's wife because we have no reason to believe that she deserved anything to happen to her. But the idea is that presumably if she was a godly woman, she died and went to heaven or whatever. But the fact that God would allow the wife to die is not anything that he has to justify himself in.

Everyone dies sometime and some people die young. Ezekiel's wife was one of those that died young. It's not represented as a judgment upon her, but rather a very costly price that Ezekiel had to pay for conveying his message.

It was a great grief to him, no doubt. In fact, the fact that he was affectionate toward his wife, although not all men were, is portrayed in more than one way. The fact that she is described not as his wife but as the desire of his eyes suggests that he had a particular fondness for his wife and that he really loved his wife.

The fact that he has commanded not to let his tears run down suggests that apart from being forbidden, he would let his tears run down. The fact that when the Jews saw that he wasn't showing outward signs of mourning, they were amazed because it didn't seem like him. It seemed like he was the kind of man who would mourn for his wife.

There is nothing negative said about Ezekiel's wife here, but she happened to stand in as a representative in this prophetic enacted parable as Jerusalem. Jerusalem deserved a fall, and therefore we could simply say that God is forbidding them to mourn over Jerusalem. As Ezekiel showed no outward signs of mourning, so should they not show any mourning for Jerusalem.

You might recall that in Leviticus, the high priests were forbidden to mourn for the death of their families and their loved ones. Not because their families deserved it, but because mourning involved going to the funeral and so forth. A Jew who would go to a funeral would be defiled.

Temporarily he would be unclean because he came in contact with a dead body. A priest could not allow such things to interfere with his ministry. Therefore he was strictly forbidden to mourn, although he might have a sense of mourning in his heart.

So also here, that may be the meaning of this. It's very unclear, and most commentators have different opinions from each other about it. It seems very possible to me that the idea here is that they are just strictly told, don't mourn.

Because Jerusalem is getting what it deserves, don't mourn over it. Anyway, that is another very significant enacted parable. The only remaining enacted parable in the book is in Ezekiel 37, which is divided into two major parts.

In fact, it's divided right in half. The first fourteen verses give one of the visions of Ezekiel. Remember I told you he had four visions.

The third of them, the third of the four, is found in chapter 37, verses 1-14. The remaining fourteen verses are occupied with an enacted parable. I'll say from verse 15 to the end.

We will read that and discuss it, and that will occupy the rest of our time this morning. Ezekiel 37, verse 15, The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, Moreover thou some man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, for Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions. Then take another stick, and write on it, for Joseph the stick of Ephraim, and for the house of Israel his companions.

And join them one to another into one stick, and they shall become one in thine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these? Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and I will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. And the sticks whereupon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land. And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all. And they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.

Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions. But I will save them out of all their dwelling places wherein they have sinned, and I will cleanse them, so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. And David my servant shall be king over them, and they all shall have one shepherd.

And they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt, and they shall dwell therein, even they and their children, and their children's children, for ever. And my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them, and multiply them, and set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them, yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, and my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore. Now, first we'll talk about the action that he did, then we'll talk about its interpretation and its fulfillment. The action was to take two sticks, one he wrote upon for Judah and the children of Israel, his companions, the other was written for Ephraim and the children of Israel, his companions.

In other words, these two sticks represented the two nations, the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom. Now, by this time, of course, the northern kingdom had long since fallen. Over 130 years before this, the northern kingdom had collapsed.

Well, let's see when it was. We're talking about 100... yea, at least 125 years, 130 years before this. It was about 130, actually.

The northern kingdom had collapsed. But still the sticks represented the northern and southern kingdom, which had been divided since the days of Rehoboam. And they were to be put together in his hand to become one stick.

Now, whether a miracle occurred so that two sticks literally became one stick, or whether they were only held in the hand in such a way as to make them appear as one stick, for instance, if he would hold in his fist the end of one stick out of the top of his hand and the end of the other stick out of the bottom of his hand so it appeared like one longer stick in his fist, it could be either way. Now, the way it's written sounds like a miracle occurred and the two sticks were surely joined together. That is entirely possible.

Certainly none of us would discount the possibility of a miracle occurring, since miracles do occur and God does miracles. On the other hand, none of the other enacted parables involved a miracle, but rather just things that a man could do in order to illustrate things. And it is possible that the wording is to be understood that he simply made them like one stick in his hand and grasped them at a point where they would appear to join together and make them look like one stick.

