The Departure of The Kebod Yhwh From The Temple of Jerusalem
The Departure of The Kebod Yhwh From The Temple of Jerusalem
The Departure of The Kebod Yhwh From The Temple of Jerusalem
FACULTAD DE TEOLOGÍA
PAMPLONA
2005
Ad normam Statutorum Facultatis Theologiae Universitatis Navarrensis,
perlegimus et adprobavimus
Secretarius Facultatis
Eduardus FLANDES
In all the world’s great religions, the temple is the privilege place
where the divinity is considered to make itself present to man and
where man enters into a communion with the former. It is the place
where the divinity receives the worship of his adorers and where they,
in turn, receive favors and blessings from the divine forces they belie-
ved in. This understanding of divine-human relationship expectedly
made the temple central to the socio-religious life of the people. The
social conditions of fortune or blessings are, to a certain extent, de-
termined and assured by seeking divine favors through the prescribed
cultic rituals and worship in the temple.
This central role of the temple in the socio-religious life of the
people is clearly evident in the book of Ezekiel, wherein the Temple
of Jerusalem plays a decisive role in understanding the cause of the
well being, as well as, the tragedy of the house of Israel. In fact, the
book’s message of judgment (first part) and restoration (second part)
are composed and revolved around the imagery of the Temple. De-
spite many literary, textual and structural difficulties that reveal its
composite character, the canonical text manifests literary coherence
and unified Temple-centered theology which reflects the single mind
of an original prophet. Through Temple symbolism and language,
Ezekiel explained the nature of YHWH, and his relationship with Is-
rael and the universe. For Ezekiel, the God of Israel is a sovereign of
universal domain. He is transcendent and not limited to a sanctuary,
a people or land. Nevertheless, by pure divine initiative, YHWH has
chosen to be identified with a particular people, establish a special re-
lationship with them and dwells in their midst. In the face of this
gratuitous choice, Israel is expected to recognize YHWH’s sovereign-
ty over them and give him due worship.
The historical reality of the destruction of the city of Jerusalem
and its Temple and the subsequent exile of its inhabitants presented
12 RAMIL COSTIBOLO NICAL
PRESENTATION ........................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................... v
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................... xi
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ xvii
CHAPTER I
THE FIRST VISION: THE CALL OF EZEKIEL
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
I. THE SUPERSCRIPTION ............................................................... 3
A. Translation and Analysis ...................................................... 3
B. Structure ............................................................................. 5
C. Significance and Relation to the Temple of Jerusalem .......... 11
D. Summary ............................................................................ 21
II. THE THRONE VISION ............................................................... 23
A. Translation and Analysis ...................................................... 23
B. Structure ............................................................................. 35
C. Significance and Relation to the Temple of Jerusalem .......... 40
1. The Cloud .................................................................... 41
2. The kebod YHWH ....................................................... 43
3. Ezekiel’s Notion of the kabod ....................................... 49
4. The Symbolism of the number «four» .......................... 53
5. The Anthropomorphic description of the kabod .......... 54
6. The Vision as a Storm Theophany ............................... 56
7. Cultic Representation ................................................... 58
8. The Vision as a Throne Theophany ............................. 61
9. The Chariot ................................................................. 66
10. The Cultic Response of the Prophet ............................. 69
D. Summary ............................................................................. 72
III. THE PROPHETIC COMMISSIONING ............................................ 74
A. Translation and Analysis ...................................................... 74
B. Structure ............................................................................. 80
14 RAMIL COSTIBOLO NICAL
CHAPTER II
THE SECOND VISION: THE DEPARTURE
OF THE KEBOD YHWH FROM THE TEMPLE
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 115
I. THE SETTING OF THE VISION ................................................... 123
A. Translation and Analysis ...................................................... 123
B. Structure ............................................................................. 126
C. Significance and Relation to the Temple of Jerusalem .......... 131
D. Summary ............................................................................. 142
II. THE FOUR CULTIC ABOMINATIONS .......................................... 143
A. Translation and Analysis ...................................................... 143
B. Structure ............................................................................. 149
C. Significance and Relation to the Temple of Jerusalem .......... 150
1. Symbolism of the Number «four» ................................... 150
2. tAb[eAt (abominations) ..................................................... 153
3. The Four Cultic Abominations ....................................... 155
4. The Concept of the «Sacred/Holy» ................................. 168
5. Israel’s sins were not only cultic but social ....................... 179
6. Israel, a Rebellious People ............................................... 181
7. Inevitability of Judgment ................................................ 182
D. Summary ............................................................................. 185
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE THESIS 15
CHAPTER III
THE THIRD VISION: THE RETURN
OF THE KEBOD YHWH TO THE TEMPLE
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 261
I. THE SETTING OF THE VISION ................................................... 272
A. Translation and Analysis ...................................................... 272
B. Structure ............................................................................. 275
C. Significance and Relation to the Temple of Jerusalem .......... 280
D. Summary ............................................................................. 307
II. THE RETURN OF THE KEBOD YHWH ........................................ 310
A. Translation and Analysis ...................................................... 310
B. Structure ............................................................................. 314
16 RAMIL COSTIBOLO NICAL
MAIN SOURCES
INSTRUMENTS
ACHTEMEIER, P.J., The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary, Harper, San Fran-
cisco 1996.
ALTHANN, R., Elenchus of Biblica, Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico,
Roma 1985-2002.
BAUER, J.B. (ed.), Diccionario de teología bíblica, Herder, Barcelona 1967.
BOGAERT, P.-M. et al. (eds.), Diccionario enciclopedico de la Biblia, Herder,
Barcelona 1993.
BOTTERWECK, G.J., RINGGREN, H. (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament, I-VIII, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1977-1997 (translation
from the original German Edition: ThWAT, I-VIII, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart
1973-1995).
CERNI, R. (trans.), Interlineal Hebreo-Español. Libros Profeticos. Traducción
literal al castellano del texto hebreo del Códice de Leningrado, IV, CLIE,
Terrasa 2002.
FACULTAD DE TEOLOGÍA DE UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA, «Libros Proféticos»
Sagrada Biblia, IV, EUNSA, Pamplona 2002.
18 RAMIL COSTIBOLO NICAL
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
ALBERTZ, R., A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period: From the
Exile to the Maccabees, II, Eng. trans. by J. Bowden, SCM, London 1994.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE THESIS 19
ALBRIGHT, W.F., Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, John Hopkins Uni-
versity, Baltimore 1956.
ANDERSON, G.W., The History and Religion of Israel, Oxford, London
1966.
BRIGHT, J., A History of Israel, Westminster, Philadelphia 31981.
CAZELLES, H., Introducción a la Biblia. Introducción crítica al Antiguo Testa-
mento, II, Herder Barcelona 1989.
CHILDS, B.S., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, SCM, London
1979.
— Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament. Theological Reflection on
the Christian Bible, Fortress, Minneapolis 1993.
DRIVER, S.R., An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, T. & T.
Clark, Edinburgh 21891.
EICHRODT, W., Theology of the Old Testament, Eng. trans. by J.A. Baker, I,
SCM, London 1967.
EISSFELDT, O., The Old Testament: An Introduction, Eng. trans. by P.R.
Ackroyd, Harper & Row, New York 1965.
FISHBANE, M., Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Clarendon, Oxford
1985.
FOHRER, G., Introduction to the Old Testament, SCM, London 1970.
FRANKEL, D., The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School. A Retrieval of An-
cient Sacerdotal Lore, Brill, Leiden 2002.
KRAUS, H.-J., Worship in Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament, Eng.
trans. by C. Buswell, John Knox, Richmond 1966.
NEWSOME, J.D., By the Waters of Babylon: An Introduction to the History and
Theology of the Exile, John Knox, Atlanta 1979.
OESTERLEY, W.O.E., ROBINSON, T.H., An Introduction to the Books of the
Old Testament, Meridian, New York 21958.
PFEIFFER, R.H., Introduction to the Old Testament, A. & C. Black, London
1966.
RENDTORFF, R., The Old Testament. An Introduction, SCM, London 1985.
ROBERT, A., FEUILLET, A., Introduccion a la Biblia. Introduccion General An-
tiguo Testamento, I, Herder, Barcelona 1970.
ROWLEY, H.H., Worship in Ancient Israel. Its Forms and Meaning, SPCK,
London 1967.
SCHMIDT, W.H., Introduction to the Old Testament, SCM, London 1984.
SOGGIN, J.A., An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah, SCM, Lon-
don 31999.
VON RAD, G., Old Testament Theology, I-II, Eng. trans. by D. M. G. Stalk-
er, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh 1962-67.
WRIGHT, G.E., The Old Testament Against its Environment, SCM, London
1966.
20 RAMIL COSTIBOLO NICAL
B. Prophetism
ABREGO DE LACY, J.M., Los libros proféticos, Verbo Divino, Estella 1993.
ACHTEMEIER, P.J., MAYS, J.L. (eds.), Interpreting the Prophets, Fortress,
Philadelphia 1987.
ARMERDING, C.E., GASQUE, W.W. (eds.), A Guide to Biblical Prophecy,
Hendrickson, Peabody 1989.
BLENKINSOPP, J., A History of Prophecy in Israel, Westminster, Philadelphia
1983.
— Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins, Uni-
versity of Notre Dame, Notre Dame 1977.
— Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Is-
rael, John Knox, Lousville 1995.
BRUEGGEMANN, W., The Prophetic Imagination, Fortress, Philadelphia
1978.
BULLOCK, C.H., An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books,
Moody, Chicago 1986.
CARROLL, R., When Prophecy Failed. Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic
Traditions of the Old Testament, Seabury, New York 1979.
CLEMENTS, R.E., Prophecy and Covenants, SCM, London 1965.
COGGINS, R. (ed.), Israel’s Prophetic Tradition. Essays in Honour of Peter R.
Ackroyd, University, Cambridge 1988.
