The Worthless Vinestock: A Rhetorical-Critical Study of

Ezekiel 151

Clint Heacock, PhDLiverpool Mission Academy

www.preachersforum.orgIntroduction

Fairly or unfairly Ezekiel 15 has, one might argue, a

few strikes against it. First and most obviously, it is set

within a book whose meaning is already exceedingly difficult

to grasp.2 If the average reader perseveres into reading

through Ezekiel as far as 15, he or she is most likely

already confused and well on the way to being hopelessly

lost. Second, in terms of the attention this literary unit

receives in many commentaries, Ezekiel 15 often tends to be

overshadowed by its larger and much more controversial

neighbor to its immediate right: Ezekiel 16. On average

commentators typically devote between just one to three

pages to this often-overlooked literary unit, which is

1 Although since modified, this paper was originally delivered in Feb. 2007 at the Graduate Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Biblical World Conference, Trinity College, Dublin.2 Block observes that since Ezekiel is such a complex and bizarre work, many readers are confused by it; thus unfortunately the prophet is “doomed to remain a mystery” (The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997: xi).

comprised of only 8 verses. Third, oftentimes preachers have

submitted to the all-too-easy temptation to draw a parallel

between this text and the vine mentioned in John 15.1-8.3

Finally, biblical scholars have added to the confusion by

disagreeing about its precise genre identification, viewing

the unit either as an oracle or a parable.4 Based upon these

issues it is little wonder that readers struggle to make

sense of this little chapter, not to mention the book of

Ezekiel itself.

3 As in for example sermons by Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon and Chuck Smith. For more on this see Chapter 6 in the author’s PhD dissertation located at http://chesterrep.openrepository.com/cdr/bitstream/10034/211269/7/chapter%206.pdf. 4 For example, Greenberg refers to the genre of 15 as an “oracle” divided into two halves (2-5 and 6-8), but does observe that the style of vv. 2-5 “approaches the poetic” with some evidences of parallelism (Ezekiel 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday,1983: 266). Cooke believes vv. 2-5 to be a “little poem” with metrical form, but that vv. 6-8 departs from any form of parallelism (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936: 156). Zimmerli notes two halves as well but labels vv.2-5 a parable and vv. 6-8 as its interpretation (Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1-24. Ronald E. Clements, trans. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979: 318). Hals argues that “It seems inappropriate to designate the use of the vine image in vv. 2-6 as a parable, if that label is to have any more precise meaning than ‘metaphorical discourse.’ The absence of any distinctively parable-style formulaic introduction or conclusion supports this judgment” (Ezekiel in The Forms of Old Testament Literature, Volume XIX. Rolf Knierim and Gene M. Tucker, eds. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1989: 99).

This paper attempts to correct some of these imbalances

by devoting greater attention to this literary unit, which

brings clarity to the chapter in terms of both its genre

identification and rhetorical function. Viewing the unit

within the contextual situation of the entire book of

Ezekiel allows chapter 15 to be seen as making a significant

contribution to the rhetorical strategies of both the

prophet and the book.5 The basis for such a reading employed

in this study combines a synchronic text-centered

narratology together with a rhetorical-critical approach.

These seemingly divergent approaches can actually serve to

complement each other interpretatively, as Fokkelman points

out: “A sound narratology is largely a form of rhetorical

analysis.”6

5 One must be careful to distinguish these two differing objectives: firstly the mission of the prophet Ezekiel as a character within the book, who ministered historically to the exiles in Babylon; and secondly the book of Ezekiel itself in its final form as a piece of literature with its own rhetorical strategies aimed at all later readers. In narratological terms these are seen as the differences between the story (the historical events behind the narrative) and the discourse (the literary work itself, which draws elements from the story in order to narrativize these into a written document). For the sake of clarity this paper will consistently refer to the discourse of Ezekiel, meaning the final form of the work as a literary unity. 6 Fokkelmann, J.P. Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide. Ineke Smit, trans.Leiden: Deo Publishing, 1999: 56.