In either case, whether they literally became one stick or only appeared to be is beside the point, of course, because the real issue is what is represented by these two sticks becoming one. And it's amazing how many different interpretations have been given. The Mormons have the most amazing interpretation of this passage because they believe that the stick for Judah represents the Bible and the stick for Ephraim represents the Book of Mormon.

And they believe that this prophecy, that this predicts the later writing of the Book of Mormon. And if you talk to the Mormons, they might ask you, do you believe there is any prediction in the Bible that another book would be written, the Book of Mormon? And you'd say, of course, no. And they would turn you to this passage.

It's common for them to do so. And they say, see, the stick of Judah is the Bible. Well, how we would identify a stick as a book is one hurdle we'd have to leap over immediately.

Why would we identify the two sticks as two books since a stick is not a book and there's no place in the passage that explains it as though the sticks represent books? Furthermore, if they did represent books, why would it be the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Why would it not be rather, see, they understand Ephraim to mean Gentiles. They say the Bible is written for the Jews, for Judah, and the Book of Mormon for Gentiles, for Ephraim. But, of course, that's totally a misunderstanding of who Ephraim is.

Ephraim was one of the tribes of Israel. Ephraim does not represent Gentiles, so they simply show their ignorance of the Scripture altogether there. But even if we could say that there is a picture here of a book for the Jews and a book for the Gentiles, it would still seem more likely to take it as the Old and New Testament rather than the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

But none of those presuppositions are correct. The passage explains itself. It is not talking in any way about books.

It's talking about the nations. It's talking about the two that held them, two nations for so long, becoming one nation again. It says right there in verse 21, And I say unto them, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, where they may have gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land.

And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king to them all. As opposed to the way history had been for several hundred years, where they had two kings.

They had a king in Samaria and a king in Jerusalem. Now the two nations will be joined into one under one king. Now it sounds like it's talking about the restoration of the Jews to their land after the Babylonian captivity.

It sounds like it's talking about when Cyrus would release them to be regathered to their land. And therefore, we would be inclined at the beginning to see this having its fulfillment at the time, except for two problems. One problem is, of course, that the Northern Kingdom never did come back into the land.

And the second is, when they were restored from the Babylonian captivity, they didn't have a king. They didn't have one king over them all. They didn't have a king.

They were not permitted to have a king until the Romans put Herod up over them. And the Jews have never had a king that was recognized as a king over them since the time of the Babylonian captivity. So this has never had a natural fulfillment.

The question then remains, are we to look for a natural fulfillment in the future, or does it have a spiritual fulfillment? Those who would look for a natural fulfillment in the future ordinarily see this as a picture of the millennial reign of Christ that is coming, that Jesus is going to come back. Of course, David in the prophecy is Jesus. We all would agree about that.

In verses 24 and 25, it says, David, my servant, shall be king over them. That is clearly a reference to the Messiah. You've already seen in both Isaiah and Jeremiah, and I think Hosea also made reference to David, the king.

After all, in Messianic passages, David is a type of Jesus because Jesus is the epitome of David's household or David's dynasty. So David here simply refers to the Messiah, and we know its fulfillment is in Jesus, but when? At his second coming or his first? That's the question. If it is his second coming, then it is believed that Jesus will set up a thousand-year millennial reign on the earth that is coming, and that both the northern and the southern kingdom will be politically united into one nation under Jesus in Israel, and that the world will be governed basically by Jesus out of Israel with the Jews being the prominent nation of the world as they are regathered into one nation there.

There are some things about the passage that make this an appealing interpretation. For the one thing, it would seem to explain everything pretty well up through about verse 24, if we just take it as a natural thing that has yet to happen in the future. It has not happened in the past.

It has not physically happened or naturally happened in the past. Therefore, if it's going to happen naturally at all, it will have to be in the future, and if the second coming of Christ is the time proposed since David, Jesus, would have to be here in order for him to reign over them, it seems in the natural, therefore it would have to be at his second coming, and therefore we see it as the millennial reign of Christ, as some do. There are a few problems with it, however.

One of the problems is that the eschatology of the New Testament does not allow for a future millennium at the coming of Christ, at least as I understand it. I don't see any teaching of such a thing in the New Testament. Of course, the only thing in the New Testament that could be pointed to would be Revelation 20, the only place in the New Testament that would even lend itself at all to such a millennial teaching, and it, I believe, would have to be misunderstood in order to see a future millennium in that.