DAVIES, P.R., The Prophets, Sheffield Academic, Sheffield 1996.
GITAY, Y., Prophecy and Prophets: The Diversity of Contemporary Issues in
Scholarship, Scholars, Atlanta 1997.
GRABBE, L.L., Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-Historical Study of
Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel, Trinity, Valley Forge 1995.
GRIFFIN, W.P., The God of the Prophets: An Analysis of Divine Action, JSOT-
Sup 249, Academic, Sheffield 1997.
HESCHEL, A.J., The Prophets, Harper & Row, New York 1962.
KOCH, K., The Prophets, I-II, SCM, Fortress, Philadelphia 1982.
LINDBLOM, J., Prophecy in Ancient Israel, Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1973.
MCKANE, W., Prophets and Wise Men, SCM, London 1965.
MONLOUBOU, L., Los profetas del Antiguo Testamento, Span. trans. by N.
Darrical, Verbo Divino, Estella 61994.
NEWSOME, J.D., The Hebrew Prophets, John Knox, Atlanta 1984.
PETERSEN, D.L., The Role of Israel’s Prophets, JSOTSup 17, JSOT, Sheffield
1981.
— (ed.), Prophecy in Israel. Search for an Identity, Fortress, Philadelphia
1987.
SAWYER, J.F.A., Prophecy and the Prophets of the Old Testament, Oxford
Bible Series, Oxford University, Oxford 1987.
SMITH, G.V., The Prophets as Preachers. An Introduction to the Hebrew
Prophets, Broadman-Holman, Nashville 1994.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE THESIS 21
ALLEN, L.C., Ezekiel 1-19, World Bible Commentary, Word Books, Dallas
1994.
— Ezekiel 20-48, World Bible Commentary, Word Books, Dallas 1990.
ASURMENDI RUIZ, J., Ezequiel, in W.R. Farmer (ed.), Comentario Bíblico
Internacional. Comentario católico y ecuménico para el siglo XXI, Verbo
Divino, Estella 1999, pp. 959-89.
BLENKINSOPP, J., Ezekiel. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching
and Preaching, John Knox, Louisville 1990.
BLOCK, D.I., The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24, The New International
Commentary on the Old Testament, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1997.
— The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48, The New International Commen-
tary on the Old Testament, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1998.
BOADT, L., Ezekiel, in R.E. BROWN (ed.), The New Jerome Biblical Com-
mentary, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1990, pp. 305-28.
BROWNLEE, W.H., The Book of Ezekiel, in C.M. LAYMON (ed.), The Inter-
preter’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible, Collins, London 1972,
pp. 411-35.
BRUCE, F.F., Ezekiel, in F.F. BRUCE, G.D.C. HOWLEY, H.L. ELLISON (eds.),
The International Biblical Commentary, Zondervan, Grand Rapids
1988, pp. 807-46.
CARLEY, K.W., The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, in Cambridge Bible Com-
mentary on the New English Bible, Cambridge University, Cambridge
1974.
CLEMENTS, R.E., Ezekiel, Westminster Bible Companion. 1996.
CODY, A., Ezekiel: With Excursus on Old Testament Priesthood, Old Testa-
ment Message 11, Michael Glazier, Wilmington 1984.
COOKE, G.A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel,
in S.R. DRIVER, A. PLUMMER (eds.), The International Critical Com-
mentary, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh 1965.
COOPER, L.E., Ezekiel, in The New American Commentary 17, Broadman
& Holman, Nashville 1994.
22 RAMIL COSTIBOLO NICAL
CRAIGIE, P.C., Ezekiel, The Daily Study Bible Series, John Knox, Lousville
1983.
DARR, K.P., The Book of Ezekiel. Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,
in L.E. Keck (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Bible, VI, Abingdon, Nashville
2001, pp. 1073-1607.
DUGUID, I.M., Ezekiel, in T. MUCK (ed.), The NIV Application Commen-
tary Series, Zondervan, Grand Rapids 1999.
EICHRODT, W., Ezekiel. A Commentary, Westminster, Philadelphia 1970.
FICH, S., Ezekiel, in Soncino Bible, Soncino, London 1950.
FOHRER, G., GALLING, K., Ezechiel, HAT 13, Mohr, Tübingen 21955.
GREENBERG, M., Ezekiel 1-20, in W.-F. ALBRIGHT and D.N. FREEDMAN
(eds.), Anchor Bible 22, Doubleday, New York 1983.
— Ezekiel 21-37, in W.-F. ALBRIGHT and D.N. FREEDMAN (eds.), Anchor
Bible 22A, Doubleday, New York 1997.
HERMANN, J., Ezechiel, ubersetzt und erklart, KAT, Keichert, Leipzig 1924.
KEIL, C.F., Biblical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, Eng. trans. by J.
Martin, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1950.
MAY, H.G., The Book of Ezekiel, in G.A. BUTTRICK, W.R. BOWKE (eds.),
The Interpreter’s Bible, VI, Abingdon, Nashville 1956, pp. 41-338.
MILGROM, J. Leviticus 1-16, in W. F. ALBRIGHT and D.N. Freedman (eds.),
Anchor Bible 3, Doubleday, New York 1991.
MUILENBURG, J., Ezekiel, in M. BLACK and H.H. ROWLEY (eds.), Peake’s
Commentary on the Bible, Nelson, London 1962, pp. 568-90.
STALKER, D.M., Ezekiel. Introduction and Commentary, in Torch Bible Com-
mentaries, SCM, London 1968.
VAWTER, B., HOPE, L.J., A New Heart. A Commentary on the Book of
Ezekiel, International Theological Commentary, Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids 1991.
WEVERS, J.W., Ezekiel, in New Century Bible, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids
1982 (repr.).
WILSON, R.R., Ezekiel, in J.L. MAYS (ed.), Harper’s Bible Commentary,
Harper & Row, San Francisco 1988, pp. 652-94.
ZIMMERLI, W., Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel,
Chapters 1-24, Eng. trans. by R.E. Clements, Hermeneia, Fortress, Phi-
ladelphia 1979.
— Ezekiel II: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters
25-48, Eng. trans. by J.D. Martin, Hermeneia, Fortress, Philadelphia
1983.
FOX, M.V., The Rhetoric of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Valley of Dry Bones, HUCA
51 (1980) 1-15.
FREEDMAN, D.N., The Book of Ezekiel, IBC 8 (1954) 446-471.
FREEDY, K.S., The Glosses in Ezekiel I-XXIV, VT 20 (1970) 129-52.
FUJITA, S., The Temple Theology of the Qumran Sect and the Book of Ezekiel:
Their Relationship to Jewish Literature of the Last Two Centuries B.C.,
diss., Princeton University 1970.
GALAMBUSH, J., Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife,
SBLDS 130, Scholars, Atlanta 1992.
GARSCHA, G., Studien zum Ezekielbuch: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Unter-
suchung von Ez 1-39, Peter Lang, Bern 1974.
GASTER, Th., Ezekiel and the Mysteries, JBL 60 (1941) 289-310.
GESE, H., Der Verfassungsentwurf des Ezechiel (Kap. 40-48) traditions-
geschichtlich Untersucht, BHTh 25, Mohr, Tübingen 1957, pp. 109-15.
GORDIS, R., The Branch to the Nose, JOTS 37 (1936) 284-88.
— A Note on YAD, JBL 62 (1943) 341-44.
GOUDOEVER, J. VAN, Ezekiel Sees in Exile a New Temple-City at the Begin-
ning of a Jobel Year, BETL 74 (1986) 344-49.
GREENBERG, M., The Vision of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 8-11: A Holistic Interpre-
tation, in J.L. CRENSHAW and S. SANDMEL (eds.), The Divine Helsman:
Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Festschrift L. H. Silberman,
Ktav, New York 1980, pp. 143-64.
— On Ezekiel’s Dumbness, JBL 77 (1958) 101-05.
— The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration [40-48], Int 38
(1984) 181-208.
GREENSPOON, D., The Prophet as Watcher, JBQ 27 (1999) 29-35.
HABEL, N., The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives, ZAW 77
(1965) 297-323.
HALPERIN, D.J., The Exegetical Character of Ezek X 9-17, VT 26 (1976)
124-41.
— The Faces of the Chariot. Early Jewish Response to Ezekiel’s Vision, Mohr,
Tübingen 1988.
HALS, R.M., Ezekiel, FOTL, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1989.
HARAN, M., The Law Code of Ezekiel XL-XLVIII and its Relation to the
Priestly School, HUCA 50 (1979) 45-71.
— Temple and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult
Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School, Clarendon,
Oxford 1978.
HARLAND, P.J., A Land Full of Violence: The Value of Human Life in the
Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, in P.J. HARLAND, C.T.R. HAYWARD (eds.),
New Heaven and New Earth: Prophecy and the Millennium, Essays in Ho-
nour of Anthony Gelston, VTSup 77 (1999) 113-27.
HERNTRICH, V., Ezechielprobleme, BZAW 61, Töpelmann, Giessen 1932,
pp. 37-130.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE THESIS 27
KRASOVEC, J., Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness: The Thinking and Be-
liefs of Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views, VTSup 78,
Brill, Leiden 1999.
KUTSKO, J.F., Will the Real selem ‘elohim Please Stand up?: The Image of God
in the Book of Ezekiel, in SBL 1998 Seminar Papers, Scholars, Atlanta
1998, pp. 86-105.
— Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of
Ezekiel, Biblical Judaic Studies 7, Eisenbrauns, Winona 2000.
LANG, B., A Neglected Method in Ezekiel Research: Editorial Criticism, VT
29 (1979) 39-44.
LEMKE, W.E., Life in the Present and Hope for the Future, Int 38 (1984)
165-80.
LEVENSON, J.D., Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48,
HSM 10, Scholar’s, Missoula 1976.
LINDARS, B., Ezekiel and Individual Responsibility, VT 15 (1965) 452-67.