In order to make its case the study begins by first

exploring the contextual situation of the book as a whole,

discussing the two rhetorical situations of Ezekiel.7

Second, from this reading the study moves to a close

rhetorical-critical-narratological reading of Ezekiel 15 in

order to reveal its textual and rhetorical dynamics. Finally

the paper concludes by assessing the potential rhetorical

effectiveness of the unit in light of aims of the book of

Ezekiel.

The Contextual Situation of Ezekiel

Ezekiel is unique since it is the only book in

Scripture written entirely consistently from within a first-

person character-narrator’s point of view.8 This narratorial

strategy also reveals the rhetorical strategies employed by

Yahweh consistently throughout the discourse of Ezekiel. In

7 For more on this see this author’s paper “The Two Rhetorical Situations of Ezekiel: A Critical-Narratological Study of the Mission ofthe Prophet” available at www. http://preachersforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2-Rhetorical-Situations-of-Ezekiel.pdf preachersforum.org.8 While there are examples of first-person narration in Scripture (partsof Nehemiah and Acts), Ezekiel is the only book written consistently throughout from the point of view of a first-person character-narrator.

terms of voice hierarchies9 the discourse consistently

presents Yahweh as the rhetor (speaker) who commissions and

then employs the character-narrator Ezekiel as his prophet-

priest watchman. In terms of voice direction, Yahweh speaks

to Ezekiel who in turn delivers that message to his exilic

audience exactly as he hears them from Yahweh.10 Although is

certainly the case that foreign nations or the Jerusalemites

(those Israelites still living in Jerusalem prior to its

destruction) serve as the subjects of many of the oracles

within the book, in reality these are merely the ostensive

or putative audiences of the oracles. Renz points out that

in terms of the addressees of oracles within the book that

“a particularly clear distinction is made between those the

9 La Driere states: “In the analysis of a speech or literary composition, nothing is more important than to determine precisely the voice or voices presented as speaking and the precise nature of the address” (“Voice and Address,” In Dictionary of World Literature: Criticism-Forms-Technique (New Revised Edition). Joseph T. Shipley, ed. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1960: 441-442). Voice hierarchy refers to the clarification of voice and direction of speech: from a speaker to a hearer or addressee.10 This dynamic is clearly seen from the opening of the book. Ezekiel’s ‘vision and commission’ in Chapters 1-3 reveals that Yahweh sent Ezekielto minister to his fellow-exiles in Babylon (2.3, 3.4-7). Ezekiel must speak the very words of Yahweh whenever he hears them whether or not theexiles listen (2.7, 3.4 and 3.17).

oracle is concerned with (the Jerusalemites) and those who

actually hear it (the exilic community).”11

Therefore despite the reality that many oracles appear

to be directed specifically at differing audiences

(Jerusalemites or foreign nations), without exception they

are always intended for the ears of Ezekiel’s actual

audience: the exiles. This clarification of voice hierarchy

and audience reveals the major rhetorical dynamic at work

within the book—that is, at least up to 33.21-22 when the

news of the fall of Jerusalem reached the exiles in Babylon.

Prior to Jerusalem’s destruction Ezekiel’s unenviable task

was repeatedly to drive home the point to his fellow-exiles

that based upon Yahweh’s judgment Jerusalem was doomed, and

furthermore that the exiles could not count on any sort of

help from foreign nations to save the city. Thus from

Yahweh’s point of view in Ezekiel, the exiles in Babylon

represented the future and not the doomed Jerusalemites,

upon whom his judgment must inexorably fall.

11 Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. VTSup LXXVI. Leiden:Brill, 1999: 34 (parentheses his).

