Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - Ezekiel 37:1 - 37:28
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1. The view, that what the prophet beheld in vision was the final resurrection of mankind, though favored by Jerome, Calovius, and Kliefoth, must be abandoned, not because the doctrine of a general resurrection would not have been a powerful consolation to the pious-hearted in Israel, or because that doctrine was not then known, but because, in the prophet's own explanation, the bones are declared to be those, not of the whole family of man, but merely of the house of Israel. At the same time, those interpreters are right who, like Hengstenberg, Keil, and Plumptre, hold that, even if the doctrine of a general resurrection had not been current in Ezekiel's time, this vision was enough to call it into existence, and even to lend strong probability to its truth.
2. Accordingly, the view is commonly preferred that, while an objective reality to the prophet's mind, and by no means a mere rhetorical garb for its conceptions, the vision was designed as a symbolic representation of Israel's resuscitation; though here again opinions diverge both as to what formed the mental background for the prophet's use of such a symbol, and as to how it served to suggest the thought of Israel's revival. While some, like Jerome and Hengstenberg, as above indicated, regard "the doctrine of the proper resurrection" as "the presupposition of the expanded figurative representation," others, with Havernick, find its historical basis in such instances of raising from the dead as were performed by Elijah and Elisha, and perhaps also in such passages as Isa_26:19. If Smend thinks the vision was intended to assist Israel merely by suggesting that "the unbelievable might happen," and Havernick that it was designed to inspire hope by presenting to the mind a lively picture of the creative, life-giving power of God, "which can raise even dead bones to life again," Ewald finds its chief power to console in the thought "that the nation or individual which does not despair of the Divine Spirit will not be forsaken of this Spirit in any situation, but will always be borne on by it to new life."
Eze_37:1
The hand of the Lord was upon me. The absence of the customary "and" (comp. Eze_1:1, Eze_1:3; Eze_3:14, Eze_3:22), wanting only once again (Eze_40:1), appears to indicate something extraordinary and unusual in the prophet's experience. In the words of Ewald, such a never-beheld sight one sees freely (by itself) in a moment of higher inspiration or never;" and that in this whole vision the prophet was the subject of a special and intensified inspiration is evident, not alone from the contents of the vision, but also from the language in which it is recorded. And carried me out in the Spirit of the Lord. So the Vulgate and Hitzig—a translation which Smend thinks might be justified by an appeal to Eze_11:24, in which the similar phrase, "Spirit of God (Elohim)," occurs; though, with Grotius, Havernick, Keil, and others, he prefers the rendering of the LXX; "And Jehovah carried me out in the Spirit." The Revised Version combines the two thus: "And he carried me out in the Spirit of the Lord." Keil suggests that the words, "of God," in Eze_11:24, were omitted here because of the word "Jehovah" immediately following. And set me down in the midst of the valley. As the article indicates, the valley in the neighborhood of Tel-Abib, where the prophet received his first instructions concerning his mission (Eze_3:22); although Hengstenberg holds, wrongly we think, that "the valley here has nothing to do with the valley in Eze_3:22." Which (literally, and it) was full of bones; i.e. of men who had been slaughtered there (Eze_3:9; comp. Eze_39:11), and whose corpses had been left unburied upon the face of the plain (Eze_3:3), so that they were seen by the prophet. Whether these bones were actually in the valley, or merely formed part of the vision, can only be conjectured, though the latter opinion seems the more probable. At the same time, such a plain as is here depicted may well have been a battle-ground on which Assyrian and Chaldean armies had often met.
Eze_37:2
And he caused me to pass by them round about. Not over, as Keil, Klie-foth, and Plumptre translate, but round about them, so as to view them from every side. The result of the prophet's inspection of the bones was to excite within him a feeling of surprise which expressed itself in a twofold behold; the first occasioned by a contemplation of their number, very many, and their situation, in the open valley, literally, upon the face of the valley; i.e. not underground, where they could not have been seen, but upon the surface of the soil, and not piled up in heaps, but scattered over the ground; and the second by a discernment of their condition as very dry, so bleached and withered as to foreclose, not the possibility alone, but also the thought of their resuscitation.
Eze_37:3
Son of man, can these bones live? Whether or not this question was directed, as Plumptre surmises, to meet despairing thoughts which had arisen in the prophet's own mind, it seems reasonable to hold, with Havernick, that the question was addressed to him as representing "ever against God the people, and certainly as to this point the natural and purely human consciousness of the same," to which Israel's restoration appeared as unlikely an occurrence as the reanimation of the withered bones that lay around. The extreme improbability, if not absolute impossibility, of the occurrence, at least to human reason and power, is perhaps pointed at in the designation "Son of man" here given to the prophet. The prophet's answer, O Lord God, thou knowest, is not to be interpreted as proving that to the prophet hitherto the thought of a resurrection had been unfamiliar, if not completely absent, or as giving a direct reply either affirmative or negative to the question proposed to him, but merely as expressing the prophet's sense of the greatness of the wonder suggested to his mind, with perhaps a latent acknowledgment that God alone had the power by which such a wonder could, and therefore alone also the knowledge whether it would, be accomplished (comp. Rev_7:14).