LUNDQUIST, J.M., What is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology, in H.B. HOFF-
MON, F.A. SPINA, A.R.W. GREEN (eds.), The Quest for the Kingdom of
God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, Eisenbrauns, Winona
Lake, pp. 205-19.
LUST, J. (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and
Their Interrelation, BETL 74, Leuven University, Leuven 1986.
LUTZKY, H.C., The Image of Jealousy (Eze 8:3, 5), VT 46 (1996) 121-24.
MATTHEWS, I.G., Ezekiel, American Baptist Publication Society, Philadel-
phia 1939.
MAZAR, A., Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000 – 586 B.C.E., Dou-
bleday, Garden City 1990.
MAY, H.G., Some Aspects of Solar Worship at Jerusalem, ZAW 55 (1936)
269-81.
— The Departure of the Glory of Yahweh, JBL 56 (1937) 309-21.
— Some Cosmic Connotations of «Mayim Rabbim», «Many Waters», JBL 74
(1955) 9-21.
MCIVER, R.K., Ezekiel: Through Crisis to Glory, Abundant Life Bible Am-
plifier, diss., Pacific, Oshawa 1997.
MCKEATING, H., Ezekiel, in R.N. WHYBRAY (ed.), Old Testament Guides,
Sheffield Academic, Sheffield 1995.
— Ezekiel The «Prophet Like Moses»?, JSOT 61 (1994) 97-109.
MEIN, A.R., Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile, diss., Oxford University, 1997.
MEGER, T.A., The Notion of Divine Glory in the Hebrew Bible, diss., Lo-
vaina 1965.
MESSEL, N., Ezechielfragen, Dybwad, Oslo 1945.
METTINGER, T.N.D., The Dethronement of Sebaoth: Studies in the Shem and
Kabod Theologies, Gleerup, Lund 1982.
MILGROM, J., The Priestly Doctrine of Repentance, RB 82 (1975) 186-205.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE THESIS 29
2 Th 2 Thessalonians
1 Tim 1 Timothy
2 Tim 2 Timothy
2 Jn 2 John
3 Jn 3 John
Job Job
Jon Jonah
Jos Joshua
1 Kgs 1 Kings
2 Kgs 2 Kings
Lam Lamentations
Lev Leviticus
Lk Luke
Mal Malachi
Mk Mark
Mt Matthew
Mic Micah
Nah Nahum
Neh Nehemiah
Num Numbers
Obd Obadiah
1 Pet 1 Peter
2 Pet 2 Peter
Phm Philemon
Phil Philippians
Pro Proverbs
Ps(s) Psalm(s)
Rev Revelation
Rom Romans
Ru Ruth
1 Sam 1 Samuel
Titus Titus
Tob Tobit
Wis Wisdom
Zec Zechariah
Zep Zephaniah
3. OTHER ABBREVIATIONS
A = Aramaic; adj = adjective; art = article; adv. = adverb; B.C.E. = before
the Common Era; c(c). = columns; C.E. = Common Era; cf. = confer; conj
= conjuction; consec = consecutive; constr = construct; diss. = doctoral dis-
sertation; ed(s). = editor(s); e.g. = exempli gratia (for example); Eng. trans. =
English translation; fem = feminine; ff. = following; G = Septuagint; GB =
Codex Vaticanus; ibid. = ibidem (in the same work); i.e. = id est (that is);
imperf. = imperfect; K = Kethib; L = Codex Leningradensis; MS(S) = Man-
uscript(s); MSSKen = Kennicot Manuscripts; masc = masculine; OT = Old
Testament; P = Priestly Source; perf = perfect; p(p). = page(s); part = par-
ticiple; pers = person; plu = plural; Q = Qere; repr = reprint; S = Syriac;
Span. trans. = Spanish translation; sing = singular; T = Targum; TM = Tex-
tus Masoreticus; trans = translation; V = Vulgate; Vrs. = versions; v(v). =
verse(s).
DEPARTURE OF THE KEBOD YHWH FROM
THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM
5 Then he said to me, «Son of man, raise your eyes now toward2 the
north». So I lifted up my eyes toward the north, and behold, to the
north of the altar3 gate, the image of jealousy was at the entrance4.
6 He said to me, «Son of man, do you see what they are doing? The
great abominations which the house of Israel5 are committing here, to
drive me away from my sanctuary? Yet you will see still greater abomi-
nations».
40 RAMIL COSTIBOLO NICAL
B. Structure
This part of Ezekiel’s first Temple vision presents the four cultic
abominations commited by the house of Israel against the sovereign-
ty of YHWH. It fully clarifies the repeated description of Israel’s re-
belliousness in the inaugural vision and serves as the foundation why
the kebod YHWH intends to leave the Temple of Jerusalem. This im-
portant point can be amply seen in our discussion of the theological
significance of the abominations shown to the prophet in Eze 8:5-
18. To establish the relationship of this narrative with the Temple of
Jerusalem, I would like to present some observations.
porting this position is the claim that the narrative of Eze 8 stands in
contrast with the data from Jeremiah and Lamentations and there-
fore its veracity seems questionable36. But, as M. Greenberg correctly
observes, the point of the vision is to present vividly the cultic de-
pravity of the sanctuary and thus predicts its doom as something ir-
revocable37. I. M. Duguid takes the same position, by stating that
they should not be regarded as descriptions of actual events taking
place in the Temple in the time of Ezekiel. This does not imply that
Ezekiel’s narrative was false, nor does this makes the prophet a «liar».
Ezekiel’s purpose was not to preserve historical data but to convict
Judah of cultic sin and thus provide a theological rationale for the de-
struction of Jerusalem38.
Corollary to this, in the discussion of the inaugural vision, we ex-
plained that the predominance of the number four in the description
of the living creatures implies totality39. If we apply the same symbol-
ism in the incidence of four cultic abominations, the scene clearly ex-
presses the totality of the religious and cultic corruptions of the peo-
ple. Israel is corrupted through and through. This obliges YHWH,
the Holy One of Israel, to abandon them to their fate and thus leaves
no doubt the irrevocability of the impending destruction which the
people richly deserves for their sins. In this way, Ezekiel reinterpreted
the historical tragedy of Israel from a religio-cultual perspective.
god Tammuz. The place where the worship is located manifests their
loss of faith: at the very entrance to YHWH’s sacred sanctuary, they
are weeping for another god. Their cultic action does not only mani-
fest their lack of faith but also their lack of understanding of the na-
ture of the God of Israel. The God of Israel is above all the «living
God»74. To worship a dying god in the very house of the living God
of Israel is a direct and double affront to YHWH’s sovereignty and
power over Israel and all creation. Israel have lost confidence in the
power of the living God, but their substitute for him was a god
whose power oscillates from life to death and then back from death
to life, according to the rhythm of nature. As T. Jacobsen explains:
«In the cult drama of the death of the god and lament for him, cele-
brated at the end of spring, the loss of the god, the waning of power
for new life in nature, is counteracted by mourning and lament»75.
Thus, their substitute god, supposedly restored to life aided by ritual
weeping of his devotees, is clearly inferior to YHWH and could not
even be considered a god in the strict sense. The succeeding chapters
will amply show the folly and uselessness of their action. The god
from whom they expect life and blessings will, in fact, be the cause of
their death and destruction.
d. worship of the sun (v. 16). The last act of abomination concerns
the twenty-five sun-worshipers in the inner court, between the inner
porch and the altar, with their backs to the sanctuary. The identity of
these men are not given but their number invites immediate associa-
tion with the twenty-five men, who appear in Eze 11:1, designated as
the «princes of the people» (~[©h© yref©). Although this identification
is attractive, it cannot be confirmed by the absence of a more specific
evidence76. Furthermore, their location in a place normally reserved
for the priests, and thus of special sanctity77, argues against this iden-
tification. The suggestion that they are the representatives of the
twenty-four priestly courses led by the high priest seems also incon-
clusive, since the institution came into existence later78. Despite the
uncertainty of their identity, we can deduce from the text that, since
they conducted the ritual in this place of special sanctity, they must
be a body of official standing in Israel.
They are depicted to be bowing to the sun in worship. This solar
rite is not new to the Temple precinct for 2 Kgs 23:11 narrates that
during Josiah’s reform, the king did away with the horses and burned
the chariots dedicated to the sun-god, Shemesh79. Whether they are
worshipping the sun as such, or whether they worshipped the sun as a
symbol of God80, it cannot be known for certain; if it was the latter,
THE DEPARTURE OF THE KEBOD YHWH FROM THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM 47
In the OT, the holiness of God as his proper nature is seen in the
passages where YHWH «has sworn by his holiness»90 and where he
affirms that he is «God and not man, the holy one present among»91
his people. It is therefore a quality unique to YHWH for, «there is no
Holy One like the Lord»92. When YHWH shows himself to be holy,
he demonstrates his divinity93. This is always a demonstration of
power directed to some purpose worthy of his divinity. He shows his
holiness in his protection and deliverance94, which is the great work
of his justice95 and his faithfulness96. Thus his holiness is often men-
tioned in contexts where the restoration of Israel occurs; for this
restoration is the establishment of an order in which his moral will is
supreme and his power over the forces of evil is asserted97. It is in the
holiness of YHWH where the trust in the salvation of Israel and
promises of restoration are founded98.
Persons or objects which are said to be holy derive their holiness
in relation to YHWH. The Temple, its personnel and the furniture
of the cult belong to YHWH, for, in some way or another, they con-
tain and manifest the presence and power of the numinous. The ho-
liness of persons or objects is therefore not part of their essence nor
an attribute but an effect of their relation (or contact) with the di-
vine99. Most occurrences of the word are found in liturgical con-
texts100. It is not surprising therefore that in the statistics provided by
Muller, among the OT books which contains the word vdq and its
derivatives, Leviticus comes first with a hundred fifty-two (152), fol-
lowed by Ezekiel with a hundred and five (105)101. The fact that
these two books are written within the context of the cult developed
in the Temple of Jerusalem affirms the term’s association with the
cult and also suggests the perspective from where it shall be best un-
derstood.
