Introduction

In Ezekiel chapter 36, Yahweh conveys a message to His prophet in the form of a divine monologue that evolves into a transformational message to the Israelites. Famously, the promised heart transplant continues to astound and amaze both its readers and interpreters. However, the question regarding how the promises of God provided in Ezekiel 36 are interpreted in light of their immediate and broader historical and literary context remains. Without a contextually accurate interpretation, readers may fail to grasp the essential aspects of the prophetic message. The message of Ezekiel 36:16-32 accentuates the desecration of the Promised Land, the Israelites, and Yahweh’s name, which necessitates God’s restoration through the recovery of land, the purification of His people, and the renovation of hearts for the purpose of restoring God’s honor. The research begins by providing a brief historical, literary, and text-critical overview of the passage. An exegetical exposition then ensues by dividing the passage into two sections. The first section, verses 16-21, analyzes the crisis of honor facing Yahweh due to the desecration of His land, His people, and His name. The second section, verses 22-32, examines God’s motivation, God’s miraculous re-creative activity, and God’s vindication, which ultimately results in the recovery of His honor. The analysis then explores how the passage contributes to the larger message of the book of Ezekiel as a whole. The research concludes by identifying three timeless theological principles and providing a brief application of the passage to modern believers.

Historical, Literary, and Text-Critical Overview

An accurate identification of historical context, formulaic markers, literary structure and genre, and textual composition provides a necessary foundation for proper exegesis. First, briefly placing the book within its historical context frames the research. Yahweh called Ezekiel as one of His prophets to the Israelites. The prophet was exiled to Babylon under the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar sometime around 597 BC. According to Daniel Block, Ezekiel’s audience was the Jewish people exiled with him in Babylon.^[1] Although syncretism and idolatry undermined the Israelites’ beliefs, it did not completely eradicate their connection with Yahweh. Accordingly, Block explains that Ezekiel’s message of judgement and hope was desperately needed by the Israelite people during the sixth century BC.^[2]

Second, regarding formulaic markers, Tyler Mayfield suggests that examining the chronological formulas, prophetic word formulas, and messenger formulas help the reader discern the boundaries of the literary unit.^[3] Chronological formulas occur throughout the book of Ezekiel and express the  year, month, and day of the activity (cf. Ezek 1:1; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1). Literary units consist of material between each chronological marker. According to Mayfield, thirteen chronological formulas guide the macro-structure of the book with Ezekiel 36 landing within the larger literary unit of 33:21-39:29.^[4] Prophetic word formulas assist with further structural divisions and specifically state that Yahweh is speaking to the prophet (cf. 33:23; 34:1; 35:1).^[5] The literary unit examined during the remainder of the research begins with the prophetic word formula in Ezekiel 36:16, which states, “The word of the Lord came to me.”^[6] Finally, a formulaic marker also defines the end of the literary unit. The messenger formula, “thus says the Lord,” provides the boundary in verse 33, which signals the end of the literary unit as Ezekiel 36:32.

Third, regarding literary structure, the entire book of Ezekiel forms a chiastic arrangement. Jiří Moskala identifies the symmetry by leaning on the work of Richard Davidson: The outermost segments focus on Yahweh’s entrance into a defiled Temple in chapters 1-11 (A) and a restored Temple in 40-48 (A¹), and then moves inward to the oracles of judgement in 12-23 (B) and oracles of restoration in 34-39 (B¹), which is followed by Jerusalem’s siege in 24 (C) and fall in 33 (C¹) and, finally, the oracles against the foreign nations in 25-28:10 (D) and 29-32 (D¹).^[7] However, the center of the chiasm in 28:11-26 (E) is decisive for interpretation not only of the book of Ezekiel, but also specifically for Ezekiel 36:16-32. Moskala identifies four key thematic elements of the interpretive center: the theocentric nature of the passage (28:11-26), the judgment on the fallen cherub (28:11-19), the vindication of God’s holiness (28:20-26), and the restoration of God’s people (28:25-26).^[8] The pinnacle of Ezekiel’s chiastic artistry is found in miniature within 36:16-32. Ezekiel’s theocentric focus is on display in God’s judgement (36:16-21), the vindication of God’s holiness (36:22-23), and the restoration of God’s people (36:24-32), which ultimately points to the genre of the passage. Gary Smith explains that a salvation oracle or an oracle of hope highlights the positive aspects of God’s promises to deliver His people from a problematic situation.^[9] Certainly, the people of God have a problem; they desecrated God’s land, reputation, and name (Ezek 36:16-21). However, God promises deliverance through the cleansing properties of sprinkled water and the transformative characteristics of a new, Spirit-filled heart (Ezek 36:22-32). Accordingly, the genre of Ezekiel 36:16-32 is a salvation oracle.

