EZEKIEL
EZEKIEL
816
Erk ; the picture is partly supplemented by the i29th ch. of Jer. Those carried captive were the (lite of the nation ; and they seem to have lived in tolerably easy circumstances, enjoying a large measure of freedom and self-goveninient, forming a little world Df their own, and cherishing a passion- ate interest in the concerns of their native land. They kept up by some means an active intercourse with Jerus. ; and, in spite of intense mutual antipathy between them and the ruling classes at home, they never ceased to regard themselves as part and parcel of the Ileb. nation, confidently expecting that some great political upheaval would speedily restore them to their old place at the head of the state. This delusion was fostered by the rise of prophets of the same type as Jeremiah's opponents in Jerus., — an event which was haUed with immense satisfaction, not unmixed with sur- prise, by the exiled community (Jer 29"). The false patriotism thus engendered threatened to bring down the heavy arm of Nebuchadnezzar on the captives, and Jer., though his sympathies were with the patrician exUes rather than with the people left in the land (Jer 24'"'), endeavoured to allay the dangerous political excitement which blinded them to their true position. Altogether, it would seem that the main currents of feeling and opinion prevalent in Pal. were reproduced with remarkable fidelity in the community where E. was destined to labour.
Although little is known of E.'s previous life, it cannot be doubted that he found himself from the first in an uncongenial social atmosphere. In spite of the statement of Jos. {Ant. X. vi. 3, iroit dv), he was probably no longer a young man when de- ported to Babylon. The meaning of ' the 30th year ' in ch. 1' is too obscure to tlirow light on the mattei, but his familiarity with the technical details of the temple and its ritual seems to show that he had officiated for a considerable time in the national sanctuary. The numerous points of contact between him and Jer. would indicate that he had come early under the influence of that great prophet, and from the whole trend of his thinking it seems probable that he had belonged to the reforming party in the state, which sought to purify the national religion in accordance with the requirements of the Deuteronomic legislation. That party had been powerless since the death of Josiali, and it is reasonable to suppose that E.'s stern and even embittered attitude towards the people was in part the fruit of the years of reaction and disappointment spent under the reign of Jehoiakim. As we have seen, there was nothing in the state of mind of his fellow-exiles to draw him into sympathy with them, although he cer- tainly agreed with Jer. in regarding them as superior to those left behind (U""'"). Accordingly, at the time of his consecration as a prophet, he appears with his convictions matured as to the character of his countrymen and the recej)tion he may expect at their hands (2. S pass.). 'They are, to usp one of his stereotyped phrases, a ' rebellious house,' brazen-faced and stitlhearted children, a people that refuse to hear J", separated from Him Dy a moral and spiritual barrier more formidable than that caused by a strange lanj,'imge (2^* 3"'). Although these facts are expressed in the form of divine communications to tlie prophet, they are not to l)e regarded as a new revolution of the dis- position of his compatriots ; they are rather the settled convictions of his life assuming definite shape in the light of his commission to speak the wonl of the Lord. They show, at all events, how fully he recognized the depth of the antagonism that prevailed between the prophetic conception of religion and the impul.ses that swayed the national mind both in Judaea and in Babylonia.
The actual circumstances of E.'s prophetic career are greatly obscured for us by the difhculty we have in separating what is real from what is merely imagined, in the representation given by the book. That everything did not happen literally as it is recordea, is evident enough from sev :ral indications. The symbolic actions described as performed by the prophet are in some instances incapable of a literal acceptation (see, e.ij. 4^"- o'"- 12'* etc.) ; yet there is no external criterion by which these can be distinguished from others which are possible. A similar uncertainty hangs over the events that are mentioned. These are never introduced for their own sake, but only as the setting of some idea which the wTiter wishes to enforce, and it is frequently impossible to deter- mine how far the allusions correspond with actual experiences. In such incidents as the death of the prophet's wife (24'°''-) or the opening of his mouth m the presence of ' the fugitive ' (24-'' 33--), fact and symbolism seem to be so intimately blended that we cannot tell where the one ends and the other begins. The book, in short, is not an auto- biography, but a systematic exposition of proplictic ideas, and any attempt to extract historical information from it has to be made with a certain measure of caution. At the same time, it is quite incredible that the whole representation should be nothing but an elaborate fiction, without any basis in fact. There can be no reasonable doubt that E. really exercised an oral public ministry amongst his fellow-captives, or that its main outlines may be gathered from the thin thread of narrative that runs through the book. His work was divided into two sharply contrasted periods by the over- throw of the Jewish state in the year 586 ; or, to speak more accurately, the first period ends with tlie commencement of the siege of Jerus. (Jan. 587, cf. 24'), and the second opens with the reception in Babylon of the tidings of its fall (Jan. 585, cf. 33'-').* During the interval of two years, his public activity appears to have been suspended. Through- out the first period the almost exclusive theme of his preaching was the approaching destruction of Jerus., and the lessons of that event for the nation. His reiterated predictions of that inconceivable calamity made no impression on the mind of the exiles, and the prophet felt his energies cramped and paralyzed by the stolid incredulity which his message encountered. It is probable, however, that from the out.set his character commanded respect ; we read of visits paid to him in his own house by the ' elders ' to inquire the word of the Lord (8' 14' 20'), and tlicre is no reason to dismiss these as dramatic inventions. Still less can we doubt the popularity of his public orations ; for the picture of the people beguiling the tedium of their exile by listening to his fervid eloquence (33*'''-') is one of the notices which convey an irresist- ible impression of historical reality. In the second f)art of his career the tension between him and his learers is greatly relaxed. The people were crushed by the terrible disaster that liaa befallen their nation, and the immediate eflect was a feeling of despair expressed in such woeful utter- ances as tliose of 33'" 37". The [irophet on his part ado[)ts a more conciliatory attitude towards them, as lie addresses himself to the task of setting forth tlie holies and ideals on which the formation of a new Israel depended. The circle of his immediate auditors was probably widened at this time by the arrivti of tlie new bands of captives from Judiea, amongst whom there must have been