The basic Priestly conviction here is that the «wholly other» de-
sires to have fellowship with sinful humanity. Since God cannot be-
come less holy in order to establish this fellowship, man must there-
fore become more holy («sanctified»)102; once gained, holiness may
be lessened or contaminated by contact with various proscribed sub-
stances and by feeling, thinking, or acting in ways that God has for-
bidden (impurity)103. Once the sphere of the holy is infringed by the
impure, the fellowship established between man and YHWH deity is
in peril and disastrous consequences can be expected. In the Priestly
cosmogony, impurity is a dynamic and malefic force which attacks
the sphere of the holy not just by direct contact but from a dis-
tance104. In this conception, the «impure» acquires the malefic power
THE DEPARTURE OF THE KEBOD YHWH FROM THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM 49
5. Israel’s sins were not only cultic but also social. The total corrupt-
ness of the people is further enforced by Ezekiel when he did not
THE DEPARTURE OF THE KEBOD YHWH FROM THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM 51
limit their sins to cultic offenses but that they also «fill the land with
violence»131. The phrase used here is: sm©x© #r,a©h©-ta, Wal.m-yKi. This
recalls the same phrase used in Gen 6:11 to describe the violence that
provoked the cleansing of the land with a flood during the time of
Noah: sm©x© #r,a©h© aleM©Ti. This phrase may have been used precisely
to recall the event of the Flood and warn them of the gravity of their
sins which now reach the level where total destruction was the only
option. The term sm©x© («treat or act violently»), in the context of
the verse and its usual usage, suggests ethical sins. But it does not
simply mean oppression against one’s fellow, for, in a more theologi-
cal sense, it could mean that which constitutes a direct violation of
the order established by God132. It is therefore a term endowed with a
deeper religious sense than merely socio-ethical violations. Thus, al-
though the condemnation now directly addresses the relationship be-
tween Israelites (i.e., social in nature), it is still expressed in a priestly
religious language. This theological perspective is consonant with
what we have already noted in the four cultic abominations, that is,
not to narrate the historical sins of Israel but to show their theologi-
cal depravity before YHWH. For Ezekiel, then, the sins of Israel are
not only against their covenant relationship with YHWH but against
the order established by God for them. The violation of this estab-
lished order may be expressed in many forms, ranging from the ethi-
cal (e.g., extreme wickedness, malicious witness/judicial murder, in-
stitutional injustice, injurious language, etc.) to the physical (e.g.,
physical murder, apportation of other people’s land, etc.).
low Israelites138. The narratives of Eze 8:5-18 thus describe the rebel-
liousness of Israel. The elements used in this narratives further quali-
fy their rebellion as total. All these rebellious acts against YHWH,
their sovereign God will surely not go unpunished.
D. Summary
ratives will show that the this pericope theologically follows the affir-
mations of the previous pericopes, namely, that Israel’s religious de-
pravations are so grave and severe that YHWH is forced to leave his
dwelling place. The pericope is the central theme to which all the
narratives of the first Temple vision lead to. The vision of YHWH’s
departure affirms the gravity of Israel cultic transgressions and the
break in relationship between them and YHWH. The vision thus
culminates YHWH’s judgment against his rebellious people. It also
serves as a sign of the certainty of judgment and punishment for Is-
rael in the historical level.
1 Then I looked, and behold, on the firmament that was above the
heads of the cherubim like sapphire-stone, with the appearance of146 the
likeness of a throne visible147 above them148.
2 And he said to the man clothed in linen, and said149, «Enter be-
tween the wheels beneath the cherub150; and fill your hands with burn-
ing coals from among the cherubim, and scatter them over the city». He
went in as I looked on.
3 Now the cherubim were standing on the south side of the Temple
when the man entered; and the cloud filled the inner court.
4 Then the glory of the Lord rose up from the cherub to the thresh-
old of the Temple; the house was filled with the cloud, and the court
was full of the brightness of the glory of the Lord.
5 And the sound of the wings of the cherubim was heard as far as the
outer court, like the voice of God Almighty when he speaks.
6 And it came to pass, when he commanded the man clothed in
linen151, «Take fire from within the wheels, between the cherubim»,
then he entered and stood beside a wheel.
7 Then the cherub stretched out his hand from between the cheru-
bim152 to the fire that was between the cherubim, took and put it into
the hands of the man clothed in linen153, who took it and went out.
8 And there appeared154 in the cherubim the form of hand of a man
under their wings.
9 Then I looked, and behold four wheels beside the cherubim, one
wheel beside each cherub; and the appearance of the wheels was like the
sparkle of beryl stone.
10 And as their appearance, the four had one155 likeness, something
like a wheel within a wheel.
THE DEPARTURE OF THE KEBOD YHWH FROM THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM 55
B. Structure
The third part of the Temple vision narrative172 narrates the burn-
ing of Jerusalem173, the departure of the kebod YHWH174, and the de-
scription of the cherubim and wheels175. The transition in the narra-
tive is signalled by the phrase, «I looked and behold» (hNEhwi > ha,ra> w, ©)176.
The presence of this phrase in Eze 10:1, 9, on the one hand, signals
the presence of transition in the continuity of the narratives found in
chapter 8-9, and, on the other, it effectively divides chapter 10 into
56 RAMIL COSTIBOLO NICAL
it had been interrupted (10:19a); hence arose the present form of the
text, which gives the impression that the departure took place in two
stages. In other words, 10:19b and 11:22 are secondary, and are due
to the insertion of 11:1-21188. Eze 11:22-25 should have followed
10:19 if not for the insertion of 11:1-21.
D. Summary
reached Eze 10. The presence of two transitional phrases at the be-
ginning and middle of the chapter manifest the composite nature of
the narratives contained therein. Nevertheless, the two sections of
the chapter contain descriptions of the kebod YHWH and its bearers
that strongly recall and complements the descriptions contained in
the inaugural vision. This literary connection, editorial or otherwise,
encourages any reader of the canonical book of Ezekiel to consider
the pericope as part of the Temple vision and as necessarily connect-
ed with the inaugural vision.
Like the preceding two pericopes (i.e., cultic abominations and
their punishments) studied, the present pericope, which deals with
YHWH’s command for the linen clothed man to scatter fire over the
city is also placed within the Temple precincts. If, death and destruc-
tion was YHWH’s reponse to Israel’s cultic abominations; the pre-
sent pericope serves as the cultic counterpart of purification to the
defilement YHWH ordered in Eze 9. This interpretation seems to be
behind the act of scattering (qr;z©) fire over the city, in which both el-
ements have cultic implications. Interpreting this action as cultic in
nature is further strengthened by the linen cloth, normally worn by
priests in the book of Ezekiel, that the man wears. Thus, Ezekiel’s in-
terpretation of history is markedly Temple centered, that is, from the
cultic perspective.
CONCLUSIONS
1. This vision of and in the Temple affirms that there was indeed a breach in the
covenant relationship between YHWH and the house of Israel. The rebelliousness
of Israel, YHWH’s general accusation in the inaugural vision, is now clarified and
further specified. It was from this perspective that the graphic descriptions of Is-
rael’s cultic sins and their corresponding punishment can be best understood.
They serve to manifest, explain and justify why Jerusalem and the Temple have to
be destroyed and its people be driven to exile. All these points are gathered togeth-
er in one theological imagery, that is, the departure of the kebod YHWH from the
Temple of Jerusalem.
2. Ezekiel uses %r,D, as a preposition especially in chaps. 40-48.
3. Rather than «altar», G LD S has xr©z>Mhi ,; «east». But, in our opinion, the reading of
TM is valid.
4. Is not found in G. BHK suggests that the phrase should probably be read Aabom.B
hyh. Eze 8:5b should be better translated as, «So I lifted up my eyes toward the
north, and behold to the north of the altar gate, the image of jealousy was at the
entrance».
5. Is ommited in G possibly because it is considered as a gloss from the margin. Cf.
G.A. COOKE, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, in S.R.
DRIVER, A. PLUMMER (eds.), The International Critical Commentary, T. & T.
Clark, Edinburgh 1965, p. 92 (onwards will be cited as G.A. COOKE, Ezekiel,
ICC).
6. G depicts the scene less extraordinary by omitting this phrase (v. 7b) and through
the wall twice in v. 8. Cf. G.A. COOKE, Ezekiel, ICC, p. 93.
7. Is omitted in G LD. Cf. G.A. COOKE, Ezekiel, ICC, p. 93.
8. Is omitted in G.
9. Is not found in GB LD manuscripts. This adjective is superflous and may have come
from the margin and is not found in v. 17. Cf. G.A. COOKE, Ezekiel, ICC, p. 94.
10. Is not found in G. Freedy regards the phrase as an explicative gloss based on Deut
4:16-18. Cf. K. S. FREEDY, The Glosses in Ezekiel I-XXIV, VT 20 (1970) 150 (on-
wards will be cited as K. S. FREEDY, «Glosses in Ezekiel»).
11. The word used here is hQ,xum (pual participle masc sing, from the verb hqx verb).
This word is better rendered in English as carved rather than portrayed or painted.
This word may be intentionally used to capture the gravity of Israel’s idolatry. It is
not just «superficial», as the terms «portrayed» or «painted» may suggest, but
something deeper and more permanent, as the term carved implies.
12. G instead translates wyl©[©, «on it» (l[; preposition suffix: 3rd pers masc sing).
66 RAMIL COSTIBOLO NICAL
13. The translation «all around» is achieved from the repetition of the same adverb by-
bis© bybis©. But G omits the first bybis©, rendering simply «around».
14. Since this clause disrupts the flow of thought, separating ‘omedim from its subject,
it is often deleted as a gloss. BHS suggests that it should be deleted like G.