Standing in the way of Yahweh’s future plans for the

exiled nation, however, was one major obstacle: the

theological worldview of the exiles, to which they clung

with fierce determination. Their position maintained that

for a variety of reasons Jerusalem would remain

inviolable.12 Based upon this worldview the exiles staunchly

believed that their time in Babylon would shortly be over

and they would soon enjoy a speedy return to their

homeland.13 Block notes that the exiles’ system of belief

had several ideological “pillars of support,” one of which

was a strong sense of nationalistic pride.14 Ezekiel

therefore faced the difficult situation in which nationalism

was still alive even during the period of the exile.15

Despite the physical separation from their homeland, their

Davidic king, Jerusalem and the Temple, the exiles

nonetheless stubbornly clung to the belief that Jerusalem

obviously must be spared the judgment of Yahweh. They based

12 For more on this point of view see Hayes, “The Tradition of Zion’s Inviolability,” JBL Vol. 82, No. 4 (Dec., 1963), pp. 419-426.13 Clements, Ezekiel, 5.14 Block, The Book of Ezekiel: 1-24: 8.15 Anderson, Bernhard W. The Living World of the Old Testament. 4th Edition. Essex: Longman Group UK Limited: 1988: 436.

this belief upon the facts as they interpreted them: a

combination of the inherent goodness of the nation Israel

together with its long history of association with Yahweh,

the Davidic dynasty and his election of them as his chosen

people. For these reasons and more, the exiles concluded,

life would return to normal once Yahweh spared Jerusalem.16

Repeatedly throughout the first two-thirds of the book

(1-33.20-21) Yahweh squarely takes aim at knocking down the

pillar of nationalistic pride through a wide variety of

strategies. To accomplish this goal Yahweh commissioned

Ezekiel to warn the exiles through both word and deeds that

Jerusalem was in fact doomed, and in the process shatter

completely their flawed and faulty worldview. Through

Ezekiel Yahweh repeatedly makes the point that only a

handful of people will survive the slaughter, and the sole

reason for their survival would be to serve as living

examples of Yahweh’s judgment upon the city (7.16; 14.22;

17.21). It is only after the fall of Jerusalem in 33.20-21

16 Additional reasons include false prophets who foretold that Jerusalemwould be spared (13.1-17) and magic charms and amulets worn by the exiles in the belief they would ward off Jerusalem’s destruction (13.18-23).

that Yahweh changed his focus: only at that point could the

re-commissioned Ezekiel begin to rebuild the exiles’

shattered hopes and dreams by revealing Yahweh’s new vision

for their future.

On this basis the two major sections of Ezekiel

demonstrate not one but two rhetorical situations. The first

situation encompasses 1-33.20 and occurs prior to the fall of

Jerusalem. In this section Yahweh’s primary message to the

exiles is clear: Jerusalem is doomed. Moreover they cannot

count on Jerusalem being rescued by any means, despite what

false prophets may have indicated to the contrary (12.26-28;

13). Despite this overwhelming message of impending

disaster, embedded within the first situation are occasional

messages of future hope for the exiles—as it were, “rays of

light piercing the gloom” (11.14-21; 16.53-56).

The news of Jerusalem’s fall in 33.21-48 reaches the

exiles and heralds the second rhetorical situation. At this

point Ezekiel’s messages from Yahweh change to those

primarily of future hope and restoration for Israel. Once

the old illusions of their spirituality have been utterly

destroyed, the exiles could at last look forward to a new

day of shalom.17 Nonetheless within this second rhetorical

situation, despite the optimistic tone one can still find

the occasional message of judgment (as in chapters 34-36,

39). Only at the point where Yahweh’s word had been

confirmed regarding the destruction of the city can Yahweh

have Ezekiel begin to rebuild their shattered worldview and

replace it with his vision for the future. Block points out

in this regard: “Accordingly, in his vision of the new day,

Ezekiel offers hope by systematically reconstructing the

pillars on which the nation’s security had been based in the

first place.”18 The two rhetorical situations are therefore

held in tension with each other as the themes of judgment

and hope, destruction and rebuilding, are counterbalanced

within both.

A Close Rhetorical-Critical-Narratological Reading of Ezekiel 15

Moving from the contextual situation of Ezekiel, the

study now turns to a close reading of Ezekiel 15 itself.