Eze_37:4
Prophesy upon (or, over) then bones. This instruction—which shows Jehovah regarded the prophet's answer as equivalent to an admission that the revivification of the bones lay within his (Jehovah's) power—was not a mere command to predict, as in Eze_6:2 and Eze_11:4, but an injunction to utter the Divine word through which the miracle (of creation, as it really was) should be performed. "The significance of the command lies in the fact that it taught the prophet that he was himself to be instrumental in the great work of resuscitation. He who had been so often troubled with the sense of impotence and failure, who had heard the people say of him, 'Both he not speak parables?' who had been to them as the lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and nothing more than that, was at last to learn that the word of the Lord,' spoken by his lips, was mighty, and would not return to him void" (Plumptre).
Eze_37:5
I will cause breath to eater into you; literally, I am causing breath (or, spirit) to enter into you. The real agent, therefore, in the resuscitation of the bones was to be, not the prophet or the word, but Jehovah himself; and that the end aimed at by the Divine activity was "life" shows the breath spoken of (ruach) was not to be the wind, as in Eze_37:9, or the Spirit, but the breath of life, as in Gen_6:17 and Gen_7:22 (comp. Gen_2:7; Psa_104:30; Isa_26:19).
Eze_37:6
The process of revivification is now divided into two stages—a preliminary stage which should effect the reconstruction of the external skeleton, by bringing together its different parts and clothing them with sinews, flesh, and skin (comp. Job_10:11); and a finishing stage, which should consist in animating, or "putting breath in" the reconstructed skeleton; corresponding so the two stages into which the process of man's original creation was divided (Gen_2:7). The result would be that the resurrected and reanimated bones, like newly made man, would know the Lord.
Eze_37:7, Eze_37:8
So I prophesied as I was commanded. The words uttered were without doubt those of Eze_37:4-6. The effect produced is depicted in its various steps. First, there resulted a noise—literally, a voice—which the Revisers take to have been "a thundering;" and Havernick, Keil, Smend, and others, "a sound" in general; but which Ewald, Hengstenberg, and Schroder, with more propriety, regard as having been an audible voice, if not, as Kliefoth supposes, the trumpet-blast or "voice of God," which, according to certain New Testament passages, shall precede the resurrection and awaken the dead (Joh_5:25, Joh_5:28; 1Co_15:52; 1Th_4:16); perhaps, as Plumptre suggests, the "counterpart" thereof. Next, a shaking, σεισμὸς (LXX.); which the Revisers, following Kliefoth, understand to have been an earthquake, as in 1Ki_19:11; Amo_1:1; Zec_1:1; Zec_14:5 (comp. Mat_27:51), and Ewald explains as "a peal of thunder running through the entire announcement," as in Eze_3:12, Eze_3:13 and Eze_38:19, Eze_38:20; but which is better interpreted by Keil, Smend, and others as a rustling proceeding from a movement among the bones. Thirdly, the bones came together in the body as a whole, and in particular bone to his bone; i.e. each bone to the bone with which it was designed to be united, as e.g. "the upper to the lower part of the arm" (Schroder). Lastly, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above; or, as in the Revised Version, there were sinews upon them, and flesh came up and skin covered them above; precisely as Jehovah had announced to the prophet would take place (Eze_38:6). Yet, though the external framework of the bodies was finished, there was no breath in them—ruach having still the same import as in Eze_38:5. With this the preliminary stage in the reanimating process terminated.
Eze_37:9
The finishing stage began by the prophet receiving a command to prophesy unto the wind (better, breath, or spirit), and to summon it from the four "breaths," or "winds" (in this case the preferable rendering), that it might breathe upon the slain. "Four winds" are mentioned, as in Eze_40:20, to indicate the four quarters of heaven (comp. Eze_5:10, Eze_5:12; Eze_12:14; Eze_17:21), and perhaps also to suggest the immense quantity of vitalizing force demanded by the multitude of the dead (Smend), "the fullness and force of the Spirit's operations" (Hengstenberg), or the notion that the Spirit, in resuscitating Israel, would make use of all the varied forces that were then working in the world (Plumptre). The designation of the dead as slain reveals that the resurrection intended was not that of men in general, but of the nation of Israel.
Eze_37:10
An exceeding great army. This harmonizes with the feature in the vision which describes the bones as those of slain men, while also it may be viewed as foreshadowing the future destiny of Israel. "The bones of the slain on the field of battle, having been brought together, clothed with flesh, and a new life breathed into them, now they stand up, not as 'a mixed multitude,' but as 'an exceeding great army' prepared to take their part in the wars of Jehovah under new and happier conditions" (Plumptre). (On the phrase, "to stand upon the feet," comp. Eze_2:1; Zec_14:12; Rev_11:11.)
Eze_37:11-14
contain, according to most commentators, the Divine interpretation of the vision, Kliefoth alone contending that they furnish, not so much an exposition of the vision—which, he thinks, must be explained independently, and which he regards as teaching the future resurrection of God's people—as an application to Israel's ease of the doctrine contained in the vision.
