by
Damien F. Mackey
“He stretched out what looked like a hand and took
me by the hair of my head.
Then the Spirit lifted me up between earth and
heaven and carried me in visions
of God to Jerusalem, to the entrance of the north
gate of the inner court,
where the idol that provokes jealousy was seated”.
“Then the angel of the Lord took [Habakkuk] by the
crown of his head and carried him by his hair; with the speed of the
wind he set him down in Babylon,
right over the [lions’] den”.
1.
First Identifications of Ezekiel
Until
recently, I thought that I may have correctly identified Habakkuk as the
prophet Job, whom I had previously, and most confidently, identified as Tobias,
son of Tobit. For one, the books of Job and Habakkuk are often compared
as to their subject matter. Here is a good example of this from Taylor Yoder (Feb
14, 2026):
Job and Habakkuk: Part
Three - by Taylor Yoder
Job and Habakkuk: Part Three
And
Where Do We Go From Here?
This
article is the third of a three-part series analyzing the parallels between the
books Job and Habakkuk. In them, we examine their experience of suffering and
God’s revelation of his wisdom amid it. Part one focused on Job’s accusation
that God is unjust and God’s response to Job, and part two focused on God’s
response to Habakkuk. For part three, we compare the two books and look to
these men for guidance in our own suffering.
Lamenting like Psalmists
Though
the structure and content of Job and Habakkuk vary in many ways, there are
similar patterns between the two: both cry out to God for the injustices that
they see and experience, questioning if God is just; God responds to both of
them, proclaiming that he is wise and therefore, just; and both find resolve
within their turmoil, turning to God in praise.
While
first accepting what has befallen him, in chapter 3, he curses the day of his
birth. His suffering has led to deep lament. Indeed, he cannot eat and groans
continuously. His worst fears have been realized (v. 24-25). Henceforth, he
continually questions his friends and God himself. Facing such severity of
suffering is an injustice to Job, and he cries out, as many psalmists do.
For
sighing has become my daily food; my groans pour out like water.
What I feared has come upon me; what I dreaded has happened to me.
I have no peace, no quietness; I have no rest, but only turmoil. (3:24-25)
Have mercy
on me, Lord, for I am faint; heal me, Lord, for my bones are in agony...
I am worn out from my groaning.
All night
long I flood my bed with weeping and drench my couch with tears.
My eyes grow weak with sorrow; they fail because of all my foes. (Ps. 6:2, 6-7)
Similarly,
the book of Habakkuk begins with his laments of the injustices around him. His
words, too, read like a psalm,
O LORD,
how long shall I cry for help, and you will not listen?
Or cry to
you “Violence!” and you will not save? (Hab. 1:2)
How long,
O Lord? Will you forget me forever?
How long
will you hide your face from me?
How long
must I bear pain in my soul
and have
sorrow in my heart all day long?
How long
shall my enemy be exalted over me? (Ps. 13:1-2)
God’s Response
A
difference in Job’s and Habakkuk’s experiences appears at the outset of
Habakkuk 1, where God responds to Habakkuk rather quickly. However, Habakkuk
shares a second complaint with God after God’s response to him, just as Job
frequently did.
Apparently,
God’s first response to Habakkuk—explaining why he allows evil to prevail—was
not satisfactory, just as the responses of Job’s friends were almost always
insufficient. Both Job’s and Habakkuk’s complaints to God have a similar
timbre: Is God contradicting himself if he violates the retribution principle
(Job) or uses the evil nation of Babylon to punish Israel, thus turning a blind
eye to their ungodliness (Habakkuk)? Does this contradiction mean that God is
unjust?
God’s
response to these questions is intense, magnifying his glorious wisdom, but
also gentle and patient.
To
Job, God replies with a long monologue that lasts from chapters 38 to 41.
God
argues that he is wise, and because he is wise, he is just. He maintains the
roles and functions in cosmic order (Job 38-39), and he harnesses threats to
the cosmic order, sustaining control through it all (40:6-41:34).[1] As a wise
and just God, he is a tender and loving parent to all of his creation.
God’s
response to Habakkuk appears vastly different than his response to Job. To Job,
he focuses on his wisdom in creation and his control over the entire cosmos. To
Habakkuk, he emphasizes the imminent judgment coming through the Chaldeans.
However, God explains that ultimately, he controls the nation of Babylon, and
this control is rooted in his wisdom.
[End of quotes]
Secondly, as the prophet Job was contemporaneous with the Babylonian
(Chaldean) era (Job 1:17), so, too, was Habakkuk, as we read above (“evil
nation of Babylon”).