17 Block, Ezekiel I, 14-15.18 Ibid., 14-15.

This chapter forms a distinct literary unit since it begins

with the prophetic word formula and closes with the

prophetic utterance formula. It demonstrates a consistent

common subject and is “followed by the beginning of a

separate unit [16] with a new prophetic word formula.”19 In

terms of voice hierarchy Yahweh the rhetor is the originator

of the oracle, while the character-narrator Ezekiel mediates

his message to the exiles. This narratorial stance is

revealed by the opening prophetic word formula in 15:1a as

the reader encounters Ezekiel the character-narrator

stating: “The word of Yahweh came to me, saying, “Son of

man…”

In terms of ethos this unique narratorial stance serves

to establish Ezekiel’s credibility since he serves as a

channel or conduit through which Yahweh’s word comes to the

exiles. He neither expands Yahweh’s message nor reinterprets

it but instead speaks only the words of Yahweh exactly as

they have come to him. Ezekiel the “prophet speaks only the

divine word that is put into his mouth (cf. 3.27) and does

19 Hals, Ezekiel, 98.

not elaborate the message in any way.”20 This rhetorical

stance places the responsibility for the message not upon

Ezekiel’s shoulders but rather squarely upon Yahweh’s. As a

result Ezekiel is actually aligned with his audience since

he functions not in an adversarial role but rather as the

conduit of the divine message. This style of speech is

ultimately “designed to reflect an intimate notion of God

who spoke directly to his prophet”21 and by extension, to

his people also. Moreover the opening formula makes it clear

that Ezekiel—although compelled to deliver the message of

impending judgment—only does so by divine command.

Accordingly the exilic audience would be more inclined to

listen to Ezekiel’s message rather than to reject it out of

hand.22 Ezekiel therefore presents the oracle to the exiles

exactly as he received it from Yahweh, neither arguing for

20 Wilson, Robert R. “Prophecy in Crisis: The Call of Ezekiel.” In Interpreting the Prophets. Mays, James Luther and Paul J. Achtemeier, eds. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987: 165.21 Gitay, Yehoshua. “The Realm of Prophetic Rhetoric.” In Rhetoric, Scripture, and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference. Porter, Stanley E., and Thomas H. Olbricht, eds. JSNTSS 131. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996: 227.22 Gitay, Yehoshua. “The Projection of the Prophet: A Rhetorical Presentation of the Prophet Jeremiah (According to Jer. 1:1-19).” In Prophecy and Prophets: The Diversity of Contemporary Issues in Scholarship. Yehoshua Gitay, ed. SBL Semeia Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997: 46-47.

its validity nor asking the audience to accept it as truth.

Such a request would invite refusal, and such an argument

would invite refutation.23

The unit can be divided structurally into three

sections: first, the introductory prophetic word formula in

v.1; second, the parable-like argument by analogy in vv. 2-

5, and third, the interpretation/application of the analogy

in vv. 6-8. The unit divides in the middle with the

occurrence of lachen (“that being so” or “therefore”) at the

beginning of v.6, which serves as a bridge connecting the

second and third sections.24 Although some commentators have

argued against the inclusion of v.8 into the unit Zimmerli

maintains that even if a later editor added the verse, the

case can be made that it fits thematically into the overall

argument of the unit and the book as a whole.25

23 Fox, Michael V. “The Rhetoric of Ezekiel’s Vision of the Valley of the Bones.” Hebrew Union College Annual 51 (1980): 9.24 Greenberg points to a similar use of this word in Ezekiel 17.19, where lachen serves as a structural marker to inform the reader “that only now have we arrived at the consequential part of the oracle” (“Ezekiel 17: A Holistic Interpretation.” JAOS Vol. 103 No. 1 (January-March 1983): 151).25 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 319.

Assessing the structure of the unit itself beyond the

introductory formula, its two remaining sections (vv. 2-5,

6-8) make use of two argumentative levels, or what Greenberg

refers to as “planes.” The unit begins on the “plane of

nature” in vv. 2-5 and then proceeds to the “divine plane”

in 6-8, and is thus “halved” into an A and a B section.26

Section A, the plane of nature in vv. 2-5, propounds a theme

by centering upon the realm of nature as the parable-like

analogy develops. Section B, the divine plane in vv. 6-8,

interprets and applies the implications drawn from the

analogy developed on the first plane.