Eze_37:11
These bones are the whole house of Israel. On the principle that "God is his own best interpreter," it should not be difficult to see that, whatever foreshadowings of the final resurrection of the just may be contained in the vision, its primary intention was to depict the political and national restoration of Israel (Ephraim and Judah) whose condition at the time the field of withered bones appropriately represented. That Hitzig errs in supposing the "bones" alluded to in this verse symbolized the portions of Ephraim and Judah then dead, instead of the portions still living (in exile), who considered themselves as practically dead, is apparent from the words that follow. Behold, they say. The complaint was manifestly taken from the popular sayings current among the people of the exile. Broken up, dispersed, expatriated, and despairing, the members of what had once been "the whole house of Israel" felt there was no hope more of recovering national life and unity. The cheerless character of the outlook they expressed by saying, Our bones (not the bones of the dead, but of the living) are dried—meaning, "The vital force of our nation is gone" (the bones being regarded in Scripture as the seat of the vital force comp. Psa_32:3)—our hope is lost—our hope, i.e; of ever again returning to our own land or regaining national existence—and we are out off for our parts; literally, we are cut off for ourselves; which Gesenius explains to mean, "We are lost," taking ìÈðåÌ as a dativus pleonastteus ; Hitzig, "We are reduced to ourselves;" Delitzsch and Keil, "We are cut off from the land of the living," i.e. it is all over with us; Hengstenberg, "We are cut off—a sad fact for us;" Revised Version, "We are clean cut off;" any one of which renders the force of the words (scrap. Lam_3:54).
Eze_37:12-14
I will open your graves. That this is not exact interpretation of the foregoing symbol may be argued from the fact that in the vision no mention is made of graves; yet the discrepancy to which it is supposed to point is more apparent than real. If the prophet was to see the bones, it was requisite that these should be above ground rather than beneath. On the other hand, when one speaks of a grave, it is not needful to always think of an underground tomb. To all intents and purposes a person is in his grave when, life being extinct, his body has returned to the dust. So, the opening of graves promised in Scripture is not so much, or always, the cleaving asunder of material sepulchers, as the bringing back to life of those whose bodies have returned to the dust. Hence the opening of Israel's graves could only signify the reawakening of the politically and religiously dead people to national and spiritual life. This was the first step in the restoration of the future held up before the minds of the despairing people. The second, indicated by the clause, and allah put my Spirit in you, pointed, as in Eze_36:26, Eze_36:27, to their future endowment with higher moral and spiritual life than they had previously possessed, and not merely, as in Eze_36:5, Eze_36:6, to their political and national resuscitation (Smend). The last step, the re-establishment of the reconstructed nation in Palestine, was guaranteed by the word, I will place you in your own land. The circumstance that this is twice repeated (Eze_36:12, Eze_36:14) shows that whatever view be entertained of the ultimate occupation of Canaan by Israel, this was the goal towards which the vision looked. That it received partial, limited, and temporary fulfillment of a literal kind in the restoration under Zerubbabel and Ezra, is undeniable; that it will ever obtain historical realization of a permanent sort is doubtful; that it will eventually find its highest significance when God's spiritual Israel, the Church of Christ, takes possession of the heavenly Canaan, is one of the clearest and surest announcements of Scripture.
NOTE.—On the above nine verses (6-14) Plumptre writes, "We can scarcely fail to find, in our Lord's words in Joh_5:1-47; something like an echo of Ezekiel's teaching. There also, though the truth of the general resurrection is declared more clearly, the primary thought is that of a spiritual resurrection. Further, we may note that the complement of Ezekiel's message is found in the language of Dan_12:2. Taking the two together, we find both reproduced in the teaching of Joh_5:1-47." (manuscript notes).
Eze_37:15-28
The "word" embodied in this section was probably communicated to the prophet at the close of the preceding vision. Its connection with this is apparent, treating as it does of the union of the then severed branches of the house of Israel, and of the subsequent prosperity which should attend united Israel under the rule of the Messianic King of the future. That this oracle, like the former, had only a temporary and partial accomplishment in the return from captivity is so obvious as to stand in no need of demonstration. Its true fulfillment must be sought in the future ingathering of Israel to the Christian Church.
Eze_37:16
Take thee one stick, and write. The symbolic action thus prescribed to the prophet was manifestly based on the well-known historical fact that the tribes of Israel, in Mosaic times, had been represented by a rod, on which was inscribed the name of the tribe (Num_17:2); but whether the stick Ezekiel was instructed to take was a staff, ῥάβδος (LXX; Hirernick, Hitzig, Kliefoth, and Smend), or a block (Ewald), or simply a piece (Keil, Schroder) of wood on which a few words might be traced, cannot be decided. On the first stick the prophet was directed to write, For Judah, and the house of his companions; i.e. for the southern kingdom and those of the northern tribes who adhered to it, as e.g. Benjamin, Levi, and part of Simeon, with those devout Jehovah-worshippers who from time to time emigrated from other tribes and settled in the land of Judah (2Ch_11:12-16; 2Ch_15:9; 2Ch_30:11, 2Ch_30:18, 31; 2Ch_31:1; though by Wellhausen, Smend, and others, such passages are pronounced unhistorical). On the second stick also the prophet was directed to write; but whether For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for (or, of) all the house of Israel his companions (Authorized and Revised Versions), or "For Joseph and the whole house of Israel" (Keil), or simply "For Joseph" (Ewald, Havernick, Smend), cannot be determined. Each interpretation can be supported by quite reasonable considerations. For the first may be pleaded that it best accords with the natural sense of the text; for the second, that the phrase, the stick of Ephraim, appears to be explanatory of and in opposition to "For Joseph;" for the third, that all the house of Israel stands, like "Ephraim," under the regimen of "stick." The introduction of Joseph as the representative of the northern kingdom rests, not on the fact that Joseph's was the most honorable name among the ten tribes (Havernick), but on the circumstance that the tribe of Joseph, as represented by Ephraim and Manasseh, constituted the main body of the northern kingdom. The addition of Ephraim's name is best accounted for by remembering that in his hand lay the hegemony of the kingdom. "All the house of Israel his companions" signified the rest of the ten tribes. That the two sticks, when joined together in the prophet's hand, were to become one cannot signify that they were then and there to be miraculously united.