15. This is not found in G LD, though this recalls the cloud of incense in Lev 16:13
which protects the High Priest Aron at the altar before the presence of the Lord.
16. GA translates not %v,xoB;, «in the dark» but hPo, «there» (adverb). G renders it
kruptw/, «secret, hidden, private; inward, inmost». Thus, it seems that the main
idea is not about literal darkness but something done in secret or hidden. On the
other hand, GB omits the word altogether. Eichrodt replaces bahosek with poh, af-
ter the pattern of vv. 6, 9, 17. Cf. W. EICHRODT, Ezekiel. A Commentary, West-
minster, Philadelphia 1970, p. 106 (onwards will be cited as W. EICHRODT,
Ezekiel).
17. It should be better read as rd;xB] ,; «chamber» (common noun masc sing) like G S T
V. TM has yredx> B; ,. «chambers» (common noun masc plu constr).
18. Is not found in G. This agrees well with the phrase found in Eze 9:9: «The Lord
has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see!».
19. In distinction with TM, G dropped the article h; to the common noun plural
~yviN©, «women».
20. The phrase is zWMT;h;-ta, tAKb;m., with the sign of the direct object and the article on
the Tammuz. Thus literally should be translated as, «weeping for the tammuz».
This opened up a lot of possible interpretations. For Block, the «Tammuz» men-
tioned here denoted a special genre of lament rather than the deity himself. He
proved this by mentioning the preceding verse whose main idea was the affirma-
tion that YHWH has abandoned the land and consequently, the women either
equated YHWH with Tammuz or are expressing their grief at YHWH’s departure
through a Tammuz ritual. Cf. D.I. BLOCK, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24,
The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids, 1997, p. 295 (onwards will be cited as D.I. BLOCK, Ezekiel 1-24,
NICOT). Though the interpretation was attractive and logical, the connection
between the two scenes of idolatry (or the whole series of abominations that oc-
cured in this chapter) was far from established. Another thing, the attachment of
the article «the» may be an effort to trivialize the pagan deity and the practices at-
tached to his worship. Thus, the phrase «weeping for the tammuz», was intended
to reduce him to just a fetish, rather than a god. Nevertheless, the majority of
translations have «weeping for Tammuz», maintaining the reference to the
Sumerian deity. Cf. B. PRITCHARD (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the
Old Testament, Princenton University, Princeton 31969. pp. 265-66 (onwards
will be cited as B. PRITCHARD, ANET3). For a critical rendering of the text see T.
JACOBSEN, The Sumerian King List, Oriental Institute Assyriological Studies 11,
University Press, Chicago 1939. On the biblical evidence for Tammuz, see E. M.
YAMAUCHI, «Tammuz and the Bible», JBL 84 (1965) 283-290. On Tammuz and
his cult in Mesopotamia, see T. JACOBSEN, «Toward the Image of Tammuz», in
W.L. MORAN (ed.), Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopota-
mian History and Culture, Cambridge University, Cambridge 1970.
21. This is not found in two Hebrew manuscripts and in GB. In effect, they only pre-
sent twenty men facing towards the sun in the east. Other translators follow the G
reading of «twenty», arguing that this represents a better approximation than
«twenty-five». Cf. G.A. COOKE, Ezekiel, ICC, p. 99; W. ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel I, p.
221. But Greenberg claims that «twenty-five» is a favored number in Ezekiel (e.g.,
NOTES 67
40:1, 13, 29, 45). Cf. M. GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1-20, in W.-F. ALBRIGHT, D.N.
FREEDMAN (eds.), Anchor Bible 22, Doubleday, New York 1983, p. 172 (on-
wards will be cited as M. GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1-20).
22. TM has ~t,ywIx]T;v.mi, but BHK suggests that the correct reading should be ~ywIx]T;v.mi
(hitpael part masc plu) like 15 MSS.
23. This is phrase is the second mention of the east in these verse and is thus reden-
dant and superflous. This is probably why it is deleted in GB.
24. In modern English means «trivial».
25. The critical apparatus of BHS and BHK opine that this is probably a later addition.
26. Jewish tradition regards the suffix of ’appam «their nose» as a euphemism (tiqqun
soperim) for ’appi «my nose». A later scribe may have intentionally modified this to
remove an objectionable anthropomorphism and thus protect the dignity and
honor of YHWH. Cf. D.I. BLOCK, Ezekiel 1-24, NICOT, p. 297. For a discus-
sion on such intentional alterations, see E. WURTHWEIN, The Text of the Old Tes-
tament, Eng. trans. by E. F. Rhodes, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1979, pp. 18-19.
Thus this phrase, if literally read, should be to «my nose». Its exact meaning is ob-
scure though in a general sense could be understood as «goad to fury». Greenberg
opines that this obscure expression, «putting the branch to their noses», is not
connected with temple abominations but with social wrongdoings. Cf. M.
GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1-20, AB, pp. 172-73. Efforts to find meaning through com-
parisons with ancient Near East cultic gestures (taking the gesture as an idolatrous
rite) have proven fruitless and unsatisfactory. But such gesture is known among
agrico-pastoral societies, as a gesture to make fun of, irritate and even goad ani-
mals to fury. Probably the gesture has its origin in this agrico-pastoral settings.
27. G adds ~x<B©, «hot».
28. This half of the verse is deleted in G. This is often deleted as a premature anticipa-
tion of 9:1. Cf. W. EICHRODT, Ezekiel. A Commentary, Westminster, Philadelphia
1970, p. 108 (onwards will be cited as W. EICHRODT, Ezekiel).
29. Cf. Eze 8:3b, 7a, 14a, 16aa.
30. Cf. Eze 8:5a, 9.
31. Cf. Eze 8: 5b, 10-11, 14b, 16abb.
32. Cf. Eze 8: 6a, 12, 15a, 17a.
33. Cf. Eze 8:6bb, 13b, 15b. For further discussion, see KA LEUNG WONG, The Idea
of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel, VTSup 87, Brill, Leiden 2001, p. 158.
34. Cf. Eze 1:15-17.
35. Contrary to efforts which try to integrate them into one cultic act with successive
phases, J. Blenkinsopp suggests that they should be regarded separately and take
them «as examples of the disintegration of the cultic and religious life of Judah
during the last quarter of a century of its independent existence». J. BLENKINSOPP,
Ezekiel, p. 54.
36. C. C. Torrey is the first one to suggest that the depicted cultic abuses in chapters
8-11 do not refer to the time of Ezekiel but is more appropriate to the reign of
Manasseh, since such deplorable state of affairs was not mentioned by Jeremiah
and Kings. Cf. C. C. TORREY, Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy, Yale Uni-
versity, New Haven 1930; Ktav, New York 1970 (repr.), p. 48 (onwards will be
cited as C. C. TORREY, Pseudo-Ezekiel). A similar motivation led R. S. Foster to
locate a sitz im leben for these abominations in the pre-Nehemiah period, i.e., mid
5th century B.C.E. Cf. R. S. FOSTER, The Restoration of Israel. A Study in Exile and
Return, London 1970, p. 181f.
37. Cf. M. GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1-20, AB, pp. 201-2.
68 RAMIL COSTIBOLO NICAL
38. Cf. I.M. DUGUID, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, VTSup 61, Brill, London
1994, pp. 67-68 (onwards will be cited as I. M. DUGUID, Ezekiel and the Leaders
of Israel); also, K. P. DARR, Ezekiel, NIB, p. 1172. The theological purpose of the
account thus far outweighed the factual veracity of the account. We have to re-
member that Ezekiel was trying to give an explanation of the recent historical
events from the priestly perspective, which was expectedly theological. The main
purpose in his interpretation of history was to save the sovereignty of YHWH, the
faith of Israel vis a vis its a identity as a people of God. To achieve this, Ezekiel
reinterpreted history using the resources in his hand, that is, the priestly tradition
and delivering them through prophetic form. Whether this reflected reality, this
was beside the point.
39. This understanding of the number four as signifying totality may come from the
understanding that four represents the number of the cardinal points. Cf. J. ASUR-
MENDI RUIZ, Ezequiel, in W.R. FARMER (ed.), Comentario Bíblico Internacional.
Comentario católico y ecuménico para el siglo XXI, Verbo Divino, Estella 1999, p.
965 (onwards will be cited as J. ASURMENDI RUIZ, Ezequiel, CBI); W. ZIMMERLI,
Ezekiel I, p. 120.
40. Or hb©[eAt. The word can be translated as a noun: «disgusting thing» or «abomina-
tion»; or, as an adjective: «abominable». Thus, understood in a ritual sense, the term
may refer to unclean food, idols and mixed marriages; if taken in ethical sense, this
could refer to any act of wickedness and social injustice. The term is basically used
in the OT to designate those who by its very nature was excluded as dangerous.
Since its nature is incompatible with the nature of YHWH, they are rejected by
him. When Israel commits them or allows them to exist in their midst, the relation-
ship between Israel and YHWH was placed in jeopardy. It was not only in the the-
ological aspect that such danger was perceived, abominations (in the ethical/moral
sense) also destroyed the unity of the community. Cf. E. GERSTENBERGER, «b[t», in
E. JENNI, C. WESTERMANN (eds.), DTMAT, II, Cristiandad, Madrid 1985, cc.
1316-22 (onwards will be cited as E. GERSTENBERGER, «b[t», DTMAT).
41. In the opinion of E. Gerstenberger, the term is more frequent in exilic texts which
has the theological preoccupation of presenting certain acts as taboo to be avoided
by the community. Cf. E. GERSTENBERGER, «b[t», DTMAT, cc. 1317-18.
42. Cf. Eze 8:6 (2x), 9, 13, 15, 17; 9:4.
43. E. GERSTENBERGER, «b[t», DTMAT, c. 1429.
44. The idea is from M.A. GRISANTI, «b[t», New International Dictionary of Old Tes-
tament and Exegesis, IV, pp. 314-18, and is adapted by KA LEUNG WONG, The
Idea of Retribution, p. 141.