And,
thirdly, having Job as Habakkuk seemed to account perfectly for the
latter’s strange - and apparently non-Hebrew - name. For “Habakkuk” is
considered to have been an Akkadian name, which would make a lot of sense in
the case of Job-as-Tobias, who spent most of his long life in Assyria:
Habakkuk | The amazing
name Habakkuk: meaning and etymology
“Ancient
[sic] scholars have pointed out that our name Habakkuk bears a striking
resemblance to the Akkadian word khabbaququ (or
more modern transliterations: habbaquku or habbaququ),
the Assyrian word hambaququ, and the Arabic word hubuqbuq,
which all describe a garden herb of the Lamiaceae family, probably mint (says
R. Campbell Thompson in A Dictionary of Assyrian Botany) or basil
(specifically Ocimum menthaefolium, according to Philippe Provencal's The
Arabic Plant Names of Peter Forrkal's flora Aegyptiaco-Arabica)”.
I
need to recall, for what will follow, that I have also taken the prophet Haggai
to be an abbreviated name-version of Habakkuk (Ha..kku…, Haggai). The ancient
Jews, who liked to use - as did other peoples - hypocoristicons, would have
been only too willing to shorten an awkward foreign name such as Habakkuk
appears to have been.
However,
there have arisen in more recent times several points that I find might strongly
compete with my view of Habakkuk as Job. For one, again, I have learned
that there are some more specific (as opposed to just a degree of overall
likenesses) comparisons between Habakkuk (as my Haggai) and Ezekiel.
These
are raised by Rimon Kasher in his article:
“Haggai and Ezekiel: The Complicated Relations between the Two Prophets”
(4) "Haggai
and Ezekiel: The Complicated Relations between the Two Prophets"
and are handily summarised by him as follows, with reference
to professor Antti Laato:
….
Carroll Stuhlmueller, in his commentary on
Haggai and Zechariah, follows [P.D.] Hanson’s path and associates Haggai and
Ezekiel with the same theological currents.[1]
Antti Laato, too, follows suit,
adding a number of points to his predecessors’ arguments.[2] Both Stuhlmueller and Laato
build on diverse categories of evidence—thematic, stylistic, and editorial—and
fail to distinguish among them. Laato offers eight points of connection between
the two prophets, as follows:
1. The method of dating prophecies.
In both Ezekiel and Haggai prophecies are dated by year, month, and day with
reference to some key event: for Ezekiel, the exile of Jehoiachin; for Haggai,
the reign of Darius I (Hag. i 1; ii 1, 10, 20).
2. The positive attitude maintained
towards those deported into exile: Ezek. xi 14–17; xxxiii 29; Hag. i 12–13).
3. The motif of the "stirring
up the spirit"(ruah): Ezek.
xxxvii 1–10; Hag. i 14.
4. Rules of cultic cleanliness play
an important role in the proclamation: Ezek. xxii 26; Hag. ii 10–14.
5. The motif that the “glory of
YHWH” will fill the new Temple (Ezek. xliii 1–5; Hag. i 8), and that a
marvelous future will be established among the people through the
reconstruction of the Temple (Ezekiel 40–48; Hag. ii 6–9). In addition, the
promise of YHWH's presence in the midst of the restored community (Hag. ii 4)
is reminiscent not only of priestly motif of God tabernacling among his people
but also of Ezekiel xxxvii 27; xlviii 35.
6. The rebuilding of the Temple is
a precondition for agricultural blessings: Ezek. xxxiv 25ff.; xxxvii 15–28;
Hag. ii 19.
7. The positive picture of
Jekoniah's family corresponds well with the Ezeklien tradition: Ezek. xvii
22–24; Hag. ii 23 – in contrast to Jeremiah’s disapproval: Jer. Xxii 24
8. The close ties between the
Davidic dynasty and the Temple: the messianic character of Ezekiel i–xxxix, and
especially xxxvii 27; the pro- nasi
layer of chapters 40–48, with its similarity to Hag. ii 6ff and ii 21ff.
At
first glance, this is a formidable list of similarities between Haggai and
Ezekiel. ….
[End
of quote]
This is far more specific, I would now suggest, than were those
general comparisons that I had been considering between the books of Job and
Habakkuk.
Coupled with this are apparent similarities between Ezekiel
and my alter ego (Haggai) Habakkuk. These I have not yet looked deeply
into, but the reader could consider, for instance, Hayyim Obadyah’s article:
Contextual
Theophanies: Ezekiel and Habakkuk
(PDF) Contextual
Theophanies: Ezekiel and Habakkuk
On
the two days of the Jewish holiday of Shabuoth (Pentecost) the first day’s
synagogue
reading from the prophets (haftara, pl. haftaroth) is from the book of Ezekiel,
and the second day’s from the book of Habakkuk. Both portray theophanies,
appearances by God in our world. The Sages who established the lectionary, in
this case as well as others, clearly set a particular prophetic reading in
order to contribute to the understanding of the Pentateuchal reading and of the
holiday.
I
will argue first that by contextualizing the Pentateuchal (Torah) reading, the
selection of these two prophetic readings provides a particular lens through
which we view the revelation at Sinai which is the holiday’s theme. I will also
show that while the readings have much in common, each of them can appear only
in their respective contexts: at the very beginning of Ezekiel and at the very
end of Habakkuk.