Eze_37:18-20
Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these? literally, what these (two pieces of wood) are to thee. The suggestion that such a request would be preferred to Ezekiel makes it clear he was meant to perform the symbolic action in public. That his countrymen should fail to understand this action accorded with their proverbial dullness of apprehension (comp. Eze_12:9; Eze_24:19). In explanation, the prophet was enjoined to say unto them, while holding the sticks in his hand, that just as he had made the sticks one in his hand, so would God make one in his hand the two kingdoms symbolized by the sticks. The union of the sticks was to be Ezekiel's work (verse 17, "in thy hand"); the union of the kingdoms should be Jehovah's (verse 19, "in my hand"). The separation of the kingdoms had been Ephraim's doing ("in the hand of Ephraim"); their combination should be God's ("in my hand"). Their severance had been effected, on the part of Ephraim, by an unlawful breaking off from the house of Judah, and the establishment of an independent kingdom; their unification should be brought about by the putting down of Ephraim, and the confirming of the crown rights of Judah. The translation, And will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, signifying "And will put the tribes of Israel with him." i.e. the tribe of Judah, supported by the LXX; and preferred by Ewald, Smend, and others, is superior to that of the Revised Version margin, "And will put them together with it, unto [or, ' to be'] the stick of Judah." Keil s rendering, "I will take the stick of Joseph … and the tribes of Israel his companions, which I put thereon [literally, 'and I put them,' viz. the tribes, 'upon it,' i.e. the stick of Joseph] with the stick of Judah," is too involved.
Eze_37:21-28
explain how the unification of the two kingdoms should be brought about. The first step should be the bringing of the people home to their own land (Eze_37:21, Eze_37:22); the second, their purification from idolatry (Eze_37:23); the third, the installation over them, thus united and purified, of one King, the ideal David of the future, or the Messiah (Eze_37:24, Eze_37:25); the fourth, the establishment with them of Jehovah's covenant of peace (Eze_37:26), and the permanent erection amongst them of Jehovah's temple (Eze_37:27, Eze_37:28).
Eze_37:21, Eze_37:22
I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen. That tills promise was intended to find an initial and partial fulfillment in the return from Babylon is undoubted. That it was also designed to look across the centuries towards the final ingathering of God's spiritual Israel into their permanent inheritance, the heavenly Canaan, an examination of its terms shows. These clearly presuppose a wider dispersion of Israel than had then, i.e. in Ezekiel's day, taken place; and that Israel has never yet been made one nation upon the mountains of Israel, is incontestable. Nor is there ground for expecting she ever will be. Not even after the exile closed did all Israel return to Palestine. Nor did it ever come true in their experience that one king was king to them all, since, in point of fact, they never afterwards had an earthly sore-reign at all who was properly independent. If, therefore, the prince who in the future should shepherd them was not to be a temporal monarch, but the Messiah, the probability is that the Israel he should shepherd was designed to be, not Israel after the flesh, but Israel after the spirit, who should walk in his judgments and observe his statutes, and who, in the fullness of the times, should develop out into the Christian Church. Hence it seems reasonable to conclude that their own land, into which they should eventually be brought, would be not so much the veritable soil from which their ancestors had been expelled, as the country or region in which the new, rejuvenated, reunited, and reformed Israel should dwell, which, again, should be n territory cleansed from sin and idolatry, so as to render it a fit abode for a people devoted to righteousness. Viewed in this light, their own land was first Canaan, in so far as after the exile it was cleansed from idolatry; now it is those portions of the earth in which the Christian Church has been planted, so far as these are influenced by the holy principles of religion; finally, it will be the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (scrap. Eze_34:24; Eze_36:24).
Eze_37:23
The dwelling-places wherein they have sinned, from which Jehovah premises to save them, are in accordance with the views expressed above, not, as Hengstenberg and Hitzig conjecture, the dwelling-places of the exile in which the people then were, but the dwelling-places in Canaan in which they had formerly transgressed, but would in future be preserved from transgressing. The idea is, as Schroder suggests, the localization of transgression which is viewed as proceeding from the dwelling-places in which it is committed; or, according to Plumptre, the conception is that, as their habitations had formerly been contaminated by their detestable things, "the worship of teraphim and such like, if not worse," so Jehovah would save them from that contamination. The proposal to alter the text by the transposition of a letter, converting moshbhothehem, "dwelling-places," into meshubhothehem," defections," as in Jer_3:22 (comp. Eze_36:29), though adopted by some ancient versions and favored by Ewald and Smend, is not necessary.