Fourth, regarding textual composition, the most significant concern pertains to an omission. According to Verena Schafroth,  Ezekiel 36:23b-38 is missing from Papyrus 967, the oldest manuscript of the LXX, and from the Codex Wirceburgensis, one of the best-preserved Old Latin texts of Ezekiel.^[10] Various theories have been proposed to explain the omission including a lost page of the codex, inner-Greek parablepsis, and an omission from the Hebrew Vorlage added later.^[11] Michaël van der Meer provides numerous linguistic explanations that refute the possibility of a later addition such as the use of the longer form of the first personal pronoun אנכי in Ezekiel 36:28 that often characterizes earlier Hebrew writings.^[12] Additionally, van der Meer provides several literary-critical explanations that refute the possibility of a later addition. For example, some scholars contend that certain themes and phrases within the pericope such as וישׁבתם בארץ אשׁר נתתי לאבתיכם, “you shall dwell in the land which I gave your fathers” (Ezek 36:28), are later redactions, but this is unnecessary as the phrase aligns with similar theology and expressions in the book of Ezekiel (20:6, 15, 28, 42; 37:25; 47:14).^[13] Accordingly, from both a literary-critical and linguistic perspective, it appears reasonable that Ezekiel 36:23b-38 was part of the original text, not a later addition. Furthermore, the passage is preserved in the Masoretic Text, and thus the totality of the evidence supports the inclusion of Ezekiel 36:23b-32 in the remainder of the research.

A Crisis of Honor: Ezekiel 36:16-21

In Ezekiel 36:16-21, the word of Yahweh comes to the prophet Ezekiel. The land that God promised to Israel has been desecrated by the people and thus dishonors God, and thus the land requires a sabbatical from the people of Israel, which initiates the necessity of an exile. The idolatry and heinous  acts of the Israelites breach the covenant relationship with Yahweh and undermine His honor. Ironically, the cleansing of land by exiling the Israelites due to their idolatrous activity resulted in dishonoring Yahweh’s name by undermining His reputation with the nations. The desecration of the land, the people, and God’s name created a crisis of honor.

Desecrated Land: Ezekiel 36:16-17

The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48: New International Commentary on the Old Testament

The word of the Lord comes directly to Ezekiel in verse 16, but nothing suggests that the prophet is to communicate the oracle to a specific audience. Furthermore, no imperative exists commanding the prophet to communicate to a third party as in verse 22. Accordingly, Daniel Block suggests that the words spoken by Yahweh in verses 17-21 is a divine monologue where Ezekiel receives the message as both a confidant and companion.^[14] Block also suggests that Ezekiel may have been a member of Yahweh’s divine council.^[15] Regardless of the prophet’s location, Yahweh addresses Ezekiel as the son of man or, more simply, a human.

The Lord then succinctly summarizes the history of Israel and, specifically, the reason for the exile, which was the defilement of the land (36:17). The verb טָמֵא, to defile, normally means to become unclean, and, according to the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE), the term is often used in conjunction with breaking the Mosaic covenant, which may result in unclean land.^[16] At this point, an introduction of the covenant triangle is necessary. Block explains that the Israelites counted on the permanence of the covenantal relationship with Yahweh, which consisted of three parts of a triangle: Yahweh, His people, and His land.^[17] Unfortunately, the land defilement ruptured the triangle. The land motif runs through the entire Old Testament and is no less prominent in Ezekiel. Although the idea that a piece of land could be rendered defiled or unclean may be unique to a modern reader, intertextuality assists in understanding the history of land defilement. The reason the Canaanites were originally driven out of the Promised Land was due to the polluting of the land (Deut 9:4-5). Furthermore, Yahweh warns Israel they too will be driven from the land if they commit the abominable acts of their predecessors (Deut 18:9-12). In more graphic terms, Leviticus 20:2 asserts that if the Israelites do not obey, then the land will vomit them out. In Ezekiel 36:17, the Israelites defile the land by their “ways and their deed,” which likely points forward to another pair of transgressions in the following verse: bloodshed and idolatry. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the land within the culture of the ancient Near East as it not only serves a critical role in the triangle that forms the covenantal relationship between Yahweh and His people but also becomes integral in communicating the power of Yahweh to the pagan nations.

The word “defile” in Hebrew carries two distinct connotations. According to The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDB), the uncleanness referred to by defilement consists of two distinct types of pollution: ceremonial and moral.^[18] Ezekiel concludes 36:17 with a simile that compares Israel’s behavior to the uncleanness of a menstruating woman. Leviticus 18:19 suggests having sex with a menstruating woman is the cause of transference of uncleanness to both the man and the land, which results in the land vomiting its inhabitants (Lev 18:24-25). Accordingly, Steven Tuell contends that the metaphorical meaning conveyed by Ezekiel is that Israel is the menstruating woman who defiles what is touched, the land, and thus her husband, the Lord, cannot have an intimate relationship with Israel.^[19] Although Tuell’s conclusion is logical, it may seem incongruous for Ezekiel to use a metaphor that compares the heinous actions of Israel to the ceremonial impurity caused by a natural biological event. One might expect Ezekiel to have used a metaphor more aligned with an immoral impurity rather than a ceremonial impurity. However, Ezekiel’s metaphorical language may be conveying a double meaning. Block suggests that in light of the feminine gender of the land, אדמה, menstrual defilement may be appropriately applied since the land is no more morally culpable than a menstruant woman.^[20] In other words, although Israel was like a menstruating woman in the sense that she defiles what is touched, the menstrual analogy also highlights the land’s moral innocence as ceremonially defiled. Regardless, in the following verses, Ezekiel reveals that the defilement has significant consequences.