A. The Plane of Nature: An Argument by Analogy (vv. 2-5)

Following the introductory prophetic word formula in

15.1, the “plane of nature” in vv. 2-5 follows the

rhetorical strategies of argument by analogy, relentless

rhetorical questions and tradition and innovation. Ezekiel

thus delivers Yahweh’s message to his exilic audience by

posing the following series of questions:

26 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 25.

Question 1: “Son of man, how is the wood of the vine

(superior) than the whole of the wood of the branch

which is in the trees of the forest?” (15.2).

Question 2: “Can wood be taken out from it to make

(something) of use?” (15.3a).

Question 3: “Can they select from it a peg upon which

to hang any utensil?” (15.3b).

Question 4: “Behold, if it has been placed into the

fire for consumption, (and) both ends are consumed in

the fire, and the middle has been scorched, is it good

for any use/service?” (15.4).

Question 5: “Behold, while it existed whole, it was not

used for useful service.

How much less, when fire has devoured it, and it has

been scorched, can it be made again for useful

service?”27 (15.5).

As noted earlier some commentators have labeled the

genre of this section as a parable or an allegory that

27 Translation by the author.

principally employs the vine as a metaphor.28 However, a

closer look reveals that it does not conform to the typical

parable genre: an oftentimes cryptic tale or riddle that

typically makes its point principally by means of narration.

This section is not specifically labeled as a mashal (as for

example are Ezek. 17.2 and 24.3), which although used to

describe a prophetic oracle, is more clearly defined as “any

dark saying intended to stimulate thought.”29 Moreover in

this unit it is difficult to see the vine functioning as a

metaphor. Typically a metaphor serves as a direct

“comparison between two things which involves the

substitution or transference of one word from one context to

another.”30 In other words metaphors function as an inferred

comparison of two different entities in order to suggest a

28 Those labeling it a parable include Clements, Ezekiel, 66; Hals, Ezekiel,99; and Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1970: 192. Joyce labels it an allegory (Ezekiel: A Commentary. New York: T&T Clark, 2007:129)whereas Tuell labels it a riddle that uses the metaphor of the vine (Ezekiel. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009: “Riddles and Metaphors,” Section 5). 29 Snodgrass, “Parables,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels: A Compendium of Christian Knowledge. Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall,eds.: 593.30 Richards, Jennifer. Rhetoric in TheNew Critical Idiom Series. Oxon: Routledge, 2008: 118.

resemblance, one of which is not literally applicable to the

other.31

This study therefore suggests that these five

rhetorical questions function not as a parable but rather as

an argument by analogy. In contrast to metaphors analogies

function as extended similes, or “an illustration of an idea

by means of a more familiar idea that is similar or parallel

to it in some significant features.”32 Roehm and Sternthal

describe how analogies function: “An analogy compares a

known base item to an unknown target item with which it

shares a relational structure among attributes, but not

surface features.”33 Analogies therefore work by setting

aside surface attributes and transferring structural

relations from base to target.34 In the case of Ezekiel 15,

common attributes can be mapped from the known base (the

vinestock) to its target (lumber from trees). Whereas the

relational structure shared between the two comprise their 31 “Metaphor,” www.dictionary.com 32 Baldick, Chris. “Analogy” in The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford: OUP, 1999: 13.33 Roehm, Michelle L., and Brian Sternthal. “The Moderating Effect of Knowledge and Resources on the Persuasive Impact of Analogies.” JCR Volume 28 No 2 (Sep. 2001): 257.34 Ibid., 257.

wood-like nature, it is precisely the structural differences

between the two that gives the analogy—and therefore the

argument itself—its persuasive force.

The image of Israel as a fruitful vine served as a

positive national symbol from Israel’s literary and

historical tradition (Gen. 49.22; Isa. 5.1-7; 27.3; Ezek.

19.10-11). At first glance Yahweh appears to draw upon this

tradition, but then takes it in an unexpected direction by

employing an innovative rhetorical twist: he does not draw

the specific (and perhaps obvious) comparison between the

vine itself and trees. Instead he analogously compares the

vinestock—the actual wood or root of the vine—with lumber

taken from trees. Such a rhetorical strategy of tradition

and innovation would immediately engage the emotions of the

hearers. Rather than drawing upon tradition—from which the

audience might well draw comfort—Yahweh focuses instead upon

the unexpected and the non-traditional. The analogous

rhetorical strategy therefore works by focusing upon the

vinestock and not the consequent product of the vine, its

fruit.