Eze_37:25
The phrase, my servant David (comp. Eze_34:23, Eze_34:24; Jer_33:21, Jer_33:22, Jer_33:26; Psa_78:70; Psa_89:3, Psa_89:20; Psa_144:10), goes back to the Messianic promise of 2Sa_7:12-16, and cannot be satisfactorily explained as signifying the Davidic house (Smend), or as pointing to "a line of true rulers, each faithfully representing the ideal David as the faithful Ruler, the true Shepherd of his people" (Plumptre, on Eze_34:23), inasmuch as Israel, after Ezekiel's day, never possessed any such line of rulers, and certainly no such line continued forever. The only feasible exegesis is that which understands Jehovah's servant David to be Messiah, or Jesus Christ, of whom the writer to the Hebrews (Eze_1:8) says. "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever."
Eze_37:26, Eze_37:27
With the people thus gathered (Eze_37:21), united (Eze_37:22), purified (Eze_37:23), and established under the rule of Messiah (Eze_37:25), Jehovah makes a covenant of peace (see on Eze_34:25; and comp. Psa_89:3), further characterized as an everlasting covenant; or, covenant of eternity (see on Eze_16:60; and comp. Gen_17:7; Isa_55:3; Jer_32:40); which guarantees the continuance between him and them of undying friendship, conjoined with the bestowment on his part and the enjoyment on theirs of the highest social and religious blessings. First, national existence and secure possession of the soil. I will place (literally, give) them, either to their land, as in Eze_17:22 (Smend), or to be a nation (Keil), or perhaps both (Kliefoth). Next, steady increase of population—I will multiply them (comp. Eze_36:37; Le Eze_26:9). Thirdly, perpetual residence of Jehovah amongst them, I will set (or, give) my sanctuary (mikdashi, conveying the idea of sanctity) in the midst of them for evermore (comp. Le Eze_26:11); my tabernacle (mishkani, the idea being that of residence or dwelling) also shall be with them; or, over them—the figure being derived from the elevated site of the temple, which overhung the city (Psa_69:29), and intended to suggest the idea of Jehovah's protecting grace. That this promise was in part implemented by the erection of the second temple in the days of Zerubbabel may be conceded, and also that Ezekiel himself may have looked forward to a literal restoration of the sanctuary; but its highest realization must be sought for, first in the Incarnation (Joh_1:14), next in God's inhabitation of the Church through the Spirit (2Co_6:16), and finally in his tabernacling with redeemed men in the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev_21:3, Rev_21:22). The last blessing specified is the intimate communion of God with his people, and of them with him—Yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. This, which formed the kernel of the old covenant with Israel (Le Eze_26:12), became the essence of the new covenant with the Israel of the restoration (Eze_11:20; Eze_36:28; Jer_30:22; Jer_31:33; Jer_32:38; Zec_8:8; Zec_13:9), but only attained to complete realization in the relation of Christian believers to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (2Co_6:16).
Eze_37:28
describes the effect which such a glorious transformation of Israel's character and condition, should produce upon the heathen world. They should recognize from his presence amongst his people, symbolized by the establishment in their midst of his sanctuary, that he had both the power and the will to sanctify them, by making them inwardly as well as outwardly holy; and, recognizing this, they would seek admittance to the congregation and fellowship of God's spiritual Israel.
II. A VISION OF REDEMPTION. The people could not be truly restored unless they were reformed and renewed in heart and character. Hence the strange and striking form in which the promise of restoration is given. It appears as a resurrection. What happened to ancient Israel happens to all the people of God. They are restored to true life and prosperity by means of a spiritual resurrection. Souls are dead in sin. The world is like a valley of dry bones—ugly in its wickedness, helpless in its confusion, utterly unable to save itself. But Christ has come to give new life to the souls of men. His resurrection is a type of the soul's resurrection. St. Paul assumes that Christians are "risen with Christ" (Col_3:1). The gospel is thus supremely a message of life. It comes to us in our most degraded, desolate, despairing condition. It brings life and incorruptibility to light.
III. A VISION OF THE RESURRECTION. A fair reading of this passage will not permit us to take it as a promise of an individual resurrection after natural death. It is a parable of the restoration of Israel. The notion that the very bones of the dead are to be pieced together and clothed with flesh, that the scattered dust of corpses is to be gathered from the four quarters of the earth, that the very same animal organism that once lived and died and decayed or was devoured by worms shall be built up again, is a coarse, degrading idea. It gives no suggestion of a future exalted, spiritual life. It is beset with monstrous difficulties when we look at it in the light or' the facts of nature. If this old conception of the resurrection be set forth as the only Christian idea, men will not accept it, and the glorious hope of any resurrection or future life at all will be endangered. But this idea is quite contrary to the profound teaching of St. Paul, who says expressly, "Thou sowest not that body that shall be," and "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven" (1Co_15:50). The Bible teaches the resurrection of the dead, but not the resurrection of flesh. The old, coarse, impossible notion has no support in the passage before us. We have here a symbolical vision, and it is no more to be taken literally than the illustration of the two sticks that follows (verse 16). Still, as a figure and an image it is strikingly suggestive of the future resurrection. He who restores nations and souls by quickening grace will also awaken them that sleep in Jesus, and raise them up, a glorious army redeemed from death.