[End
of quote]
Secondly, as the prophet Ezekiel was
contemporaneous with the Babylonian (Chaldean) era (Ezekiel 1:1-3), so, too,
was Habakkuk, as we read above (“evil nation of Babylon”).
Thirdly,
with Ezekiel as a younger contemporary of Job-Tobias - whose long life coursed
through the neo-Assyrian and Chaldean eras, and was even long enough for him to
see and hear about the Fall of Nineveh to the Medo-Persians (cf. Tobit
14:15) - it would be more reasonable to have Ezekiel, rather than Job, still
functioning publicly as late as the 2nd year of Darius the Persian
(Haggai 1:1).
A fourth point, that really stopped me in my tracks,
was that, now Ezekiel, now Habakkuk, was lifted up by the hair by Divine
power.
When I was yet identifying Habakkuk with Job-Tobias, I had considered
this incident to have been a return of Tobias’s heavenly friend - Job’s
“advocate in heaven” (Job 16:19) – the angel Raphael. Tobias, who had not known
the way to Media (Tobit 5:2), was now, late in his life (so I thought) to be
accompanied again by the same archangel, this time to Babylon, to where, also,
he’d never previously been (Daniel 14:35).
But the accumulation of data (as listed in points 1-4 above)
would now have me leaning towards Ezekiel, rather than to Job-Tobias, as being
the same as Habakkuk-Haggai. {The prophet Ezekiel certainly knew about Job (cf.
Ezekiel 14:14, 18, 20; Sirach 49:9)}.
There
is yet a fifth point. An important one.
Prophets were generally Levites, and often priests. A
notable exception was Amos, who was, with his son, Isaiah, of the tribe of
Simeon:
God
can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon
(6) God can raise
up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon
Now Job, who is often called a prophet (certainly in Islam),
was, as Tobias son of Tobit, a Naphtalian Israelite. At the end of the Book of
Job he does even seem to assume something of a priestly rôle (Job 42:8-9) -
though this could have been performed on Job’s behalf by someone else, a genuine
priestly person, then present.
Ezekiel, for his part, was definitely a “priest” (Ezekiel
1:3).
And Habakkuk (הַנָּבִֽיא),
Haggai (הַנָּבִיא),
was han-nā-ḇî,
“the prophet”.
Again, Habakkuk is thought by some to have been a priest:
“In essence, Habakkuk functions more like a priest than a
prophet. Instead of declaring God’s message and thus standing between God and
the people, he pleads God’s mercy, and thus stands between the people and God”.
Likewise,
in the case of Haggai:
“He was a prophet of great faith (compare 2:1-5); it is
possible that he was a priest also (compare 2:10-19)”.
Conclusion 1.
Although
there are certain broad similarities between the prophet Habakkuk and Job,
especially with regard to their alike dialogues with the Lord, Habakkuk -
abbreviated to Haggai (my view) - fits much more adequately as the
priest-prophet Ezekiel.
Habakkuk-Haggai is Ezekiel.
2.
Second Identifications of Ezekiel
In
articles such as:
Elihu
a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel
(10) Elihu a
contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel
I have, following others, made a case for the prophet
Ezekiel as the young Elihu of the Book of Job. Here are some compelling examples
of this:
….
Ezekiel’s
contemporary
Elihu, who must have been - according to my reconstructions of
the life of the righteous Job - a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel, is found
to have certain “similarities” with that prophet.
According
to my reconstructions of the life and times of Job (as Tobias, son of Tobit)
such as:
Job’s Life and Times
Job’s
long life during the neo-Assyrian era took him at least as far as the
destruction of Nineveh (c. 612 BC, conventional dating). This would mean that
Elihu, a young man when Job was already old, had lived during the Chaldean era.
And the Chaldean era was, of course, the very era during which the prophet
Ezekiel had lived and prophesied.
Did
not Ezekiel twice refer to Job (Ezekiel 14:14, 20)?
Nigel
Bernard has provided some intriguing comparisons between Elihu and Ezekiel: http://www.testimony-magazine.org/back/apr2010/bernard.pdf
There are several similarities between
Elihu and Ezekiel.
Comparisons include whirlwinds; sitting
for seven days; not speaking;
and rebuking elders even though they
themselves were much younger.
IN
LAST MONTH’S article we considered Elihu and Elijah. In this second
article we consider Elihu and Ezekiel. As in the previous study, a whirlwind
plays an important role.
Whirlwind
In
the opening chapter of Ezekiel we read of a whirlwind: “And I looked, and,
behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding
itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the
colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire” (v. 4).
Just
as the speech of Elihu was terminated by a whirlwind, the first vision that
Ezekiel sees begins with a whirlwind. In Job the whirlwind provided a
demonstration of power out of which God spoke. The whirlwind in Ezekiel is
spoken of in more detail, and from it emerge the cherubim.