It has to be correctly understood, just like everything else in the book of Revelation needs to be. So there is a bit of a problem there. First of all, Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3 that when Jesus comes back he is going to destroy the world, that the elements will melt with the fervent heat, and the world will be dissolved, and a new heavens and a new earth will come forth, and that is not in agreement with the millennial view of the future.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem that this can be talking about a thousand year millennium at Jesus' coming for several reasons. One of them is the recurrence of the word forever. At the end of verse 25 it says, My servant David shall be their prince forever, not a thousand years, but forever.

Also at the end of verse 26, I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. And then in verse 28, at the end it says, My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them forevermore. In other words, this is talking about an eternal arrangement, it is not talking about a thousand year arrangement.

Therefore, it does not seem to fit a future thousand year millennium. Now, another suggestion could be made that maybe it is in the new earth, because the new earth is eternal, and maybe it means that when Jesus comes back, this will be the conditions that will be set up in the new earth forever. One of the difficulties in seeing that as the interpretation is that in the book of Revelation we are told that in the new earth there is no temple.

And yet we are told repeatedly here in verses 26-28 that God will have his temple and his sanctuary there forever. Of course, we could understand this as a spiritual temple, the church, because it says in Revelation chapter 21 and 22, that is chapter 21 verse 22, it says there shall be no temple there in the new Jerusalem and the new earth. So, it cannot be a literal temple in the new earth, because there is not one.

So, what are we left with? We cannot have a literal historic fulfillment, because it does not fit the facts of any historical fulfillment. It does not seem to be a future fulfillment in a future millennium, it does not seem to be implying that. Nor does it necessarily fit literally into a picture of the new earth, although we could spiritually apply it to the new earth if we take a spiritual sanctuary.

But then if we are going to spiritualize the sanctuary, which is perhaps a valid thing to do, then maybe we should spiritualize other parts of the passage too. Maybe the whole passage is to be understood in a spiritual light. And if that is the case, then there is good cause to see it as having reference to the church age in which we now live, and that it is already in the process of fulfillment.

That in a sense it was fulfilled at Jesus' cross and resurrection, when he was enthroned as he now is at the right hand of God the Father over his kingdom, which he now reigns over, that Jews from all twelve tribes have come unto that one King, David. That in fact the Jews that used to be divided into two kingdoms, the northern and the southern, are now united in the body of Christ, into one body. And not only that, an even greater division in humanity has been dissolved in Christ, because the Jews and the Gentiles now have no more division between them either.

And the two sticks of the Jews and the Gentiles were of course always more separate than the two sticks of Ephraim and Judah. But in the new covenant all hostility has been removed. And if you would look at verse 26 especially, it says, Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them.

This expression, a covenant of peace, is encountered elsewhere in the prophets, but not always in messianic passages that talk about the church age. One of those is earlier in the same book, in Ezekiel 34, a chapter that we'll cover some other time. Ezekiel 34, beginning with verse 23, it says, And I will set up one shepherd over them.

This Jesus is, and declared himself to be at his first coming. He said, I am the good shepherd of the sheep. He declared that he was fulfilling his prophecy at his coming in John chapter 10.

And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David, obviously meaning Jesus, the Messiah, he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them. I the Lord have spoken it.

And I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land, and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in the woods. And then if you look down at verse 28, They shall no more be a prey to the heathen, neither shall the beasts of the land devour them, and they shall dwell safely, and none shall make them afraid. Now notice both these passages.

In Ezekiel 37, which we've been reading, and this passage in Ezekiel 34, there's some similarities. There's a reference to David in both of them, ruling over them. That identifies these two chapters as talking about the same thing.

There's a reference to a covenant of peace that is made in both passages, which seems to identify the two passages as referring to the same period. In the passage in Ezekiel 34, however, we have the additional information that this is the time when God has sent his shepherd, the good shepherd of the sheep who feeds his people. And that, Jesus has clearly indicated, is himself, and is fulfilled in his first coming.

Now, what then is this covenant of peace? In Ezekiel 34, which we've just been looking at, the passage, the entire chapter of Ezekiel 34 is a parable about shepherds and sheep. And Israel is the sheep. And the leaders of Israel are the shepherds.

And the passage begins with a denunciation of the evil leaders who are the evil shepherds. Look at verse 2, for instance, where it says in the middle of that verse, Woe unto the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves. Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? And he goes on to talk about how they have not cared for the sheep.

The leaders have been the wrong kind of leaders. And then he promises he will send a good shepherd, which Jesus, of course, is and was at his coming. Now, in the parable of the shepherds and the sheep, there are also wild beasts.