On this comparison Eichrodt observes that “no one has

ever claimed that the vine wood possesses any exceptional

quality…The value of the vine does not depend on that; it

shows its value by its fruit.”35 Hals notes also that “a

mocking tone pervades the unit. To switch the discussion of

the value of a vine from its fruit to its wood is

deliberately and perversely to ‘stack the deck’ in favor of

a hostile verdict.”36 Greenberg further maintains that a

“comparison of the vinestock to Jerusalem (a surrogate for

Judah/Israel) is a grotesque distortion of the traditional

use of the vine as a figure for Israel.”37 For rhetorical

effect Yahweh has deliberately distorted the traditional

image of the vine.38 In point of fact the wood of a vine was

indeed useless for any utilitarian purpose. It was not good

for making furniture or even for use as a peg for a tent or

a wall hanging.39 Vinestock cannot be used for construction

35 Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 193.36 Hals, Ezekiel, 100.37 Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, 268 (parenthesis his).38 Block, Ezekiel 1-24, 456.39 Cooper, Lamar. Ezekiel in The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scriptures, Vol. 17. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994: 166.

or for any of the hundred and one uses to which more solid

and straight-grained timber can be put.40

However unfair this comparison between vinestock and

lumber might be, Yahweh’s rhetorical strategy does not give

the audience time to protest but rather continues along with

a succession of rapid-fire rhetorical questions. Having

relegated the vinestock to a lower status, Yahweh next asked

the exiles a searching question: if no useful utilitarian

function could be found for the wood of the vine itself, how

much lower would its status be if it were to be placed into

a fire? If it was virtually useless before being consigned

to the flames, surely as firewood it must be again inferior

to wood from trees (15.4-5). Moreover, Yahweh maintains that

once burned the vinestock now has even less value than it

did before, which was shown to be virtually worthless.

Yahweh’s rhetorical strategy of argument by analogy

therefore sought to undermine the theological worldview of

the exiles. Whatever confidence the hearer may have had in

the vine’s utilitarian usefulness might well be weakened and

40 Clements, Ezekiel, 66.

perhaps on the way to being completely demolished. Therefore

on this first plane, the rhetorical strategies of argument

by analogy, tradition and innovation and rapid-fire

rhetorical questions served to guide the exiles along until

they could not avoid the certain conclusion: the vinestock is

clearly worthless for any purpose—either utilitarian or firewood—when

compared with lumber and firewood taken from the trees of the forest.

B. Divine Plane (6-8): A Series of Propositions

The change to the second argumentative level—the divine

plane or part B of the unit—is heralded by the use of the

structural marker lachen in 6. The focus of the unit now

changes as Yahweh hammers home a series of points to the

exilic audience that draw their rhetorical strength from the

judgment already passed upon the vine based upon its utter

utilitarian worthlessness. This strategy of verbal

repetition thus moves from the realm of analogy into a

series of propositional statements relevant to the present-

day world of the exiles concerning the fate of Jerusalem.

Yahweh’s first point is that just as he has consigned

the wood of the vinestock to the fire, in like manner he has

given up the inhabitants of Jerusalem to destruction (15.6).

Since the only conceivable use for the wood of the vinestock

was as a second-rate source of fuel for the fire, its only

possible fate must be to serve as firewood.41 Progressing

from bad to worse, Yahweh’s second point is that he has “set

his face against them” (the Jerusalemites) in opposition, a

twice-repeated phrase in v.7. The use of language drawn from

the legal code in Leviticus makes it clear that the guilty

parties have committed a punishable crime.42 Additionally,

based upon his emphatic statement delivered in 14.8, those

against whom Yahweh has “set his face” will be utterly

destroyed—that is, “the guilty party will suffer a direct

blow from YHWH himself.”43 This twice-repeated statement

41 Joyce points out that “a significant parallel is found in 19.10-14, where a vine, representing Judah, is consumed by fire” (Ezekiel: A Commentary, 129).42 Bowen, Abingdon Old Testament Commentary: Ezekiel. USA: Abingdon Press, 2010:75. See for example Lev. 17.10; 20.3, 5, 6.43 Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary, 124. Interestingly in 39.21-24, Yahweh states that although he “hid his face” from Israel during the period of judgment and exile, after their fortunes are restored he will no longer hide his face from them but will instead pour out his Spirit upon them (39.29).