Sat seven days
When
Job’s friends came to him (and we know that Elihu was also there) we read, “So
they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none
spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great. After this
opened Job his mouth, and cursed his day” (2:13; 3:1). Likewise, Ezekiel spent
a period of seven days simply sitting with a group of people, apparently saying
nothing—at least, not words from God: “Then I came to them of the captivity at
Tel-abib, that dwelt by the river of Chebar, and I sat where they sat, and
remained there astonished among them seven days. And it came to pass at the end
of seven days, that the word of the LORD [Yahweh] came unto me, saying . . .”
(Ezek. 3:15,16).
In
Job 21:5 Job says, “Mark me, and be astonished, and lay your hand upon your
mouth”. Ezekiel later follows in the spirit of Job’s request, being
“astonished”, and effectively having his hand upon his mouth. Yet, in the case
of Job, all the time Elihu was indeed laying his hand upon his mouth, no doubt
humble enough to be astonished too.
Dumb
As
we read the speeches of Job and his three friends, the presence of Elihu can be
felt. We know that he is there listening, but he restrains himself from
speaking:
“And
Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are
very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion” (32:6).
He was voluntarily dumb, a dumbness out of respect and fear for his elders, on
the basis that “Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom”
(v. 7).
Ezekiel
was also to be silent, speaking only when God caused him to speak. But his
silence, unlike Elihu’s, was miraculously enforced, for he was made dumb: “and
I will make thy tongue cleave to the roof of thy mouth, that thou shalt be
dumb, and shalt not be to them a reprover: for they are a rebellious house. But
when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth, and thou shalt say unto them,
Thus saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh]; He that heareth, let him hear; and he that
forbeareth, let him forbear: for they are a rebellious house” (Ezek. 3:26,27).
Ezekiel
was made dumb because the house of Israel were rebellious. In contrast, after
Elihu and God had spoken, Job showed humility towards God and repented “in dust
and ashes” (Job 42:6).
Elders
As
we have seen, Elihu says to Job’s friends, “I am young, and ye are very old”.
This theme of a younger person rebuking elders is also echoed in Ezekiel.
Assuming that it is his age which is being spoken of, Ezekiel tells us that it
was in his “thirtieth year” that he saw “visions of God” (1:1). [Mackey’s
comment: I think it unlikely that 30th here would have been a
reference to the prophet’s age]. At his comparatively young age he had to deal
on more than one occasion with the elders of Israel, as the following verses
show:
“And
it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the
month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the
hand of the Lord GOD [Yahweh] fell there upon me” (8:1);
“Then
came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me” (14:1);
“And
it came to pass in the seventh year, in the fifth month, the tenth day of the
month, that certain of the elders of Israel came to enquire of the LORD
[Yahweh], and sat before me” (20:1); “Son of man, speak unto the elders of
Israel, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh]; Are ye come to
enquire of Me? As I live, saith the Lord GOD [Yahweh], I will not be enquired
of by you” (v. 3).
In
the case of both the friends of Job and the elders of Judah, old age proved to
be no guarantee of wisdom or obedience. Their rebuke by younger men only served
to heighten their folly.
Priest and ancestry
[Damien
Mackey’s comment: In the following section, Nigel Bernard, whilst
continuing to find similarities between Elihu and Ezekiel, will distinguish
between “Ezekiel … the priest” and “Elihu … not a priest”.
Whether
or not Elihu was a priest has yet, I think, to be determined].
Ezekiel
is described as “the priest, the son of Buzi”. That he was both a priest and
the son of Buzi provides a link with Elihu.
Malachi
wrote that “the priest’s lips should keep knowledge” (2:7). Although not a
priest, Elihu sought to live the spirit of these words, for he said, “my lips
shall utter knowledge clearly” (Job 33:3).
Elihu
is said to be “the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram” (32:2).
That Elihu was a Buzite could mean that he was a descendant of Buz, the son of
Nahor (see Gen. 22:20,21), and/or he lived in a territory called Buz. According
to Strong, “Buzi” in Ezekiel 1:3 is the same word as “Buzite” in Job 32:2. This
is a rare name in Scripture. That both Elihu and Ezekiel have this name
mentioned in their ancestry alerts us to look for other similarities between
these two men.
[End of quotes]
Now Elihu’s father (ancestor), Barachel, may lead us into a
further connection of him – especially as Ezekiel – with the prophet Zechariah,
whose father (ancestor) was the similarly named, Berechiah (Zechariah 1:1). And
I have already (based on others) developed a strong connection between Ezekiel
(Elihu) and the prophet Zechariah:
Many
textual likenesses between Ezekiel and Zechariah suggest this to have been the
one prophet
(10) Many textual
likenesses between Ezekiel and Zechariah suggest this to have been the one
prophet
Here
is a substantial sample of this:
That Zechariah may have been the same priest-prophet
as Ezekiel was what I vaguely hinted at in the very beginning of my article:
Elihu
a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel
(4) Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel
“The prophet Zechariah has
certain likenesses to the mysterious prophet Ezekiel”.