45. Cf. W. ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel 1, p. 190.
46. The connection between abominable acts and their defiling power echoes the
Priestly texts. In particular, Lev 20:3 related the Molech cult to the defilement of
the sanctuary. Another reference is 2 Chr 36:14 where performing the abom-
inable acts of the nations will result in defiling God’s Temple. Cf. KA LEUNG
WONG, The Idea of Retribution, p. 141.
47. In fact, these evaluation of the sins of Israel, seen and expressed from the cultic
perspective, covers the whole book. H.G. McKeating rightly observes that the
condemnation of the people are all cultic related. They are condemned for profan-
ing the sabbath (llx 22:8), the sanctuary (23:39), and thereby profaning the
name of God (36:20-23). Cf. H. MCKEATING, Ezekiel, in R.N. Whybray (ed.),
Old Testament Guides, Sheffield Academic, Sheffield 1995, p. 88ff. (onwards
will be cited as H. MCKEATING, Ezekiel, OTG).
NOTES 69
48. The land has become detestable because of the pollution (Eze 36:25, 33). The
land which should have shown purity was unclean and this was caused in a large
part by the shedding of blood (Eze 33:25). The land should have been treated
with reverence because that was where God had chosen to dwell. Instead the place
had become an object of loathing because of the sin of the people. Such concepts
of purity were fundamental to the life of Israel, and the priesthood, of which
Ezekiel was a member, was entrusted with the task of maintaining the cleanliness
of the land. The corruption of Israel was so grave that the people had to be de-
stroyed and sent into exile. It was this state of uncleanness which was the cause of
the exile (Eze 36:17ff.). the profanation of the sanctuary was an insult to God, a
privation of the reverence due to him. Cf. P.J. HARLAND, A Land Full of Violence:
The Value of Human Life in the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, VTSup 77 (1999) 119
(onwards will be cited as P.J. HARLAND, «A Land full of Violence»).
49. Cf. J. MILGROM, Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly Picture of «Dorian Gray», RB 83
(1976) 397 (onwards will be cited as J. MILGROM, The Priestly Picture of «Dorian
Gray»).
50. ha©n>qi here can be rendered as «outrage». But since in the context of the passage it
expresses YHWH’s passionate resentment at seeing what is his being given to an-
other, it is more appropriately rendered as «jealousy». So also, M. GREENBERG,
Ezekiel 1-20, AB, p. 168. For further discussion, see G. SAUER, «ha©n>q», in E. JEN-
NI, C. WESTERMANN (eds.), Diccionario teológico manual del Antiguo Testamento,
II, Span. trans. by R. Godoy, Cristiandad, Madrid 1985, cc. 815-819 (onwards
will be cited as G. SAUER, «ha©n>q», DTMAT).
51. Cf. H.G. MAY, Ezekiel, IB, p. 106.
52. Cf. K.P. DARR, Ezekiel, NIB, p. 1175. Many scholars interpret it as Asherah, in
virtue of 2 Kgs 21:7 mention of a sculptured image (pesel) of Asherah that King
Manasseh set up in the Jerusalem Temple; which in 2 Chr 33:7, 15, this very im-
age is called (pesel has) semel- apparently reflecting our Ezekiel passage, and identi-
fying «the statue of outrage» with Manasseh’s image of the Canaanite goddess,
Asherah. The goddess seemed to have been popular among the Israelites for Josiah
also had had to remove it in his reformation (2 Kings 23:6). Jeremiah’s denuncia-
tion of the worship of the Queen of Heaven may also be related to this image (Jer
7:18; 44:17-30). The fact that the image’s identity seems to be assumed in the
context seems to favor this identification. P.C. Craigie, on the other hand, proves
the same identification but from a different perspective. He states that any image
can be the cause of divine jealousy. But if the expression can be translated to «im-
age of lust» rather than «image of jealousy», then this would certainly, he claimed,
to refer to Asherah, the Cananite goddess of love. Cf. P.C. CRAIGIE, Ezekiel,
DSBS, p. 57. This opinion is also shared by J. BLENKINSOPP, Ezekiel, p. 54.
53. M. Haran rejects outright the identification of the image as that of Asherah. He
argues that Ezekiel’s semel has nothing to do with Manasseh’s Asherah but is
merely a fanciful statue, in keeping with the essentially fictitious nature of the en-
tire portrayal of the situation in Jerusalem. Cf. M. HARAN, Temple and Temple-
Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical
Setting of the Priestly School, Clarendon, Oxford 1978, p. 283 (onwards will be cit-
ed as M. HARAN, Temple and Temple-Service).
54. Cf. A. SPATAFORA, From the «Temple of God» to God as the Temple. A Biblical The-
ological Study of the Temple in the Book of Revelation, diss., Pontificia Universita
Gregoriana, Roma 1997, p. 35 (onwards will be cited as A. SPATAFORA, From the
«Temple of God» to God as the Temple).
70 RAMIL COSTIBOLO NICAL
55. This idol provokes the Lord to jealousy, for he had declared to Israel that he alone
is their God (Exod 20:1-3) and that all forms of idolatry is forbidden (Deut 4:16;
32:16, 21; 1 Kings 14:22; Ps 78:58).
56. For example, Eze 14:6; 16:36; 18:12. Cf. E. GERSTENBERGER, «b[x», DTMAT, c.
1318.
57. Cf. Eze 8:3, 5.
58. Cf. G.A. COOKE, North Semitic Inscriptions, nos. 13, 23, 25, 27.
59. Cf. C. F. JEAN and J. HOFTIJZER, «sml», Dictionaire des inscriptions sémitiques de
l’ouest, Brill, Leiden 1965.
60. Cf. D.I. BLOCK, Ezekiel 1-24, NICOT, p. 281.
61. Cf. also Eze 39:2. In the Gog-Magog unit of narratives (Eze 38-39), the invader
was described as coming from the north. This belief is somehow echoed Jer 1:14
wherein YHWH said: «from the north evil will be poured out on all who live in
the land».
62. The subsequent abominations would fortify the presence of Israel’s conviction in
YHWH’s impotence. Nevertheless, Eze 9:1-11 would show how badly mistaken
they are. It is Israel’s idols that are powerless to prevent the destruction of the city
from YHWH’s agents of destruction. Cf. I.M. DUGUID, Ezekiel, in T. Muck
(ed.), The NIV Application Commentary Series, Zondervan, Grand Rapids
1999, p. 131 (onwards will be cited as I.M. DUGUID, Ezekiel, NIVACS).
63. In the OT, the term is often found in Genesis where it is clearly emphasized that
creeping things are created (Gen 1:27) and that YHWH has control life or death
over them (Gen 6:7, 20; 7:8, 23; 9:3). Thus, YHWH strongly prohibits any rep-
resentation of these created things as divinities (Deut 4:18).
64. The term used was #q,v,, «detestable things», a term which belongs to the priestly
arena. It was usually found in the book of Leviticus, where the prohibition for un-
clean foods are stated. Cf. Lev. 7:21;11:10, 12, 13, 20, 23, 41, 42.
65. K.W. CARLEY, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, in Cambridge Bible Commentary on
the New English Bible, Cambridge University, Cambridge 1974, p. 55 (onwards
will be cited as KW. CARLEY, Ezekiel, CBC). Albright also holds the same opinion
that this abomination is of Egyptian influence, recalling the serpent and animal
figures in the Book of the Dead and late magical representations. Cf. W. F. AL-
BRIGHT, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 166. He is followed by J. Blenk-
insopp who sees the scene as reminiscent of Egyptian burial chambers, the walls of
which are covered with brilliantly painted images of deities in animal form, in-
cluding Anubis, the jackal-headed god who weighed the souls of the dead. Cf. J.
BLENKINSOPP, Ezekiel, p. 55. For a dissenting opinion, see G.A. COOKE, Ezekiel,
ICC, p. 94.
66. Cf. J. BLENKINSOPP, Ezekiel, p. 55.
67. Cf. Eze 8:12.
68. One of them is expressly identified as Jaazaniah, who was designated the son of
Shaphan. The designation possibly associates him with the family that was promi-
nent in the reforms of Josiah in 2 Kgs 22:3-14. If this is the case, his presence
among the idolaters may point out to the extent of Israel religious and cultic
degradation that even those who were believed to be champions of YHWH’s or-
thodoxy are now part of the new abominations occuring in the Temple precincts.
69. For further discussions, see I.M. DUGUID, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, pp.
113-14.
70. Cf. D.I. BLOCK, Ezekiel 1-24, NICOT, p. 293. For example, in Num 16:12-13 in-
cense is used to ward off the plague which was killing the Israelites in the desert. This
NOTES 71
apotropaic function may also be behind the cultic instruction that Aaron should put
incense on the fire before the Lord so as to cover the mercy seat or else he will die
(Lev 16:12-13). It should be noted though that in Ps 141:2 incense is treated as a
symbol of prayer, probably because of the upward movement of the smoke.
71. For further discussions, see P.C. CRAIGIE, Ezekiel, DSBS, p. 61.
72. Tammuz is of Babylonian origin (Duzu or Dumuzi) linked with the seasonal cy-
cle of death and rebirth: «Essentially representing the cycle of the season, this veg-
etation deity was held to have been betrayed and killed in the summer, when the
land became parched and plant life dies away. But his sister Ishtar freed him from
the underworld and they married, giving rise to the new growth of the vegetation
in spring. At the time of his death each year women mourned in a customary dis-
play of grief, but that was in the moth called “Tammuz” (June-July) and not, as
here in the vision, two months later. Tammuz is an Assyrian name (the equivalent
of Baal in Syria and Dumuzi in Babylon) and the worship associated with him
was introduced to Israel during the 8th and 7th centuries. It also involved sexual
rites promoting the fertility of fields and herds, and it stands in stark contrast to
the worship of Israel’s “living God”, whose control of nature was quite indepen-
dent of a heavenly consort and of stimulation by the sexual activity of his people».