Desecrated People: Ezekiel 36:18-19

God’s anger is not directed toward the land, which is innocent. However, the Lord’s wrath is certainly poured out, שׁפךְ, upon the Israelites for their immoral ways and deeds, and specifically, for the shedding of blood and the worshipping of idols (Ezek 36:18). The prophet appears to utilize metallurgical imagery to convey the pouring out of wrath, which is likely used to elicit a visceral response associated with the pain of melted silver from a blazing furnace being poured onto the Israelites as in Ezekiel 22:22. Furthermore, Ezekiel appears to emphasize the methodology through the use of multiclinatum, the repetition of verbal roots.^[21] Just as the Israelites poured (שׁפךְ) blood on Yahweh’s land, Yahweh will pour (שׁפךְ) His wrath upon Israel (Ezek 36:18). However, the wrath was poured out not only for the shedding of blood, but also for the worship of idols. The Hebrew lemma for idols utilized by Ezekiel is גִּלּוּלִים, which, according to the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT), means dung, manure, balls of dung, or dung things.^[22] The vivid language would likely engage various senses of the listeners at the basest human level. Finally, Block suggests that the combination of murder and idolatry points to child sacrifice mentioned in Ezekiel 23:36-38, which may indicate the ultimate reason for Yahweh’s wrath.^[23] John Walton, Victor Matthew, and Mark Chavalas explain that child sacrifice was common in the ancient Near East as the pagan fertility gods demanded the abominable act in return for their favor, a practice strictly forbidden in the biblical account.^[24]

The result of the defilement was expulsion; God scattered the Israelites throughout the pagan nations. If the Israelites wanted to live like pagans, then God would give them over to the pagan lifestyle (cf. Deut 4:27-28; 28:64; Rom 1:18-32). Robert Jenson, in reference to the Targum, explains that Yahweh’s abode extended beyond the Temple and even beyond Jerusalem; God’s house extended to the entire land of Israel; thus, the people needed removed from God’s presence due to their abhorrent behavior.^[25] Although the holiness of God required separation, one might wonder why the people had to leave the land rather than God leaving the people in the land. The answer reverts back to the covenant triangle; the land was an integral part of the covenantal relationship (cf. Gen 17:8). For the covenantal relationship to be restored, the land required restoration. Accordingly, Tuell explains that the ancient covenant curse of exile was necessary to spare the land from the pollution of defilement, which would provide an opportunity for the land to heal.^[26] In other words, the land needed a Sabbath (cf. Lev 26:33-35). Block now connects the various motifs by explaining that like the menstruous woman who could return clean to Yahweh’s house after a time period of seven days (Lev 15:19), the land would return clean after a period of exile, which would be determined by the number of sabbatical years robbed of the land.^[27] Ultimately, Jeremiah calculates the number of years at seventy (Jer 25:11-12). In the final analysis, the Israelites are judged by their heinous behaviors, which, unfortunately, not only reflected poorly on the people of Israel but also reflected poorly on Yahweh. ^[28]

Desecrated Name: Ezekiel 36:20-21

Although in the previous two verses Ezekiel focused on the Israelites, now the prophet turns the focus of his message toward Yahweh. According to Moshe Greenberg, the two initial phrases in Ezekiel 36:20, “but when they came to the nation, wherever they came,” rhetorically provide imprecise language, which literarily reflects the scattering of the exiles.^[29] Although the exile was necessary because God desired for the land to rest and for Israel to obey, the exile did not solve the problem between Yahweh and His people. Ironically, the exilic sabbatical provided to cleanse the land of defilement actually resulted in the defilement of Yahweh’s name. Ralph Alexander explains that just as the nation of Israel was uniquely tied to the Promised Land, the ancient Near East worldview also tied the identity of the pagan nations to the land.^[30] Thus, the result of the exile was that the pagan nations concluded that either Yahweh broke His promises and abandoned His people or that Yahweh was incapable of protecting them from a superior deity such as Marduk, the god of Babylon.^[31]

One might wonder why God would be so concerned about having the good opinion of pagan peoples. However, the question likely misses the point. God does not need the pagan nations; the pagan nations need God, and God promised to reclaim the disinherited nations scattered at Babel (Gen 11:8-9; Deut 32:8-9). Specifically, God promises Abraham, and thus all of Israel, that He will not only make Abraham’s name, שׁם, great, but will also bless all the nations of the earth through Abraham (Gen 12:2). Also, in a fascinating reversal that will extend through the entire canon, it was in Babylon where the people originally attempted to make a name, שׁם, for themselves (Gen 11:4), and now Yahweh will act to recover the reputation of His name, שׁם. Accordingly, the concept of name theology needs to be addressed. First, the Name is a person in Isaiah 30:27, where the Name comes from far away. The Name also appears to be a person in Psalm 20:1, where the Name provides protection. Second, Michael Heiser asserts that Deuteronomy 12:4-11 provides evidence that the Name is the presence of God dwelling among the people.^[32] If Yahweh’s name does specifically refer to the presence of God, then not only is God’s reputation sullied among the nations, but God’s presence among the people is also marred.