would make it abundantly clear to the exilic audience that

in addition to Jerusalem not being spared, its destruction

would come about via the hand of Yahweh.

At this point in the oracle perhaps some of the exilic

audience may have wondered if any of their friends or loved

ones in Jerusalem might possibly escape the judging hand of

Yahweh. Unfortunately for them Yahweh’s third proposition

destroyed even this bleak possibility by stating

emphatically that even if any of the Jerusalemites managed

to escape from the fire, just like the charred ends of the

vine being thrust back into the fire, so too would these

survivors ultimately be consumed. This point indicates that

even though Jerusalem had survived earlier invasions, this

time the judgment upon Jerusalem would be decisive; there

will be no escape. Yahweh’s fourth point is that he would be

clearly known by these actions, as evidenced by the self-

recognition formula “then you will know that I am Yahweh” in

7d. In terms of the rhetorical strategies of the entire

book, this statement by Yahweh both verbally and

thematically ties chapter 15 to the extensive usage of the

same recognition formula found throughout the book. For the

exilic audience, therefore, there can be no question as to

whose hand is behind the coming judgment upon the city and

its doomed inhabitants.

This observation raises an important point as discussed

above in terms of clarifying between the actual and putative

audiences of the oracle. While not using these specific

terms, Zimmerli clarifies that the recipients of this oracle

are not the Jerusalemites but the exiles, identified by

Yahweh’s use of the second-person plural in the recognition

formula.44 When the devastation of Jerusalem does take place

the exiles should acknowledge the hand of Yahweh at work and

not assign the cause of the destruction to any other reason.

As a theodicy this statement is highly important since there

can be no question as to who is behind these actions; in no

way can the exiles misinterpret either the cause of, or

subsequent results of, the upcoming event.

The fifth point made by Yahweh is that in addition to

the inhabitants of Jerusalem suffering judgment he would

44 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 319.

also make the land desolate. This action would complete the

finality of destruction just as the charred vine ends were

thrust back into the fire. Once again the audience could not

escape the inevitable conclusion: there could be no basis

for hope for the exiles since both the city and the land

would be destroyed.

At the end of the unit the ultimate justification for

Yahweh’s judgment of the Jerusalemites arrives in the form

of the sixth and final point in 8b. “‘Because they acted

unfaithfully,’ declares the Lord Yahweh,” Jerusalem was

doomed. Yahweh explicitly mentions the guilt of the people

in a seemingly tardily-placed motive clause.45 However, what

may seem to be an afterthought at the end of the oracle in

fact serves an important rhetorical function as Yahweh’s

“parting shot” to the exilic audience. As any preacher

seeking to wrap up a sermon knows, an effective epilogue

dwells upon the major points stated throughout the message

but does not repeat them exactly. Such a rhetorical strategy

45 Ibid., 320.

not only continues to attract the hearer’s attention, it

also serves to strengthen the core of the speech.46

Conclusion

The prophetic word formula with which this unit begins

serves two important rhetorical functions. First, it

establishes both Ezekiel’s credibility as the one who

receives the message directly from Yahweh, and second it

aligns him with his audience since he is merely the one who

directly delivers the message as he hears it. This resulting

stance therefore increased the likelihood of his message

being heard and responded to appropriately. As the unit

progresses the rhetorical strategies on the first plane of

nature in vv.1-5 developed through the use of argument by

analogy, tradition and innovation and rhetorical questions.

These rhetorical strategies effectively set the stage for

the epilogue to the oracle on the second divine plane in vv.

