Diglossia, revelation, and Ezekiel's inaugural rite

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 1998 by Fredericks, Daniel C

DANIEL C. FREDERICKS*

The cumbersome and grammatically inappropriate and irritating opening chapter of Ezekiel may be a rhetorical device, where irregular language may attempt to highlight an alleged supremacy of a relatively pristine literary language of classical Biblical Hebrew found in the rest of Ezekiel and the Hebrew Bible (HB). It appears that a dramatic entry of Ezekiel onto the prophetic scene intends at the same time to reaffirm standard literary Hebrew as the only acceptable means to convey God's thoughts to the world. A convergence of factors leads to this suggestion: the nature of prophetic calls, an emphasis on language and speaking in Ezekiel 1-3, the nature of the linguistic corruptions in Ezekiel's inaugural vision, the social crisis of exiled Israel, priestly penchants, and the use of dramatic/rhetorical devices in the book as a whole.

I. SERVANT CALLS

Prophetic and priestly calls occur along with purification rites and statements about language and speaking often enough in the HB to recommend a look into Ezekiel's call and, specifically, God's linguistic concerns in that call. This may be of some help in understanding why such a grammatically anomalous and corrupt text introduces this prophetic book. Form-critical studies on the prophetic call narratives in the HB have revealed some consistencies between calls, including Ezekiel's. 1 They are found in the calls of Moses, Gideon, Jeremiah, Isaiah, the high priest Jeshua, and Ezekiel. Two of these common components will be highlighted: (1) the presence of an impediment to the success of the mission to which God is calling the servant, and (2) God's encouragement and rectification of any impediments. For instance, Moses claims he is not eloquent (Exod 4:10), but God's response is that he alone creates the deaf and mute and that his divine presence will teach Moses what to say (vv. 11-12). Gideon claims to be the least man in the weakest clan of Manasseh (Judg 6:15), but God's assurance to Gideon is both his divine presence and Gideon's certain victory (v. 16). Jeremiah claims that his impediment is his immature speech, presumably lacking the stately speech of an experienced prophet (Jer 1:6), so after touching his lips God assures Jeremiah that he is with the prophet and will command him what to say (vv. 7-8). Isaiah objects to his call on the grounds of having "unclean lips," to which God responds with a purifying ember touching the lips of Isaiah and the encouragement to speak God's specific words (Isa 6:5-7, 9). In Zechariah's vision Jeshua's call as priest into a ruling position is obstructed by Satan, who presumably draws attention to Jeshua's inappropriate clothing. The Lord rebukes Satan and then clothes Jeshua appropriately and encourages him in his duties as judge and leader.

In all five of these cases there are allegedly reasonable excuses or impediments to the call of leaders and prophets. God is always personally involved, however, in the dispelling of objections or obstacles, and of course he wins the argument. All five cases present a humiliated servant who is embarrassed by speech, or dress, or social position. They then go on to present a sufficient response by their sovereign God. The inadequacy of the servant is corrected by God so that the newly purified or perfectly scripted priest, prophet, or judge is now acceptable and worthy for the assigned mission.

Ezekiel's call is very similar to the calls of Moses, Gideon, Jeremiah, Isaiah and Jeshua. Ezekiel also receives an inaugural call that introduces God's command to him to speak only divine words to Israel. God's instructions during the call do not stop at purifying or blessing simply the lips, or merely reclothing the subject. Rather, they are the more extreme measure of expecting Ezekiel to actually swallow the scroll that contains the divine revelation to the rebellious nation of Israel. But where is the usual impediment or typical obstacle to fulfilling the commission? Is Ezekiel's call an anomaly, with no parallel impediment to the five calls of servants discussed earlier? Perhaps pursuing a consistency for Ezekiel here is foolish, a mere hobgoblin of little minds. Is it possible, on the other hand, that a familiar impediment in the other calls-namely, diction-is the very obstacle to Ezekiel's call as well? Like those of Moses, Jeremiah and Isaiah, could the impediment be of a linguistic nature in Ezekiel, a linguistic problem that God again corrects in another servant? Does he again provide the very words to be spoken, leaving no room for verbal ambiguity or confusion?

Certainly the importance of specific linguistic and oratorical concerns is obvious in Ezekiel 1-3. And those concerns are continued, since God controls Ezekiel's speech or muteness through the third chapter, and indeed throughout the book (e.g. 14:27; 22:21-22). Chapters 2-3 tell us basically that Ezekiel is being sent to a rebellious and stubborn people who may or may not listen. Nonetheless the prophet is encouraged not to fear nor be rebellious himself. Rather, he is to speak God's very words, not his own. This is the familiar commissioning message to Israelite prophets and leaders that we have just surveyed. But there are particularly intriguing lexical parallels between Moses, Isaiah and Ezekiel. Each of these prophets of course is sent to Israel to reveal God's words, and there is naturally a concern that the language they speak be understood and effective. Moses, however, says he is "heavy-mouthed and heavy-tongued" (kebad-peh ukebad lason) and thus a poor choice (Exod 4:10). Ezekiel on the other hand is encouraged that he is not going to people who are "heavy-tongued," nor are they "deep-lipped" (Cimqe sapa), so they should understand Ezekiel's words (Ezek 3:5-6). Isaiah encourages Israel, affirming that those who have been their foreign oppressors, who are "deep-lipped" and whose speech is unintelligible, will no longer be in Zion (Isa 33:19). "Deep-lipped" and "heavy-tongued" speech, needless to say, is a major impediment that both prophet and God want to be overcome.2 Unfortunately the exact nature of "deep-lippedness" or "heavy-tonguedness" is hard to identify. The Lord's emphatic statement to Ezekiel is that the words Ezekiel has just digested are to be the very words the prophet speaks, for they are thus guaranteed to be understood by the Israelites, whereas any "heavy-tonguedness" or "deep-lippedness" will not be appropriate and will indeed be an impediment. Why would there be any need to inform or remind Ezekiel that ineffective speech and nondivine words would be unacceptable? What is there in the text that indicates that "deeplippedness" or "heavy-tonguedness" was in fact an impediment in Ezekiel's case? Perhaps the fact that Ezekiel's account of his inaugural vision is one of the most grammatically corrupt pericopes in the HB is a clue. Perhaps the inaugural rite of imbibing the divine oracles was the corrective measure for this very corrupt grammar, comparable to the touching of lips.