Eze_37:4, Eze_37:9
II. PROPHESYING TO THE WIND. Ezekiel had a measure of success—a wonderful success it appeared to be. The bones fitted themselves together and were clothed with flesh. Still they were not alive. All the result attained hitherto is that the scattered skeletons have become compact corpses. But this is but a valley of death. Now, the first preaching has done its work. It is useless merely to repeat it. A new thing must be tried. Ezekiel must prophesy to the wind to breathe on the slain, and make them live. When he does this the wind comes, and there stands up an exceeding great army of living men. The wind is here regarded as the power of life. It is typical of the Spirit of God (Joh_3:8). Life can only come from God's Spirit. The most stirring preaching will not create it. We may preach God's truth in God's strength, and good results may follow, but not the new birth of the Divine life unless the Spirit of God comes and produces it. Preaching does not regenerate. After prophesying to the bones Ezekiel must prophesy to the wind. Preaching must be followed by prayer. The preacher must call down the power of God to his aid if his work is to issue in living results. We need more prophesying to the wind. If life is to take possession of dead souls, we must pray more for the coming of the quickening Spirit. He does come in response to prayer. If the first kind of prophesying is not barren, assuredly the second will not be. When God's Spirit is invoked in the preaching of God's Word, exceeding great armies of souls may rise from the death of sin.
Eze_37:15-22
I. A COMMON SORROW. Here the foundation of the reunion was laid. Both of the rival nations were driven into captivity.
1. Sorrow should soften animosity. In our proud prosperity we may foolishly imagine that we can afford to quarrel. There then seems to be an immense reserve of resources, and we can be lavish in squandering what should be regarded as the riches of friendship. But in truth we need friends, and we desire to cherish them.
2. Trouble subdues pride.
3. Trouble elicits sympathy. They who have passed through the deep waters of affliction are usually most ready to sympathize with their sorrowing brethren. If we are "partners in distress," we are the more naturally drawn together. Perhaps this result will give us one explanation of the mystery of sorrow.
II. A COMMON BLESSING. The call to return is for all Israel. All men are called to share in the restoring mercies of Christ. Christians who have responded to the gracious invitation of the gospel and entered into the joy of the new life have all one experience in common. That was a happy day in which hearts leaped for joy when the beloved hills of Palestine came into sight in the blue distance. Surely all old feuds would be forgotten as the restored captives actually walked on their own land and built the cities and planted the vineyards while their gladness overflowed. "When the Lord turned again the captivity of Zion," they said, "we were like them that dream. Then was our mouth filled with laughter, and our tongue with singing: then said they among the heathen, The Lord hath done great things for them. The Lord hath done great things for us; whereof we are glad" (Psa_126:1-3). That was no time for reviving old feuds. Sharing the common blessings of the gospel, we should forget our old quarrels.
III. A COMMON RELIGION. Religion, which should be the great bond of union, has become the great divider of men. People who could agree to live together peaceably on all other accounts fall out about their religion and stand apart in hopeless divisions on this one ground. Thus Israel and Judah were divided by their religion. Israel was jealous of the temple privileges of Jerusalem, and Judah was indignant at the calf-worship of Israel. But now the idolatry is over, and a new temple is to be built at which all parties can work. Christ is our Peace (Eph_2:14). He breaks down distinctions of race and party. It is the Christlessness of religion that makes religious differences. If we all had more of Christ we should all be more united; for he is the one center of union in the Christian Church.
Eze_37:23
I. THE SURVIVAL OF ANTIQUITY. Joshua reminded the people that their fathers worshipped "other gods" (Jos_24:2). The Hebrews cannot be described as an originally and naturally monotheistic race. Monotheism does not seem to be innate in any branch of the Semitic family. On the contrary, it is much more readily traced in the early history of the Aryan races. The Semitic instinct rather points to cruel and lustful nature-worship, accompanied by gross idolatry, although by the inspiration of their prophets the Hebrews were called out of this low form of religion to the worship of the holy Jehovah. Superstitions of idolatry linger long after a more spiritual worship is established. This is seen in missionary lands; and even in Europe heathenish customs are mixed up with Christian belief. Much of the corruption of Christianity in Romanism is just the perpetuation of the old paganism under Christian names.
II. THE CONTAGION OF EXAMPLE. The Jews were surrounded by heathen peoples. They were called to a lonely destiny of separation. But they did not always realize their vocation. Their later idolatry was an importation from their neighbors. Men are much influenced in religion by what is called "the spirit of the times," by the fashion of the day, by the stream of prevalent customs. It is hard to make our religion a continual protest against popular ideas and practices.
III. THE CHARM OF THE SENSUOUS. Idols were visible, tangible objects. It was so much easier to offer worship to such things than to the unseen God of heaven. It is our perpetual temptation to neglect the spiritual for the material. We do not prostrate ourselves before calves of gold; but we are tempted to worship coins of gold. Our idol-temples are the marts of commerce. The British Parthenon is the Bank of England. The whole tendency of life is towards absorption in things temporal, concrete, visible—eating and drinking, clothing and building, merry-making and' amusements. Even in religion we tend to degenerate to the sensuous, and music and pageantry threaten to supersede worship and meditation. The visible ritual endangers the invisible devotion. All this is idolatry.