In that article I confidently
identified Ezekiel “the son of Buzi” (Ezekiel 1:3) with young Elihu “son
of Barakel the Buzite”, of the Book of Job (32:2).
Some rabbinic literature
also has Ezekiel as a son of Jeremiah.
Regarding a possible
identification of Zechariah with Ezekiel, it seems to me that the textual
likenesses (see below) between these names are so numerous, in fact, that one
feels much inclined to factor in the priest-prophet Zechariah as being, too,
the priest-prophet Ezekiel.
And, if
Ezekiel is also Elihu, then we may have a patronymic connection between Elihu’s
ancestor, Barachel, and Zechariah’s Berechiah (Zechariah 1:1).
What I want to focus on entirely in this present article are
the textual similarities between Ezekiel and Zechariah, as many have already
noted.
The incredible similarities between virtually the entire Book
of Nahum with parts of Isaiah had been enough to convince me, in my university
thesis (2007), that Nahum (Jonah) was also the great prophet Isaiah.
See also my article on this:
Prophet
Nahum as Isaiah Comforted
(5) Comparing Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah Styles
The usual view of things would be to consider Zechariah, a
minor prophet, as simply an “admirer” of the prophet Ezekiel from a good half
century later.
But I have the prophetic life of Ezekiel covering the
Chaldean and Medo-Persian eras - when Zechariah taught - and potentially beyond
that, into the early Maccabean times:
Prophet
Zechariah marvellously anticipates the Maccabean era
(5) Prophet Zechariah marvellously anticipates the
Maccabean era
Let us read some of Cameron Mackay’s comparisons (1968),
taken from:
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1968-4_197.pdf
ZECHARIAH IN RELATION TO EZEKIEL 40-48
by CAMERON MACKAY
MR. MACKAY'S studies in the book of
Ezekiel are always fresh
and fascinating. Here the earliest
"commentary" on the book
(especially on chapters 40.-48) is
found in the prophecies of Zechariah.
EZEKIEL and Zechariah share century, priestly stock, and
Babylonian background, but the 50 years
which separate their activities make personal contact unlikely. On the orthodox
view that the differences between Zech. 1-8 and 9-14 are accounted for by
supposing those sections the work respectively of the young and old Zechariah,
his birth would have been around 550 B.C.. when Ezekiel had been silent 20
years-a not very probable dormancy if he were still alive. What the
circumstances suggest is that the minor prophet grew up in the shadow of the
major's repute, and that between the Return of 538 B.C. and his mission in 520
B.C. the repatriated scion of priests studied his fellow-exile's prospectus
with built-in interest in the temple, the desire of his eyes (Ezek. 24: 21) in
the land of desire (Zech. 7: 14).
In fact echoes of Ezekiel found by
Zechariah's commentators run into three figures. In the 18 verses from 7: 9 to
8: 12 Driver in Century Bible notes "execute judgment of
truth" (Ezek. 18: 8), "hearts as an adamant stone" (3: 9; 11:
19). "they shall cry, and I will not hear" (8: 18), "no man
passed through nor returned" (35: 7). "I will dwell in the midst"
(43: 9), "they shall be my people,' and I will be their God" (11: 20
al.)’, "the earth shall yield her increase" (34: 27). Study of the
mysterious "seven eyes" (Zech. 3: 9; 4: 10) must begin with Ezekiel's
eye-spangled Chariot and seven angels (9: 2; cf. Rev. 5: 6), study of the
flying roll (5 : 1) with 'Ezekiel's roll of a book (2: 9).
Interpreter's Bible speaks of Ezekiel's "young
admirer, Zechariah". Fairbairn, commenting on Ezek. 21: 26, "Remove
the mitre", says that Zechariah in his attitude to the high priest Joshua
"took up the matter, as it were. where Ezekiel had left it". Mitchell
in I.C.C. regards Zech. 2: 8, "After glory he sent me", as a
condensed claim of mandate corresponding to Ezekiel's, who after his inaugural
vision of the Glory received the commission, "I send thee", and adds
that in v. 10 "the prophet is looking forward to the fulfilment of . . .
43: 111,", while v. 13 requires that "men should greet with awful
attention ... the return of Yahweh to his sanctuary, as Ezekiel describes
it".