The concern for Yahweh’s name and reputation is not a new phenomenon. First, Moses argues for God to relent from bringing disaster against His people in Exodus 32:11-12. Specifically, Moses argued that an act of fury would soil God’s reputation with the Egyptians; thus, God relented (Exod 32:12-14). A second example occurs when Moses intercedes for the people in Numbers 14:15-16 by arguing that the nations will question God’s power and ability to bring the Israelites into the land if God kills them, and accordingly, once again, God relents. Importantly, Block notes that it is the inability of the pagan nations to differentiate between divine action and human causation that leads to the erroneous views of God, which is a theological conundrum that continues into modernity; thus, the profanation of God’s name continues.^[33] Fortunately for Israel, Yahweh’s concern for His holy name becomes a beacon of hope, a hope that God will solve the dilemma and pull the covenantal triangle, which consists of God, the land, and His people, together to fulfill His covenantal promises. However, to accomplish the task, God must recover His decimated honor.

 A Recovery of Honor: Ezekiel 36:22-32

Yahweh now has a word to Israel through the mouth of Ezekiel. Ezekiel first identifies the motivation for God’s restorative activity, which has nothing to do with the people of Israel, but instead focuses solely on Yahweh’s initiative to vindicate His holy name. Yahweh then proceeds with the promise of divine activity that consists of the peoples return to the land, the cleansing of the people, the work of the  Spirit, and, finally, the restoration of prosperity to the land. Ezekiel then reinforces that the motivation and activity of Yahweh was built upon a foundation of grace by exhorting the Israelites to remember their evil ways and deeds. God’s grace-filled restoration of His land and His people result in the recovery of Yahweh’s honor.

Sanctified Objective: Ezekiel 36:22-23

The private conversation between Yahweh and Ezekiel is complete. The salvation oracle continues with a clear command for Ezekiel to communicate Yahweh’s message to the nation of Israel as exemplified by the Qal imperative (אֱמֹר) in verse 22. The opening statement provides multiple rhetorical functions. First, Block notes the irony of the continued accusations and lack of conciliation within the broader scope of a salvation oracle.^[34] The contrast will soon spotlight the climax of the pericope. Second, “it is not for your sake,” repeats the message from the previous verse for emphasis. Third, the same phrase is repeated in verse 32 forming an inclusio for the subunit consisting of verses 23-32, which also highlights the importance of Yahweh’s message that his sole motivation for solving the problem is the vindication of His name.^[35]

The meaning of the phrase, “for the sake of my holy name,” revolves around two terms: name, which was discussed above, and holy (Ezek 26:22). The Hebrew lemma for holy, (קֹדֶשׁ), has a rather broad semantic range. According to BDB, it can mean apartness, set apart as  sacred by God’s presence, persons and things consecrated in connection with sacred places, periods of time consecrated to worship, and persons and things ceremonially cleansed.^[36] Without ignoring the possibility of alternatives, it is the second definition, set apart by God’s presence, that appears most relevant. Both terms, name and holy, provide semantic nuances that highlight the importance of Yahweh’s presence. Ezekiel states that God is “about to act,” but the point of what God is about to do, which continues to be a mystery, points to the revelation of God’s presence, His name (Ezek 36:22). In sum, it is through the power of God’s presence, His holiness, in a miraculously re-creative act that Yahweh will set apart His land and His people as sacred.

With an understanding of Yahweh’s attributes firmly in grasp, a theological conundrum needs to be addressed. It appears that Yahweh no longer cares about His people. Yahweh’s motivation and objective revolve completely around vindicating His name, which appears to be similar to the motivation by modern-day leaders struggling with narcissistic personality disorder. However, Jenson correctly recognizes the antinomy of God’s involvement throughout history on both sides of the conflicts.^[37] God may have initiated the problem by exiling the idolatrous Israelites, but God will also solve the problem by vindicating His name. As Tuell explains, God’s activity will have absolutely nothing to do with Israel.^[38] God will not be motivated by Israel’s thinking, worthiness, righteousness, repentance, emotional outbursts, or behavior. According to Block, the theocentric perspective of Ezekiel appears to “dismiss any hint of merit on Israel’s part.”^[39] Accordingly, by focusing solely on vindicating His name, God not only eliminates the possibility of building a relationship with Israel founded upon human effort, but also moves toward executing a plan to reconcile both His land and His people to Himself through the process of vindicating Himself: a gracious act indeed. Thus, it is through the act of Israel’s rebellion and the defaming of God that, as Alexander points out, God’s name will be honored among the nations through the supernatural act of transplanting human hearts.^[40]