IV. THE COMFORT OF A LOW IDEAL. The intellectual strain of spiritual worship is not its most exacting characteristic. God is not only unseen; he is holy, and he can only be approached with clean hands and a pure heart. The religion of Israel was a religion of holiness. This was its most marked feature in contrast with heathenism. It was possible to satisfy all the demands of idolatry and yet to remain in sin. Nay, much of the monstrous ritual of idol-worship consisted in the indulgence of licentious passions. It was much easier to worship idols than to worship the holy God. A worldly life is compatible with a low moral standard. Hence the temptation to be satisfied with this life. But Christ calls us to the loftiest ideal and to a warfare against sin. We must take up the cross if we would follow him.
Eze_37:24, Eze_37:25
1. He is of the line of David. He was welcomed as the Son of David (Luk_18:38). He gathers up the old traditions of Israel's golden age, and lifts their promises to a higher fulfillment.
2. He is a Shepherd. Aristotle quoted Homer to show that the true king should be a shepherd. Christ rules tenderly and with regard to the welfare of his people, not like the cruel, selfish, despotic monarchs of heathen empires.
3. He is God's Servant. Therefore
(1) it is God's will that we should have Christ as our King, and
(2) Christ rules according to the will of God.
II. THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST IS A CENTER OF UNITY. "And they all shall have one Shepherd." Judah and Israel are to have but one King, and are to be united under the reign of this new David. "The envy also of Ephraim shall depart," etc. (Isa_11:13) The supreme advantage of the institution of a monarchy is that it cements the people under it into a consolidated unity. Christ is the Head of the body, and as such he harmonizes the movements of all the limbs. It is strange that Christendom should be broken up into innumerable mutually antagonistic factions. But Christ is not responsible for those divisions. On the contrary, it is just the loss of Christ in the Churches that leads to their severance.
III. THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST IS AN INSPIRATION FOR OBEDIENCE. "They shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes to do them." It is more difficult to obey an abstract law than to serve a living person. Christianity by no means gives us a dispensation from the obligation of obedience. Our Lord expects his disciples to "exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees" (Mat_5:20), and it is possible to do this by his new method. No longer painfully toiling along the dreary road of formal legalism, Christians are inspired by an enthusiasm for their Master which fires their love and zeal to do or suffer on his behalf; and this glorious, loving service of Christ is just the obedience and righteousness transformed into a new and attractive shape.
IV. THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST IS A FOUNDATION OF SOLID PROSPERITY. Under the new David the people will live at peace in the possession of their land. The service of Christ introduces all Christians to a splendid inheritance. The Christian life is not a wild knight-errantry. It is the enjoyment of a happy and peaceful kingdom. When Christ's reign is universal, society will be happy and prosperous. Even now inward peace and rich treasures of Divine grace are the portion of his people on earth, while they are cheered with the prospect of entering into a wonderful "inheritance of the saints in light" when the present life is over.
V. THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST IS TO BE ETERNAL. "My Servant David shall be their Prince forever." The reign of Christ was never so widespread as it is in this nineteenth century. His sun dawned nearly two thousand years ago. It is still climbing to its meridian. Sunset Christ shall never have. The Light of the world is the light of the ages—"Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Heb_13:8).
Eze_37:27
II. GOD'S PRESENCE IS A PROTECTION FOR HIS PEOPLE. He says that his tabernacle shall be not merely "with them," but "over them," as the phrase should be rendered. We think of a sheltering tent protecting the people from the heat of the sun by day and from the frosts by night. In the olden times the tabernacle was planted in the midst of the camp, but the people generally were not admitted to its covered shrine, which was reserved for a privileged priesthood. Now, however, the veil is rent, and now all God's people are priests, as the apostle to the Jews declared (1Pe_2:9). Now, therefore, God's tabernacle is not only in the midst of the camp, gazed at with admiration by a surrounding host. It is spread over the people of God, because they are allowed to enter its most holy place. Our safety lies in our nearness to God, and when we truly seek to enter into close communion with Heaven we find that there is a sense of security and peace that can be found in no other way.
1. God then protects from trouble, even when the blow falls, by strengthening us to bear it.
2. He protects from temptation by giving us a joy greater than that of the pleasures of sin.
3. He protects from the guilt of the past, by taking away our sins and giving free forgiveness.
4. He protects from the fear of the future, by assuring us that he will never leave us nor forsake us.
III. GOD'S PRESENCE WITH HIS PEOPLE SECURES THEIR UNION WITH HIM. "Yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people." It is difficult to love and trust an absent Being, but nearness stimulates affection and confidence.
1. The people own God. He is "their God." This signifies willing acceptance following deliberate choice. No man has a true experience of religion until he can say from his heart, "The Lord is my God."
2. God owns his people. They are his by right of creation; they are still more his by right of redemption—" bought with a price." God's ownership implies
(1) his right to do as he will with his people;
(2) his care to preserve his possession;
(3) his joy in dwelling among his children.