6-8. At the extreme end of the oracle, Yahweh’s concluding

46 Gitay, Yehoshua. “Rhetorical Criticism and the Prophetic Discourse.” In Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy. Duane F. Watson, ed. JSNTSS 50. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991: 23.

statement delivered the final blow by seeking to destroy

entirely the exiles’ ideological pillar of support. Such a

strategy effectively undermined the theological worldview of

the exilic audience since they had taken refuge in the

“dignity and privilege flowing from the Lord’s gifts of

grace”47 and as a result, viewed themselves as something

special.

Ezekiel 15 therefore displays how Yahweh made use of

the rhetorical strategies of an argument by analogy followed

by a series of propositional statements. The comparative

analogical strategy served ideally to engage the exilic

audience’s attention by rousing their emotions through the

use of a series of rhetorical questions. Yahweh innovatively

twisted the comforting traditional image of Israel as a

fruitful vine in order to reveal the utilitarian uselessness

of the vinestock when compared to lumber from trees. Through

this rhetorical strategy Yahweh sought to topple the exiles’

pillar of nationalistic pride by demonstrating conclusively

that just like the useless vinestock, so Israel as a nation

47 Hals, Ezekiel, 100.

possessed no inherent worthiness. Such a frame of reference

reduced Yahweh to the role of a confined and restricted

benefactor forced to acquiesce to the people’s preferences.

Such a view of God made him contingent, irreversibly forced

to honor his commitments to the Temple and the priesthood,

the Davidic dynasty and the merit of the community.48 This

worldview is precisely what Yahweh employed Ezekiel to set

about destroying.

Having made the case upon the first plane of nature,

the unit then shifted across the “bridge” of v. 6 to the

divine plane, where—based on the conclusions already reached

in vv. 2-5—Yahweh next lays out propositionally the

subsequent judgments upon the Jerusalemites and the land.

Although the unfaithfulness of the Jerusalemites served as

the ultimate basis for the judgment upon the city, the unit

is nonetheless aimed at squarely at the ears of the actual

audience of the exiles. The epilogue to the oracle in v.8

therefore serves to call the exilic community to future

faithfulness, and this becomes the major issue with which 48 Brueggemann, Walter. Hopeful Imagination: Prophetic Voices in Exile. London: SCMPress, 1992. 80-81.

the exilic audience must wrestle if they would participate

in Yahweh’s vision for their future. While repentance on the

part of the exiles would not spare the certain destruction

of Jerusalem, the oracle nonetheless served an important

rhetorical function: as a call for the exiles to side with

Yahweh’s point of view and agree with his pronouncement that

the forthcoming judgment upon Jerusalem was indeed just.49

By the end of the oracle, although the exilic audience

may have been outraged at the seeming unfairness of the

analogy between the vinestock and lumber, they would

nonetheless be forced to agree with the implications of the

argument by analogy. Agreement with the argument upon the

first plane of nature would subsequently place the exilic

hearers in the position of agreeing with Yahweh that his

verdict rendered over Jerusalem was indeed legitimate. The

implication of accepting the argument of the unit would

therefore drive Ezekiel’s audience to the inexorable

conclusion: if the Jerusalemites would not be spared due to

49 Renz, The Rhetorical Function, 41.

their unfaithfulness, why should Yahweh spare the exiles if

they continued in unfaithfulness?

Acceptance of the unavoidability of Jerusalem’s

destruction would ideally destroy not only the incomplete

and ultimately false theological worldview of the exiles,

but would also potentially serve to point the way toward the

future envisaged by Yahweh in the second rhetorical

situation. Moreover, as a potential bonus to the message,

the exilic audience may also have caught an uneasy but

perhaps useful glimpse of their possible future.50 If this

message from Yahweh was in fact true, the exilic community

could not continue simply to build upon the flawed

assumption that Yahweh would continue to prove loyal to them

—despite their covenant status—if they like the

Jerusalemites continued to be unfaithful to him.51 Despite

the lack of evidence of the audience’s reaction to this

particular oracle, if they indeed embraced the analogy and

its subsequent interpretation and application then the

50 Hals, Ezekiel, 94.51 Ibid., 76.

foundation could be laid for their future spiritual and

national renewal.