Sanctified Actions: Ezekiel 36:24-30

Ezekiel now commences with what is possibly the most powerful systematic treatment of Yahweh’s agenda to restore the covenantal triangle, God, His land, and His people, in the entire prophetic corpus. Alexander explains that the pattern of restoration within the subunit consists of four parts: (1) the return to the land (v. 24), (2) the cleansing of the people  (v. 25), (3) the work of the Spirit (vv. 26-28), and (4) the prosperity of the land (vv. 29-30).^[41] The following examines each of the four topics individually while remaining sensitive to the cohesive whole.

The rhetorical features within the return and cleansing segment in verses 24-25 abound. First, the subunit of verses 24-30 form a chiasm. According to Block, the ABA pattern begins with the outermost segments focusing on the external promises of returning to the land in verse 24 (A) and the fertility of the land in verses 29-30 (A), both of which sandwich the internal restoration of Israel’s heart in verses 25-28 (B).^[42] The climactic center of the chiasm clearly gives prominence to the internal transformation of the heart. Second, the three first person singular waw + perfect verbs provide verbal repetition in verse 24. The repetition dramatically emphasizes Yahweh as the subject, the only one initiating the action, which is exemplified by the following phrases: (1) I will take, (2) I will gather, and (3) I will bring. Third, the repetition of the Hebrew term for clean in verse 25 cannot be overlooked in its adjectival, Qal verb, and Piel verb forms alongside the contrasting term for unclean (טֻמְאָה). Without question, the rhetorical emphasis on transformation indicates Yahweh’s interest in reconciliatory activity.

The Return to the Land: Ezekiel 36:24

In verse 24, Ezekiel points to a new exodus where God takes Israel from the nations, gathers them, and brings them into the land. The original exodus event took place almost one thousand years earlier when God took Israel from the nation of Egypt into the wilderness and ultimately led them into the Promised Land (Exod 12-16). According to Alexander, God had already foretold of the regathering of the Israelites after the exile on the plains of Moab during the covenant renewal ceremony in Deuteronomy 30:10.^[43] Accordingly, Ezekiel tells of God once again gathering Israel from the pagan nations by reconstructing the covenant relationship between God, the land, and the people.

The Cleansing of the People: Ezekiel 36:25

Moving beyond the restoration of the land, Ezekiel now addresses the deeper, internal challenges involving the lack of morality and ethics, which led to defilement and exile. Yahweh initiates three steps to prevent future defilement: (1) the sprinkling of clean water (v. 25), (2) the giving of a new heart (v. 26), and (3) the placement of His Spirit within His people (v. 27). First, from a rhetorical perspective, according to Block, the sprinkling of clean water is a mixed metaphor that amalgamates the language of sprinkling blood with the cleansing rituals of water.^[44] The debated phrase in Ezekiel 36:25, וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים, “I will sprinkle clean water on you,” appears to allude to the language of Numbers 19. First, the sprinkling of blood is referred to in verse 4 where the priest sprinkles blood on the tent. Second, the only other times the combination of sprinkling (זָרַק) and water (מַי) is found in the Old Testament besides Ezekiel 36:25 is in Numbers 19:13 and 19:20. However, in all cases, according to Olugbemiro Berekiah, the process of ritual cleansing is at stake, but Ezekiel uses the familiar language of ritual cleansing from Numbers as a rhetorical device to shift the audience’s paradigm from a “liturgical practice involving the use of blood sacrifices to a bloodless liturgy.”^[45] In other words, the once for all offering of Jesus’s blood renders blood sacrifices no longer necessary, while the sacrament of water baptism in Christian liturgy remains. In sum, according to Berekiah, the mixed metaphor rhetorically points to a potential double meaning: (1) on the one hand, through the use of intertextuality, the language of clean water conveys the meaning of purification, and (2) on the other hand, the language of clean water points to a prophetic future with a bloodless liturgy where baptism symbolizes Christ’s eternally unrepeatable cleanse through the Spirit (cf. Titus 3:5).^[46] In sum, the prophet sees a time when, according to Tova Ganzel, a nation that failed to purify themselves will be purified by a God-ordained and God-initiated process that ushers in a period where all the nations will “know” that Yahweh is Lord (Ezek 36:23).^[47] The process of restoration that began with the recovery of the land (v. 24) and moved to the purification of the people (v. 25) now continues with the renovation of the heart (v. 26).