Observe, in conclusion:
1. Sin removes the tabernacle of God from our midst. When Israel sinned, the tabernacle was pitched outside the camp.
2. Christ brings Goal back into closest association with us. In Christ he "pitches his tent among us" (Joh_1:14).
Eze_37:28
1. Its form. Sanctification is essentially a being set apart for God. This involves two ideas.
(1) Separation. The Jews were separated from the heathen. Christians are called out from the world. Christ founded the Church partly in order that Christians might realize the brotherhood of a family within its borders, and partly that they might be divided from the heathenish world. The superficial Christianizing of the world, and the more than superficial worldliness of the Church, have combined to obscure the old lines of demarcation. But we cannot afford to neglect them.
(2) Dedication. The separated people are set apart for God, as young Samuel was separated from his house and given to the Lord. This is the explanation of the separation; here we see its purpose. The separation does not take place for the sake of making a difference, but in order that the people of God may wholly give themselves to his service.
2. Its character. Though the pure idea of sanctification is formal rather than moral, and means essentially a setting apart for God, it is only realized in the experience of personal holiness.
(1) We can only be separated from the world by giving up the sin of the world. The mark of separation is purity of character.
(2) We can only be devoted to God by purity of heart. Only thus can we see God (Mat_5:8). Only thus can our service be acceptable in his sight. Thus sanctification comes to be equivalent to making pure and holy.
3. Its cause. God sanctifies his people. They must desire and seek the sanctification, but they cannot create it. Men may separate themselves from the world in external profession and habit, living as hermits in the wilderness, immuring themselves in cloistered monasteries, repudiating conventional manners with Puritan precision; and all the while they may remain worldly at heart. They may offer themselves formally for the service of God, and take office in the Church, and yet be only self-seekers and servants of sin. As purification is essential to sanctification, sanctification must be a Divine act. This is the great work of the Holy Spirit. God separates, consecrates, and purifies his people through the action of his Spirit in them.
II. THE INFLUENCE OF THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE CHURCH ON THE WORLD. The heathen shall know that God sanctifies Israel. This fact will be a witness to the pagan world of the power and character of God. It will be a great sermon in history, a preaching in events. No preaching can be more powerful. The greatest hindrance to missionary work consists in the wicked conduct of persons from Christian lands who visit heathen countries. The example of the Christian life is its best help. Christ preached by his life more than by his words. His cross on Calvary is more eloquent than his Sermon on the Mount. If we desire to give a new impulse to missionary enterprises we must begin at home. We must first of all consecrate our own hearts and lives afresh to our Master; we must seek a new baptism of the Holy Ghost for the sanctification of the Church. The Pentecost that brought a spiritual blessing to the little company in the upper room at Jerusalem started the great evangelistic triumphs of the apostolic age. While it may be well to discuss missionary methods, we much more need to seek a spiritual revival of the home Churches, that a new impulse may be given to the most fruitful form of missionizing—the living influence of a consecrated people.
I. SPIRITUAL ENLIGHTENMENT REVEALS WHAT IS REAL BENEATH WHAT IS APPARENT. To other eyes no such vision as that which broke upon the sight of the inspired prophet was accorded. On the contrary, men might have looked upon Israel—part of the people in captivity, and part still occupying the land of their fathers—and have seen nothing but such misfortune and calamity as are incident to human history. To the prophetic, quickened, illumined mind of Ezekiel the real state of the nation was manifest. In like manner, a superficial observer might direct his attention to the human race without apprehending its spiritual condition as one of deprivation, of gloom, of death; he might be dazzled by external splendor and prosperity, and it might not occur to him that beneath the fair and glittering outside there was concealed from his eyes what, after all, is the most important characteristic of humanity, regarded spiritually.
II. THE REALITY TO BE RECOGNIZED IS THE PRESENCE AND THE POWER OF SPIRITUAL DEATH.
1. The cause of this is sin. Life flows from communion with him who is the ever-living Fountain of life. Severed from God, the soul cannot live.
2. The effects and signs of this death are numerous and evident. Insensibility to Divine truth, to virtue, to immortality, may be mentioned as most impressively brought before us in the vision which Ezekiel saw. The dry bones lay scattered about the plain, insensible to everything, to every presence about them, neither affected by any occurrence nor initiating any movement. Such is the state of the spiritually dead—the "dead in trespasses and sins."
III. HOPELESSNESS DISTINGUISHES THE STATE OF THE SPIRITUALLY DEAD. "Son of man, can these bones live?" If the answer depended upon human sagacity, if the means to awaken life were such as are available to human wisdom alone, such as are known by human experience, there can be but one answer "Life is impossible! ' Who that locked upon pro-Christian society could cherish the hope that from that necropolis there could start into vitality and activity a host of living, consecrated beings, filled with the life of God, eager to do the work of God? Could the Church have grown out of the world? The supposition is an absurdity. The prophet's reply to the inquiry was the only reply that was reasonable. All depended upon God; man was powerless and hopeless for revival. "O Lord God, thou knowest!"—T.
Eze_37:4 -10
I. THE MINISTRY OF PROPHECY.
1. It presumes intelligent natures to which the appeal is made.
2. It presumes a Supreme Authority by which the prophet is selected, fitted, and guided in the discharge of his &rice.
3. It presumes a ministerial nature and character, on the one side open to communications from God, on the other side sympathetic with those for whose benefit such communications are vouchsafed.
4. It presumes an occasion and circumstances, suggesting the fulfillment of a spiritual mission.
II.