The critical disinclination to allow
chaps. 9-14 to the contemporary of Haggai leaves unaffected their Ezekielian
background, now indeed even more marked-not surprisingly as the concern shifts
from the day of small things (4: 10) to that of the King of all the earth (14:
9). The oracles against Phoenicia (9: 2-4), Egypt (10: 11), goodly cedars (11:
If.), shepherds (11: 15-17), and professional prophets (B: 2-4), the symbolism
of the two sticks (11: 7-14), the going forth of Jehovah with earthquake to
fight against the nations (12: 9; 14: 3ff.) are immediately reminiscent of the
earlier seer. The seemingly superfluous note that the Mount of Olives "is
before Jerusalem on the east" (14: 4) is a reminder that there the
departing Glory lingered (Ezek. 11: 23) and from the east it would return (43:
2). The emphasis on David's house (12: 7-13: 1) recalls the focusing of
Ezekiel's hopes on "David", and the associated introduction of Levites their position in the
oblation of 40-48. The fountain for sin (13: 1) and the living waters summer
and winter (14: 8) are generally regarded as dependent on the "clean
water" of 'Ezek. 36: 25 plus the sanctuary river of 47, while 13: 2,
according to I.C.C., is, once again, "simply summarising
Ezekiel". For chaps. 9-14, on which the New Testament imprimatur is so
marked, the date question may here be left aside, particularly in face of a
recent finding that no definite dating can be achieved and that it is more
useful to concentrate on the contents. ….
Our present interest is in the
relation of Ezek 40-48 to the book of Zechariah as it stands, wherein the first
part encourages the immediately practicable work as prelude to the vista
enlarged on in the second part. The repatriates had rebuilt the altar on Moriah
without, it is clear from Ezra 3, idea of acting on Ezekiel's directions: they
followed the laws of 'Moses, including sons of Ithamar, i.e. non-Zadokites, in
the priesthood (8: 2), retaining evening sacrifice (et. 46: 13-15) and all the
set feasts. But adversaries. foreigners deported to Samaria, halted the work on
the temple. Then Darius in his second year authorized its restart, but the Jews
were now murmuring. "The time is not come for the Lord's house to be
built" (Hag. 1: 2). Among 'the causes of their discouragement commentators
point to the contrast of their plight with the glowing promises of Second
Isaiah. But Zechariah's contemporaries would have thought more generally of
"the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the
former prophets" (7: 12). and the evidence detailed above suggests that
Ezekiel as much as, or more than, Isaiah provided the disheartening contrast.
Zechariah's task was to encourage
his community to go ahead as they had 'begun, both with construction plans and
sacerdotal, as step 'towards, not consummation of, prophetic hopes. …. Right
away, connection with the temple-vision is made in the reappearance of a
distinctive feature characteristic of Zechariah's visions, the intermediary
angel who acts as instructor and guide …. In 1: 16 the angel conveys assurance
that God's house shall be built in Jerusalem and a measuring line stretched
over that city. Yet when a young man goes out with line to measure Jerusalem he
is rebuked for setting his sights too low (2: 1-5).
…. The repatriated community may well have been a microcosm
of the various views later held about the plan, and the young enthusiast as a
supporter of the cubit theory could have been investigating the possibilities
of a city 11 miles square with the sanctuary portion transposed so that temple
might adjoin city.
Reminiscence of the earlier seer is
apparent both in the angel's words and in the attached oracle (vv. 6-13) which
we have seen interpreted by Mitchell as continuing Ezekiel's mandate and
looking to the fulfilment of 43: Iff. Driver here notes as echoes "villages
without walls" (38: 11). "I will be the glory in the midst of
her" (43: 2-5), "1 have spread you abroad" (17: 21). ''they
shall be a spoil to those that served them" (39: 10), and his, "I
will dwell in the midst of thee" (43: 9). …. In consonance the final
chapter repeats in "Jerusalem shall dwell securely" (v. 11) a
favourite Ezekielian phrase used of those dwelling in unwalled villages on the
mountains of Israel (3S: S. 11). In reeds Ezekiel's oblation is some 50 miles
square-a city, like Greater Nineveh with its much cattle, of three days'
journey (Jonah 3: 3; 4: Il) …. Such emulation is indicated in Zech. 12: 6f. and
14: 10, where Jerusalem is to "dwell in her place" or "be
inhabited 0n her site", curiously specified in the former passage as
"in Jerusalem". The tautology is explicable if the prophet is
envisaging an enlarged Jerusalem wherein the historical city is to retain its
pre-eminence. ….
[End of quotes]
With
the prophet Ezekiel now looming for me as being, all at once, Habakkuk-Haggai,
Elihu, and Zechariah, then I must immediately account for that verse in Ezra
that seems to represent Haggai and Zechariah as being two distinct prophets,
which is the common view. After all, we have a Book of Haggai and a separate
Book of Zechariah.
Ezra 5:1: “Now Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the prophet, a
descendant of Iddo, prophesied to the Jews in Judah and Jerusalem in the name
of the God of Israel, who was over them”. (וְהִתְנַבִּי חַגַּי נְבִיָּאה, וּזְכַרְיָה בַר-עִדּוֹא נְבִיַּאיָּא)
I
would, however, take this verse to be a waw-consecutive Hebrew
construction, and re-read it as, e.g.: “Now Haggai the prophet - even Zechariah,
a descendant of Iddo - prophesied to the Jews in Judah and Jerusalem in the
name of the God of Israel …”. Thus, I
suspect that - and I could be very wide of the mark on this - only the one
prophet is actually being referred to here: namely Haggai the prophet who
was Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo.