The wild beasts, of course, are the enemies of the sheep. Who are the wild beasts in this parable? As I understand it, the wild beasts are the Gentiles. And there seems to be an implication of that in verse 28, where he says, And they shall no more be a prey to the heathen, which means Gentiles, neither shall the beasts of the land devour them.

If we take this as poetic parallelism, then the Gentiles are equated with the beasts of the land. This would agree with other prophetic pictures. For example, Daniel chapter 7, where four successive Gentile kingdoms are compared to a lion, a bear, a leopard, and another ferocious beast.

Four carnivorous wild beasts are used as symbols of Gentile nations. Israel, by contrast, is compared to sheep. Now, the animals that represent the Gentile nations in Daniel 7 are animals that are historic enemies of sheep, versus the Gentiles are the historic enemies of the Jews.

And what Ezekiel 34 seems to be saying is that God, when he sends David, will make a covenant of peace. Peace between whom? Is this political peace? Or is this peace among men? When Jesus was born, the angels said, Peace on earth among men of good will. That's how it should be translated, what the angels said at Jesus' birth.

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace among men of good will. And so Jesus was bringing a peace among men of good will. Now, we know also, of course, in the Gospel and the Epistles tell us that we have peace with God.

But that is not the emphasis here. The emphasis is that the sheep will no longer have to fear the wild animals. They will experience peace.

And it's very similar to Isaiah's pictures of the wolf and the lamb lying down together, and the bear eating straw like the ox, and so forth. That those historic enemies to the sheep, the Gentiles, would now be subdued and in peaceful relationship with God's sheep, with the Jews. And I believe that both Ezekiel 34 and 37 convey the idea of a general covenant that will bring men of all categories into peaceful reunion under Christ, under one shepherd, under one king, David.

That this would include members of the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel is part of the message. The other part of the message that is not as clearly stated in chapter 37 is that Gentiles too, and other people of all the scriptures, though they were formerly hostile, enter into covenant with Christ, which is a covenant that involves them in peace with other Christians, with others who are under them. Now, in support of this interpretation, I would like to turn your attention to Ephesians chapter 2. And one person suggested to me, now I already used, before I ever talked to this person, I already was using Ephesians 2 as a cross reference for Ezekiel 37.

But I later talked to another teacher who told me that he believed that Ephesians 2 is intended as Paul's commentary on Ezekiel 37. Now, I wouldn't have gone that far before talking to that person, but after I heard it, I saw that it's quite true that there's many things in Ephesians 2, in the latter part of that chapter, that seem to correspond with Ezekiel 37. I'd like to point them out to you in the few minutes that we have left, which is very few.

Starting at verse 11, Ephesians 2, 11 says, Wherefore remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who were called uncircumcised by them that is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands, that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope without God in this world. But now in Christ Jesus you who were far off, sometimes, or one time far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Now, nigh here doesn't mean nigh to God, although that's true too.

He's talking about we who were aliens from whom? Not aliens from God, although we were that, that's not his point. We were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. We were Gentiles in the flesh called uncircumcised, and the Jews looked down on us as uncircumcised.

We were alienated from the Jews. But now, we who were once separated from them, are made near to them, that is the believing Gentiles and the believing Jews are brought near to each other in Christ. And it says, for he is our peace.

Now, again, he's not talking about our peace with God, although that is stated in other parts of the scripture. He's talking about our peace between the hostility that once existed between Jew and Gentile. Remember Ezekiel 37 has the covenant of peace.

The covenant is mentioned in verse 12, we were strangers from the covenants of promise, and then we have this mention of peace. He is our peace, the covenant of peace, who has made both one, meaning the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers are now one, and have broken down the middle wall of partition between us, which is symbolized by the putting of these sticks together into one. Having abolished in his flesh the hostility, the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances for the making himself of the two, one, new man, so making peace.

Well, in Ezekiel it's two sticks becoming one stick, but here he has the image slightly shifted. It's two men, the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers, combined into one new man, the body of Christ. That he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross.

And the two sticks might recall the fact that the cross was made from two sticks, but that might be looking too much into it. Having slain the enmity thereby, and came and preached peace. Again, the covenant of peace mentioned in Ezekiel, to you which were afar off, the Gentiles, and to them that were nigh, the Jews.

For through him we both have access by one spirit unto the Father. Now therefore we are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corazon, in whom all the building fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord. Remember Ezekiel 37, ends with God will set his temple among them, as a result of this covenant of peace, his temple will be among them forever.

Here it is, it's the temple of the body of Christ. We who have found this peace, who have come in Christ, Unfortunately, the last few minutes of this lecture were not recorded. Thank you.