The Work of the Spirit: Ezekiel 36:26-28

The rhetorical repetition in Ezekiel 36:26-27 is difficult to miss: new heart, new spirit, heart of stone, heart of flesh, and my Spirit. Furthermore, the prophet provides metaphorical language suggesting that the heart that needs removed is filled with stone, which likely refers to a cold lifelessness. Alternatively, the replacement heart filled with flesh likely refers to a rejuvenated warmth. In light of the rhetorical emphasis, the semantics of both terms, the heart and the spirit, require further analysis. First, the term spirit, רוּחַ, has a broad semantic range, which includes breath, wind, animation, a breathing being, seat of emotions or desires, seat or organ of mental acts, and activities of Yahweh.^[48] Second, the term heart, לֵב, may take on the following connotations: inner man, mind, will, soul, conscience, moral character, man, seat of appetites, emotions, and courage.^[49] The challenge is determining the meaning of the terms within the literary context of the passage. First, broadly, the similarities between Ezekiel 36:27, “I will put my Spirit within you,” and Jeremiah 31:33, “I will put my law (Torah) within them,” is undeniable. Second, within the immediate context, the prepositions take on significance in verse 27: the new heart is given to (לְ) the people, but the new spirit is placed within (בְּ) people, which likely rules out the possibility that the terms are synonymous in meaning. Third, verse 27 suggests a transformational effect on the people. Accordingly, in agreement with Block, the Spirit and Torah both provide an animating force (רוּחַ) or revitalization to the people that is within and distinct from the inner being (לֵב) of the people resulting in the “renewal of the covenant relationship.”^[50]

A relevant theological question is whether the indwelling nature of the Spirit in Ezekiel 36:26-27 differs from the coming Spirit in Acts 2 to which the oracle likely points. More specifically, a common assertion is that under the Old Covenant the Spirit comes and goes, while under the New Covenant the Spirit indwells believers. The question of whether the reference to the spirit in Ezekiel should be interpreted anthropologically or theologically continues to be debated. According to Schafroth, if understood theologically, then the new spirit in verse 26 can be identified with God’s Spirit in verse 27, but it would substantially differ from the operation in the Old Covenant.^[51] However, alongside most scholars, if understood anthropologically, then the spirit and heart would be synonymous with human volition suggesting God is providing a new attitude.^[52] In a sense, neither the traditional theological perspective nor the anthropological perspectives encompass the nuances of the passage.

First, against a strict anthropological perspective, the language surrounding an organ transplant suggests a re-creative act far beyond a shift in attitude, although a shift in attitude certainly does occur. As Schafroth notes, in verse 27, Ezekiel explains that God actively participates in obedience that results from a transplant where the relationship between the Torah and Spirit are aligned: the law comes first, then the Spirit, which points back to fulfilling the law.^[53] Second, against a traditional theological perspective, a radical discontinuity between the two Testaments is not necessary. As Block explains, Ezekiel was not introducing a brand-new perspective of indwelling, but instead, was expanding the scope of the indwelling; the emphasis is not on individual regeneration, but in light of the literary context, on national renewal.^[54] In other words, the prophet sees a new future where the Spirit transcends boundaries, where the people of Israel are not only rejuvenated within the Promised Land, but also beyond. In sum, the spirit and heart language in verse 27 merges two ideas: God is involved in the re-creation of His people allowing for an active participation in obedience, and the activity of re-creation is expanded to the entire nation for the purpose of restoring the covenantal relationship between Yahweh, His land, and His people.

The relationship between God’s re-creation activity and Israel’s obedience requires further exploration as the theological issue of human responsibility and freedom arises. Christopher Wright elegantly summarizes the connection in verse 27 by stating, “It speaks of spiritual reality with ethical results. It speaks of cleansing and moral transformation, of radical inward change and radical outward obedience.”^[55] The relationship between the heart and the hands is not unique to the book of Ezekiel. In Deuteronomy 10:12-16, Israel is called to walk in Yahweh’s ways, to serve God with all their heart, and keep His commandments via the circumcision of their hearts. In the case of Ezekiel, it is clear that God is causing Israel to walk in His ways and to obey (v. 27b). However, due to the involvement of Yahweh, Paul Joyce contends that the initiative limits or undermines Israel’s responsibility.^[56] Greenberg takes the argument a step further by explaining that since Israel’s restoration is now irreversible, human freedom is curtailed.^[57] However, the theocentric focus of Ezekiel does not require the abdication of human responsibility or freedom. First, one must remember that God declares that His motivation for His salvific actions is to vindicate His name so the pagan nations will know that Yahweh is the Lord of all (v. 23). Second, according to Tuell, since the future relies on the motivation and activity of God, Ezekiel avoids the problem of relying on human effort or accomplishment.^[58] With these two assertions firmly intact, the issue of human responsibility resolves within the activity of God’s grace, which causes or results in obedient responses. In short, grace leads to obedience. As Paul Williamson explains, God facilitates obedience by transplanting a new identity within His people and writing the Torah internally on the heart of Israel, which creates an environment where “obeying will be as normal and as readily accepted as breathing and eating.”^[59] Although the specifics surrounding the practical applications will be addressed later, for now it suffices to say that as the Israelites embrace their new identity, they will choose to look more, not less, like the imago Dei as they become who they are, a newly created community of believers. According to Leonard Maré, the ultimate consequence of the inside-out transformational initiative is the inclusion of the entire community in the restoration of the covenant relationship.^[60]