And
although Haggai and Zechariah are traditionally considered to have been a
partnership, contemporaneous prophets whose ministries overlapped during the
post-exilic period - both urging the Jewish people to rebuild the Temple and
renew their faith - the fact is that Haggai makes no mention whatsoever of
Zechariah, nor does Zechariah even once refer to Haggai.
{Sirach 44-50, Praise of Israel’s Great
Ancestors, lauds Ezekiel, 49:8-9,
but nowhere names either Haggai or Zechariah}
Whereas
in the Book of Haggai, “the Word of the Lord” comes solely “through the prophet
Haggai” (1:1; 2:1), so, in similar vein, in the Book of Zechariah, does “the
Word of the Lord” come solely “to the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah, the
son of Iddo”.
Cf.
Ezekiel 1:3: “… the Word of the Lord came to Ezekiel the priest,
the son of Buzi …”.
My
final identification of the prophet Ezekiel in this section (2.), viz.
the scribe Eleazer, takes us right into the early part of the Maccabean period.
I
had already hinted at this above:
The usual view of things would be to consider Zechariah, a
minor prophet, as simply an “admirer” of the prophet Ezekiel from a good half
century later. But I have the prophetic life of Ezekiel covering the Chaldean
and Medo-Persian eras - when Zechariah taught - and potentially beyond that,
into the early Maccabean times.
Whilst,
admittedly, this does really seem to be stretching things, both chronologically
and biologically speaking, it is assisted to some extent by my truncating of
the Medo-Persian age, and by my collapsing of the Maccabean period into the
Infancy phase of Jesus Christ:
Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean
era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain”
(4) Judas the
Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain”
Jesus himself had identified this
prophet Zechariah, son of Berechiah, as one who was martyred at the end of
times - the era of Jesus himself - as opposed to Abel, who was martyred at the
beginning of times: this constituting a full sweep of Jerusalemic history
(Matthew 23:35): ‘And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has
been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of
Zechariah son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the
altar’.
Now, as I have argued in my most recent
article:
Martyrdom of the prophet Zechariah son of
Berechiah
(2) Martyrdom of
the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah
the only martyr who properly fits this
description, murdered in Jerusalem “between the Temple and the altar’, is the
aged (about 90) scribe Eleazer of the Maccabean age (2 Maccabees 6:18-31).
Conclusion
2.
As
other commentators have shown, young Elihu of the Book of Job comes across very
much as an Ezekiel, type.
And
the writings of the prophet Ezekiel have much in common with those of
Zechariah, usually considered to have been a young admirer of Ezekiel.
With
Ezekiel and Zechariah now fused (by me) as the one prophet, then Haggai,
thought to be a contemporary partner of Zechariah, must now be merged into
Zechariah, likewise as just the one prophet.
This
Zechariah, son of Berechiah, son of Iddo, now finds his martyred self in the
person of the aged scribe of Maccabean times, Eleazer.
Habakkuk-Haggai is Ezekiel.
Elihu, Zechariah, Eleazer is Ezekiel.
3.
Third Identification of Ezekiel
This
one I have left until last, even though the leading character involved finds
his place in the Bible, in the Book of Jeremiah, far from being chronologically
last (by comparison, for example, with the Maccabean Eleazer). He comes last
because of my - at present quite tentative - proposed identification of him
with our now very expanded prophet Ezekiel (as Habakkuk-Haggai, Elihu,
Zechariah and Eleazer).
He
is the rather mysterious Rechabite, Jaazaniah, and he may, perhaps, enable us
to tie up a few loose ends. We read about him in Jeremiah 35:1-11:
This
is the message that came to Jeremiah from the Lord during the
reign of Josiah’s son Jehoiakim, king of Judah: ‘Go to the house of
the Rechabites and speak to them. Bring them into the Lord’s Temple, to
one of the offices, and offer them wine to drink’. So I
took Jeremiah’s son Jaazaniah (a descendant of Habazziniah), his brothers, all
his sons, and the whole family of the Rechabites. I brought them to
the Lord’s Temple to the office of the descendants of Igdaliah’s son
Hanan, the man of God, which was next to the office of the officials, and which
was above the office of Shallum’s son Maaseiah, the keeper of the threshold.
I
put containers full of wine and cups in front of the members of the Rechabite
clan and told them, ‘Drink the wine!’
But
they said, “We won’t drink wine, because our ancestor, Rechab’s son Jonadab
commanded us: ‘You and your descendants are never to drink wine! You
aren’t to build houses, you aren’t to sow seeds, and you aren’t to plant
vineyards, or own them. Instead, you are to live in tents all your
lives, so you will enjoy a long life in the land where you reside’. We
have obeyed everything that our ancestor, Rechab’s son Jonadab, commanded us.
