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.
Top Related