The climax of the covenantal language appears in Ezekiel 36:28, which summarizes the covenant triangle: (1) God will be the Israelites’ God, (2) the land will be the Israelite’s dwelling place, and (3) the people of Israel will be God’s people. The great covenant formula looks back to Leviticus 26:12-13 where the Israelites are said to be His people and God commits to be their God, a God who miraculously brought them out of the bondage of slavery from the nation of Egypt. Ezekiel again announces the covenant formula, but this time the prophet looks beyond the Israelites’ freedom from the Babylonian exile and toward an expansion of the exodus to all people of all nations. As Block explains, not only has the covenant triangle been restored through the reconciliation of God, His land, and His people, but it also answers the question of the pagan nations in Ezekiel 36:20.^[61] God surely loves His people, God surely has the power to restore them to the land, and thus, God surely deserves to be worshipped by all the nations.

The Prosperity of the Land: Ezekiel 36:29-30

The result of God’s accumulation of restorative activities now points to its logical conclusion, an eschatological message of hope whereby God promises to deliver, rescue, and save His people from all uncleannesses and defilement (Ezek 36:29a). According to Block, the powerful promise is the “closest any text comes in the First Testament to talking about salvation from sin in exodus language.”^[62] In other words, the promise looks back to the exodus event that delivered His people out of the hands of Pharaoh to the Promised Land. However, the promise also looks forward to Christ saving His people from their defilements or sins (Math 1:21). The exodus events provide one important common theme: It is God’s activity, not man’s activity, that saves. Just as Pharaoh held the Israelites captive, the prophet explains that Israelites’ defilements and sins are now holding them captive, and the people will be rescued.

Using powerfully engaging imagery, Ezekiel then connects the salvation of the people with the salvation of the land. Rhetorical repetition once again commences in verses 29-30 with “I will deliver…I will summon…I will make.” The purpose of the repetition is clearly to emphasize the action of Yahweh. The prophet then uses personification by summoning the grain, which is expected to listen carefully and respond to its master (v. 29b). The rhetorical feature points to the relationship between the people and land, thus Jacqueline Lapsley states, “An appropriately abundant land is newly minted for a newly created people who will have distinctly new moral attributes.”^[63] The rejuvenation of the land and the people signal the presence of God. Accordingly, Stephen Cook takes the restorative message further by suggesting that Ezekiel’s reference to fruit production hearkens back to God’s presence in Eden where the seeds of the tree reproduced and the fruit of the tree supplied sustenance.^[64] In sum, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the fruitful transformation of the land through sabbath rest echoes an Edenic vision.

The result of God’s activity was the promise that the Israelites would never face the disgrace of famine (Ezek 36:30b). Block explains that within an ancient Near Eastern worldview, the productivity of the land was directly correlated to the relationship between the people and their gods.^[65] Accordingly, when the disgrace of famine is lifted, then the nations no longer profane Yahweh’s name, which vindicates His holiness. The result of God’s miraculous, re-creative activities is the abundant riches of the land, the revitalization of His people, and the restoration of Yahweh’s reputation and honor.

Sanctified Name: Ezekiel 36:31-32

The final two verses of the pericope provide a masterfully crafted theological conclusion to the miraculous activities of God. Although rhetorical features are limited, Greenberg suggests that the phrase, your deeds “were not good,” is a litotes emphasizing the utter corruption of the Israelites’ evil ways, iniquities, and abominations through understatement (Ezek 36:31).^[66] The definition of abominations, תּוֹעֵבָה, according to BDB, encompasses the following transgressions: worshipping of idols, child sacrifice, witchcraft, and various other wicked deeds.^[67] The contrast between the restorative activities of Yahweh (vv. 24-29) and the detestable behavior of the Israelites (v. 31) is palpable. The theological point is unmistakable: The grace of God is not earned as a reward for good behavior. It is difficult to imagine the use of a stronger methodology to convey the message of grace than starting with an idolatrous people deserving exile, moving to restore the people while they lived in debauchery, and then requesting the people to remember their detestable ways once rescued from their corruption. The chronology is key. Greenberg explains that remorse and repentance follow the spiritual re-creation and not the reverse.^[68] In other words, the work of repentance is not a good work that saves; salvation is solely an act of God.

The final verse uses repetition to emphasize God’s grace. For the sixth time, God communicates that the motivation for rescuing the Israelites is to vindicate His name, and not for the sake of Israel (vv. 21, 22a, 22b, 23a, 23b, 32). Although it may appear that God’s motivation parallels an oppressive tyrant focusing on honoring Himself, the paradoxical message renders such a conclusion erroneous. If Yahweh’s motivation would come from any other source than the Self, then the people would take credit for the reward of restoration. Alternatively, as Block states, “What He does to vindicate His honor is lavish more grace. That’s what God does for the sake of His name.”^[69] Certainly, God’s honor is restored, but God restored His honor by restoring His land and restoring His people.