K.W. CARLEY, Ezekiel, CBC, p. 56.
73. Cf. D.I. BLOCK, Ezekiel 1-24, NICOT, pp. 294-96.
74. Cf. Pss 42:3; 84:3.
75. Cf. T. JACOBSEN, Toward the Image of Tammuz, pp. 73-103, esp., p. 100.
76. Cf. D.I. BLOCK, Ezekiel 1-24, NICOT, p. 297.
77. Cf. M. GREEBERG, Ezekiel 1-20, AB, p. 171. The place is the open space in the
court between the Temple porch and the altar of burnt offering, with which Ahaz
replaced the old, smaller bronze altar (2 Kgs 16:10-16). This location is invested
with special sanctity for it is the site of the priest’s lamentation at a public ceremo-
ny of repentance (Jl 2:17).
78. Cf. J. BLENKISOPP, Ezekiel, p. 56.
79. For a discussion, see H.G. MAY, Some Aspects of Solar Worship at Jerusalem, ZAW
55 (1937) 269-81 (onwards will be cited as H. G. MAY, Solar Worship).
80. Zimmerli raised the possibility that the participants may have intended their sun-
worship as a legitimate extension of their traditional faith. Cf. W. ZIMMERLI,
Ezekiel I, pp. 243-44.
81. Cf. 1 Kgs 8:29, 35; Dan 6:10.
82. Cf. Jer 2:27; 32:33; also 2 Chr 29:6.
83. Cf. L. C. ALLEN, Ezekiel 1-19, WBC, p. 145.
84. D.I. BLOCK, Ezekiel 1-24, NICOT, p. 297.
85. Cf. J. DE VAUX, Santo, in X. LÉON-DUFOUR (ed.), Vocabulario de teología bíblica,
Herder, Barcelona 1966, pp. 740-44; J.L. MCKENZIE, «Holy», Dictionary of the
Bible, Simon & Schuster, New York 1995 (1st Touchstone edition), pp. 365-67;
T.P. JENNEY, Holiness, Holy, in D. FREEDMAN et al. (eds.), Eerdmans Dictionary of
the Bible, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 2000, pp. 598-99 (onwards will be cited as
T.P. JENNEY, Holiness, Holy). The character of «apartness» of the holy should be
further qualified as «set apart from common use to the divine purpose». W.T.
SMITH, W.J. HARRELSON, Holiness, in J. HASTING (ed.), Dictionary of the Bible,
Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York 1963, p. 387. In OT, it is this positive conno-
tation of apartness upon which the stress is laid. For further treatment on the top-
ic of holiness, see also J.C. LAMBERT, Holiness, in J. ORR et al. (eds.), The Interna-
tional Standard Bible Encyclopedia, III, Hendrickson, Peabody 1994, pp. 1403-4.
72 RAMIL COSTIBOLO NICAL
86. Cf. H.-P. MULLER, «vdq», in JENNI, E., WESTERMANN, C. (eds.), Diccionario
teológico manual del Antiguo Testamento, II, Span. trans. by R. Godoy, Cristian-
dad, Madrid 1985, c. 742 (onwards wil be cited as H.-P. MULLER, «vdq», DT-
MAT).
87. Cf. Jgs 6:22; 13:22.
88. KA LEUNG WONG, The Idea of Retribution, p. 124.
89. Cf. R. OTTO, The Idea of the Holy. An Inquiry into the non-rational factor in the
idea of the divine and its relation to the rational, Eng. trans. by J. W. Harvey, Ox-
ford University, New York 1958, pp. 5-31. In the OT, holiness is primarily nei-
ther a physical nor a moral quality but an attribute which combines both; it affects
man now in one order and now in the other.
90. Am 4:2.
91. Hos 11:9.
92. 1 Sam 2:2.
93. The nifal of the verb «vdq» means, «to prove oneself holy». Thus, we find this pas-
sage: «These are the waters of Meribah, where the Israelites contended against the
Lord, and where he revealed his sanctity (vdeQ©YI) among them» (Num 20:13). A
similar use of the word also occurred in Eze 39:27, wher YHWH promised the fu-
ture restoration of Israel: «When I... prove my holiness (yTiv.D;q.nI) through them in
the sight of many nations». The hithpael reflexive form of the verb «vdq» also has
the same meaning. Thus, Eze 38:23 is translated: «I will prove my greatness and
holiness (yTivD. qI t; h. )i and make myself known in the sight of many nations; thus they
shall know that I am the Lord». Cf. H.-P. MULLER, «vdq», DTMAT, c. 745.
94. Cf. Eze 28:25.
95. Cf. Isa 5:16.
96. Cf. Pss 33:4; 40:10; 54:5; 89:24; 91:4.
97. Cf. Isa 29:23; 41:14; 43:3; Eze 20:41; 36:23; 39:27.
98. Cf. Ps 33:21. In Isa 37:23, the blasphemy of Sennacherib against the Holy One of
Israel is the cause of his defeat and the deliverance of Israel. According to Eze
28:22-26, YHWH will manifest his holiness when he inflicts punishments on
Sidon and the rest of other nations who despise his people Israel. Thus by YH-
WH’s salvific action in behalf of his people, YHWH will be glorified and sancti-
fied.
99. Cf. KA LEUNG WONG, The Idea of Retribution, p. 124. The following are consid-
ered holy in the Bible: the heavens (Deut 26:15), the places where YHWH mani-
fest himself: to Moses in a bush (Exo 3:5), to Joshua near Jericho (Jos 5:15),
Canaan (Pss 78:54; Zec 2:16), Jerusalem (Pss 46:5; Isa 48:2; 52:1), Zion, the
Temple hill (Isa 27:13; Jer 31:22), the Tent of Meeting (Exo 28:43), Temple (Ps
5:8), the priests (Exo 28:41), the altar (Exo 29:37). The sacred seasons are times
holy to YHWH (jubilee, Lev 25:12; Sabbath, Gen 2:3; Exo 20:8; Jer 17:22). Sac-
rificial victims and all gifts to YHWH become holy by the offering. The vestments
of the priest are holy (Lev 16:4).
100. Cf. J.L. MCKENZIE, «Holy», p. 366.
101. Cf. H.-P. MULLER, «vdq», DTMAT, c. 748.
102. Israel is considered holy because YHWH has chosen her among the nations to be-
come his own people and thus has been admitted to the sphere of divinity; it be-
longs to him by election and his covenant (Exo 19:6; Lev 20:8; Deut 7:6; Jer 2:3;
Eze 37:28). The new status of Israel as a «holy nation» to the Lord facilitated this
fellowship between her and YHWH.
103. Cf. T.P. JENNEY, «Holiness, Holy», p. 598.
NOTES 73
104. Cf. J. MILGROM, The Priestly Picture of «Dorian Gray», 394. This can be seen by
the belief that the outer altar was polluted though the laity may not even enter it
and finally, the Holy of Holies was polluted though no one, not even the high
priest, may enter.
105. The idea that the sacred (i.e., the gods themselves and especially their temples) is
always under constant threat from malefic forces may explain the presence protec-
tor gods set before temple entrances (e.g., the sedu and lamassu in Mesopotamia
and the lion-gargoyles in Egypt) and, above all, the elaborate cathartic and
apotropaic rites to rid buildings of demons and prevent their return. Cf. ANET3,
pp. 325, 329-30.
106. But the notion of its dynamic and malefic power, especially in regard to the sanc-
ta, was not completely expunged from the Priestly Code. Cf. Lev 20:3; Lev 15:31;
Num 19:20. It is clear that these texts are grounded in the axiom, common to all
ancient Near Eastern cultures, that impurity is the implacable foe of holiness
wherever it exists; it assaults the sacred realm even from afar.
107. Israel and the neighboring nations held in common that the impure and the holy
are mutually antagonistic and irreconcilable. Thus the sanctuary needs constant
purification lest the resident god abandons it together with his devotees. On one
basic issue they differ: the pagan world was suffused with demonic impurity
whereas Israel has eviscerated impurity of its magical power. Only in its nexus
with the sancta does it spring to life. However, this malefic impurity does not in-
here in nature; it is the creation of man. Only man can evict God from his earthly
abode and destroy himself. Cf. J. MILGROM, The Priestly Picture of «Dorian Gray»,
397-99.
108. Cf. D.P. WRIGHT, Unclean and Clean (OT), in D.N. FREEDMAN (ed.), The An-
chor Bible Dictionary, IV, Doubleday, New York 1992, p. 735 (onwards will be
cited as D.P. WRIGHT, Unclean and Clean (OT) ABD). This can be seen in P’s
prescription to remove corpses from the sanctuary area, keeping certain impurities
from sacred persons, cleansing the sanctuary with hattat sacrifices, and require-
ments of excluding severely impure persons from the habitation (Num 5:2-3). In
addition, P listed general prohibitions about bringing what is impure in contact
with what is holy (Lev 7:19-21; 22:3-7; Num 18:11, 13). It is one of the duties of
the priests to teach the distinction between pure and impure and the holy and the
profane so that improper contact of the spheres would be avoided (Lev 10:10;
11:47: Eze 22:26; 44:23).
109. Cf. Lev 19:2.
110. This explains why in his vision of the restored Israel, Ezekiel does not allow every-
one access to the various part of the Temple. This may also be the reason for the
disapperance –or, rather the abolition– of the High Priesthood in Ezekiel’s Temple
and the disregard for the rituals performed within the Temple itself. Cf. Eze 40-48.
111. According to E. Regev: «The Priestly tendency of grading, derives from the per-
ception of dynamic holiness: by grading, holiness is measured and evaluated. If
holiness was not dynamic, there would be no reason or possibility to grade it,
since in static holiness there are only two polar categories-sacred and non-sacred».