So
we, our wives, our sons, and our daughters have drunk no wine all our lives, and
have built no houses to live in. We don’t have vineyards, fields, or
seed. We have lived in tents. We have obeyed and have done everything that
our ancestor Jonadab commanded us. Now when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon
came up against the land, we said, ‘Come on! Let’s go to Jerusalem because of
the army of the Chaldeans and the army of Aram. And now we’re living in
Jerusalem’.”
First
of all we learn that Jaazaniah was “Jeremiah’s
son”.
And this could square with what we read in 2.: “Some rabbinic
literature also has Ezekiel as a son of Jeremiah”.
And it
would also account for something that greatly puzzles commentators, Why
Jeremiah never mentions Ezekiel, nor Ezekiel ever mentions Jeremiah?
Commentators
have much puzzled over the fact that two great prophets of Israel, Jeremiah and
Ezekiel, who were contemporaries, never appear to have referred the one to the
other.
This has
led to articles like, for instance, Dr. Dalit Rom-Shiloni’s “Ezekiel and
Jeremiah: What Might Stand Behind the Silence?”:
The Lord had expressly told
Jeremiah not to marry in Judah (Jeremiah 16:1-2).
Now,
appropriately, Jaazaniah and his clan were not locals, but had come to
Jerusalem only due to the Chaldean disruptions: ‘Now
when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against the land, we said, ‘Come
on! Let’s go to Jerusalem because of the army of the Chaldeans and the army of
Aram. And now we’re living in Jerusalem’.’
“Aram” here recalls the fact that Elihu
was of the race [family] of [A]ram” (Job 32:2).
So, Jeremiah may have gone northwards,
to find a wife, and found one amongst the Arameans, who were Israel’s ancestors
(cf. Deuteronomy 26:5).
Is that what the linen loin cloth
incident at the Euphrates is all about – related to a marriage? (Jeremiah
13:1-11).
If
so, then Jeremiah had, like Moses, married into a non-Israelite family, in
Jeremiah’s case a Buzite clan of Rechabites.
Does
the name of Jaazaniah’s ancestor, Habazziniah
(“The Buzite”?), reflect this?
Cf. Ezekiel
1:3: “… the son of Buzi”, and
Job 32:2: “Elihu son of Barachel the Buzite”.
Note:
A follow-up to this article will need to account for the very tricky geography
associated with our composite Ezekiel: e.g., Buzite; [A]ram; river Chebar; etc.,
etc. And, if Habakkuk was not Job-Tobias, as I had previously thought he was,
then from where arose his seemingly Akkadian name? From his dwelling among the
captives “in the land of the Babylonians” (Ezekiel 1:1-3)? Or was it, instead,
an Aramean name?
Was
Jeremiah, at the Lord’s command, tempting these Rechabites into sinning against
their long-held tradition: ‘You and your
descendants are never to drink wine!’
If Jeremiah was family, then he well
knew these Rechabites and what their inevitable reaction was going to be.
Do
we find any Rechabite influences in our composite prophet Ezekiel?
He,
and again as Habakkuk, apparently had an ample head of hair, considering that Ezekiel/Habakkuk
was picked up and carried by the hair.
Did
the Rechabites, like the Nazirites, never cut their hair? It is not certain.
What
we do find, in the case of Ezekiel, and again with Eleazer, is that the thought
of eating unclean food utterly horrified them (cf. Ezekiel 4:9-15; 2 Maccabees
6:18-20).
Like
the Rechabites, Ezekiel, Eleazer, had held to this practice ever since youth.
The
uncommon name, Jaazaniah, is considered to be a variant of Azariah. And the
latter name is related to, at least, one of our alter egos of the
prophet, namely, Eleazer:
Eleazar | The amazing name
Eleazar: meaning and etymology
Finally,
that Jaazaniah, too, like the prophet Ezekiel, was a priest (or Levite) might
appear from what Jeremiah proclaimed to him and his clan (Jeremiah 35:18-19):
Then
Jeremiah said to the family of the Rekabites, “This is what
the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘You have obeyed the
command of your forefather Jehonadab and have followed all his
instructions and have done everything he ordered.’ Therefore this is what
the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘Jehonadab son of Rekab
will never fail to have a descendant to serve me’.”
Our
prophet was to be “a Watchman for the House of Israel” (Ezekiel 3:17; 33:7; cf.
Habbakuk 2:1). “Prophet Zechhariah … is often referred to as a “watchman” due
to his role in warning the people of Israel about impending judgment”:
Topical Bible: Zechariah
the Prophet
Tentative
Conclusion 3.
Ezekiel was also Jaazaniah the Rechabite.
[1].
C. Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding with Hope. A
Commentary on the Books of Haggai and Zechariah (International Theological
Commentary; Grand Rapids – Edinburgh,
1988), pp. 8, 10.
[2].
A. Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus. The
Historical Josiah and the Messianic Expectations of Exilic and Postexilic Times
(Stockholm, 1992), pp. 229–231.