E. REGEV, Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomic Static Holiness, VT 51
(2001) 257 (onwards will be cited as E. REGEV, «Dynamic and Static Holiness»).
112. Cf. T.P. JENNEY, «Holiness, Holy», p. 599.
113. For discussion, see D.P. WRIGHT, «Holiness (OT)», in D.N. FREEDMAN (ed.),
Anchor Bible Dictionary, III, Doubleday, New York 1992, pp. 237-49 (onwards
will be cited as D.P. WRIGHT, «Holiness», ABD).
74 RAMIL COSTIBOLO NICAL
114. Cf. Eze 9:6; 23:39; see also 5:11; 8:6; 23:38; 24:21.
115. Cf. Exo 26:33, 34; 1 Kgs 6:16; 7:50; 8:6;2 Chr 3:8, 10; 2 Chr 3:8, 10; 4:22; 5:7;
Eze 41:4; 42:13; 44:13. In other biblical books the preferred term is rybiD>. The
preference for ~yvid©Q\h; vd,q,o may imply the emphasis of Ezekiel which was the ho-
liness of God.
116. 1 Kgs 8:8, 10; 2 Chr 5:11.
117. Cf. 1 Kgs 7:6; 2 Chr 15:8; Eze 40:7; 46:2, 8. Its lack of any religious connotation
and cultic objects or furnitures, reflect its purpose as just an entrance structure to
the Temple.
118. «The distribution of furniture, the extent of access to the different parts of the
sanctuary, the materials used in the tabernacle, the annointing rites also display
the structure’s graded holiness». D.P. WRIGHT, «Holiness», ABD, p. 242.
119. Cf. 1 Kgs 6:20, 27-28, 31-32; 8:6-9.
120. Cf. 1 Kgs 6:21-22, 30, 33-35; 7:48-50.
121. Cf. 1 Kgs 7:27-39, 43-45; 8:64.
122. Cf. 1 Kgs 7:13-22.
123. Cf. 2 Chr 29:16.
124. Cf. 2 Chr 26:16-21.
125. Cf. 1 Kgs 8:6, 10-11.
126. Cf. D.P. WRIGHT, «Holiness», ABD, p. 242.
127. Cf. Eze 8:6, 13, 15.
128. Cf. I.M. DUGUID, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, p. 113.
129. On the basis of Lev 4 and 16, Milgrom distinguishes three grades of impurities.
First, the individual’s severe physical impurity and inadvertent offences defile the
sacrificial altar (in the courtyard) which is cleansed by daubing blood on its horns
(Lev 4:25, 30; 9:9). Second, the inadvertent offences of the high priest or the
whole congregation pollute the shrine which is then cleansed by sprinkling blood
seven times in front of the curtain and putting blood on the horns of the incense
altar (Lev 4:5-7, 16-18). Third, unrepented sins are able to pollute not just the
sacrificial altar and the shrine, but also the Holy of Holies. The cleansing has to
wait until the Day of Atonement (or Purgation). It consisted of two steps: the
cleansing of the Holy of Holies of the wanton sins, and the cleansing of the shrine
and sacrificial altar. Thus, «the graded purgations of the sanctuary lead to the con-
clusion that the severity of the sin or impurity varies in direct relation to the depth
of penetration into the sanctuary». J. MILGROM, Leviticus 1-16, AB, p. 257. For J.
Milgrom the importance of purging the sanctuary lay in the postulate that «the
God of Israel will not abide in a polluted sanctuary». Ibid., p. 258. God will toler-
ate only a certain degree of impurity. The impurity can build up to such a point
that God will leave the sanctuary, leaving the people to their doom. This, claims
Milgrom, is depicted in Eze 8-11. The importance of the purification offering is
not for the atonement of the offerer, but for the purgation of the sanctuary so that
God will remain in it. Cf. also, KA LEUNG WONG, The Idea of Retribution, p. 163.
130. It is interesting to note in this connection that the defilement went no further
than the inner courtyard: it never entered the Temple building itself. Similarly in
the vision of reconstruction the activities are all restricted to the inner and outer
courts. Is the building itself too holy to be entered?
131. Cf. Eze 8:17.
132. Cf. H.J. STOEBE, «sm©x©», in E. JENNI, C. WESTERMANN (eds.), Diccionario teológico
manual del Antiguo Testamento, I, Span. trans. by J.A. Mugica, Cristiandad, Ma-
drid 1978, c. 811 (onwards will be cited as H.J. STOEBE, «sm©x©», DTMAT); see also,
NOTES 75
ried by the lock of his hair is found in the apocryphal account on Habakkuk where
he is also carried by the lock of his hair to Babylon to bring Daniel some food. The
similarity can be explained though by the scholarly opion that this apocryphal ac-
count may be an offshot of the influence of Ezekiel. Cf. M. GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1-
20, AB, pp. 167-68; also, D.I. BLOCK, Ezekiel 1-24, NICOT, p. 280.
191. K. P. DARR, Ezekiel, NIB, p. 1175.
192. Cf. Eze 10:5; also, Eze 1:24.
193. Cf. Eze 10:15, 20, 22.
194. Cf. Eze 8:2, 4.
195. Whether this chapter is inserted by Ezekiel’s disciples and editors; or whether it is
integral to the vision, is a question that has remained unresolved. Cf. P.C.
CRAIGIE, Ezekiel, DSBS, p. 69. The study of Parunak on the structures of the
three visions is very enlightening for it shows in a detailed manner the existing lit-
erary affinities between the three visions, with special emphasis on the «divine vi-
sions». H. VAN DYKE PARUNAK, Ezekiel’s Mar’ot ’Elohim, 61-74.
196. The historical crisis that the house of Israel found itself in is not because their God
has not fulfilled the covenant promises but they are the ones who have failed to
fulfill the covenant obligations. Nor is the crisis the proof that YHWH is a weak
God. It is precisely because of YHWH’s power that the catastrophe has occured.
This theological explanation is precisely the purpose of the Temple vision.
197. Its religious condition reflects the religious condition of Israel, for the Temple re-
presents the whole population who is to be judged. It is the religious depravity com-
mitted by Israel which offended YHWH and justifies the judgment passed against
whole Israel (Eze 7:8 ff.). Cf. M.E. MILLS, Images of God in the Old Testament, Cas-
sell, London 1998, p. 85 (onwards will be cited as M.E. MILLS, Images of God).
198. R. KASHER, Anthropomorphism, Holiness and Cult: A New Look at Ezekiel 40-48,
ZAW 110 (1998) 192-208 (onwards will be cited as R. KASHER, Anthropomor-
phism, Holiness and Cult).
199. The expression, «the place of my throne and the place for the soles of My feet»,
delivers the same message: the Temple was not only God’s «footstool» but also his
seat, His dwelling place. Cf. Isa 66:1.
200. Eze 43:7.
201. Eze 43:9.
202. Cf. F.M. CROSS, The Priestly Tabernacle, BA 10 (1947) 65-68.
203. The idea of permament presence of God in the Temple is the only adequate explana-
tion why when the kebod YHWH left the Temple of Jerusalem he did not ascended to
heaven but remain standing on the mount east of Jerusalem: «And the glory of the
Lord ascended from the middle of the city, and stopped on the mountain which (is)
east of the city» (11:23). In fact, according to Eze 35:10, God was present in Israel’s
midst, on earth, at the time of the desctruction. Was this because YHWH, having
abandoned his home, was awaiting the reconstruction of another Temple, his new
home? This would explain why he returned to the Temple of Jerusalem from the east,
the same direction he left and was located when he left it (Eze 43:1ff.; 44:1-2). I would
say that only the view of God as inhabiting a terrestrial abode may explain why He
does not leave the Temple and ascend to heaven, but instead remain standing on the
mount east of Jerusalem. Cf. R. KASHER, Anthropomorphism, Holiness and Cult, p. 95.
204. Cf. Lev 1:5, 11; 3:2, 8, 13; 7:2, 14; 2 Kgs 16:15; 2 Chr 29:22; 30:16. A. van den
Born claims that qr;z© in P and Ugarit is a technical term for the splashing of blood
on the altar. Cf. A. VAN DEN BORN, Ezechiel, BOT, Romen & Zonen, Roermond
1954, p. 69 (onwards will be cited as A. VAN DEN BORN, Ezechiel).
NOTES 79
PRESENTATION ........................................................................... 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE THESIS ................................. 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE THESIS .............................................. 17
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................... 33
DEPARTURE OF THE KEBOD YHWH FROM THE TEMPLE OF
JERUSALEM ..................................................................................... 39
I. THE FOUR CULTIC ABOMINATIONS .......................................... 39
A. Translation and Analysis ...................................................... 39
B. Structure ............................................................................. 41
C. Significance and Relation to the Temple of Jerusalem .......... 41
1. Symbolism of the Number «four» ................................... 41
2. tAb[eAt (abominations) ..................................................... 42
3. The Four Cultic Abominations ....................................... 43
4. The Concept of the «sacred/holy» ................................... 47
5. Israel’s sins were not only cultic but social ....................... 50
6. Israel, a Rebellious People ............................................... 51
7. Inevitability of Judgment ................................................ 52
D. Summary ............................................................................. 53
II. DEPARTURE OF THE KEBOD YHWH .......................................... 53
A. Translation and Analysis ...................................................... 54
B. Structure ............................................................................. 55
C. Significance and Relation to the Temple of Jerusalem .......... 58
1. Connection with the Inaugural Vision ............................ 58
2. Temple, the location of the Vision .................................. 59
3. Temple, the dwelling place of YHWH ............................ 59
4. qrz (scatter) ..................................................................... 60
5. Fire, as instrument of purgation ...................................... 61
6. Man Dressed in Linen .................................................... 62
7. Cultic Representation ..................................................... 62
D. Summary ............................................................................. 62
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 63
NOTES ........................................................................................... 65
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE EXCERPTUM ....................... 81