 Integration of Passage and Larger Message of the Book

An integral part of the interpretive process is to engage a passage’s broader literary context, which, in this case, allows the interpreter to determine how the concepts in Ezekiel 36:16-32 contribute to the larger message of the book of Ezekiel. First, Thomas Renz suggests the purpose of Ezekiel’s message is to transform the Israelites’ understanding of their relationship with Yahweh by looking at their past and future to inform their present circumstance.^[70] The structure of the book of Ezekiel suggests three distinct sections. According to Renz, chapters 1-24 pronounce judgement upon Judah and Jerusalem, chapters 25-32 pronounce judgement over the pagan nations, and chapters 33-48 focus on Israel’s future restoration.^[71] Within the book, the tension of God’s wrath and covenant love exist in direct proportion to each other. Specifically, Block explains that the relationship between Yahweh and His people has been ruptured, thus God must respond with intense judgement and profound restoration to not only resolve the breach but also keep His eternal covenant promises.^[72] Accordingly, the book of Ezekiel is a message of both judgment and hope, covenant promises and covenant love, which remind of the past and gesture to the future while simultaneously pointing toward reconciliation. Within the broader literary context of the book, Ezekiel 36:16-32 contributes mightily to the overall message.

Ezekiel 36:16-32 is to some extent a microcosm of the entire book of Ezekiel, which focuses on Israel’s past, present, and future while simultaneously engaging a message of judgment and hope. Israel’s past is succinctly addressed in 36:17 as the word of the Lord reflects upon Israel’s desecration of the Promised Land. The first several verses of the pericope provide connections and similarities with the judgement found in 24:13-14. However, Tobias Häner notes that in 36:17-21 Yahweh states the consequences of the judgment without the language of extermination as in 24:14 and also focuses on the negative consequences to Yahweh’s name rather than the negative consequences to the Israelites.^[73] In other words, 36:16-32 not only reflects the overall message of judgement pronounced within Ezekiel chapters 1-24, but it also further develops the judgement motif.

As Ezekiel moves to the present predicament facing the Israelites, the prophet explains in 36:22-23 that Yahweh’s motive for restoring God’s people is to vindicate His holy name. The reference to Ezekiel 20 and its fourfold reference to God acting to vindicate His name is unmistakable. As Häner explains, the reader is reminded of Israel’s continuous rebellion against Yahweh incited by the influence of the pagan nations.^[74] Accordingly, the language in 36:22-23 not only indicts the pagan nations, which explains the necessity of judgement pronounced upon them in Ezekiel 25-32, but it also holds the Israelites culpable for capitulating to pagan influence and thus desecrating Yahweh’s name. Ezekiel 36:22-23 not only points to the message of judgment earlier in the book but, once again, further develops the motif by connecting the Israelites culpability with the judgement of the nations.

The prophet now moves to the future restoration of Israel in 36:24-30 that reflects the entire message of restoration found in Ezekiel 33-48. Yahweh promises to provide a heart transplant to Israel, which contributes to the message of hope that contrasts with the judgment motifs in both Ezekiel chapters 1-32 and 36:16-23. According to Renz, the restorative theme is then further developed in chapter 37, which explains the spirit’s animating force, in chapters 38-39, which highlights the eternality of the land, and in chapters 40-48, which points to a sanctuary that surrounds God’s people forever.^[75] In sum, the message of judgement and hope in Ezekiel 36:16-32 not only provides a further development of the message of chapters 1-32, but the reality of a future heart transplant also provides the impetus for further augmentation in chapters 33-48, which ultimately point toward the future reconciliation of Yahweh with both His chosen people and the pagan nations.

Theological Reflection

Several timeless theological principles arise from Ezekiel 36:16-32. The first theological principle is that God keeps His promises. God promises that He will make Israel a great nation, and Israel will be a vehicle through which all the nations will be blessed (Gen 12:1-3). Block expands the breadth of the promises by asserting that Yahweh’s commitment to Israel is for all eternity: The Promised Land is Israel’s forever, God’s presence will dwell with His people forever, and Yahweh’s promise to the Davidic line will last forever (2 Sam 7:12-17).^[76] It initially appears that Yahweh has broken His promise in Ezekiel 36:16-23 as the prophet recounts how Israel’s sin defiled the land, which resulted in their expulsion. Furthermore, it also appears that Yahweh will respond to the tragic circumstances by acting as a corrupt tyrant and selfishly vindicating His holy name and reputation. However, neither assertion is true. Yahweh keeps His promises by unselfishly restoring the Israelites through the process of vindicating His name. Although Yahweh scattered His people, He now commits that He will gather His people in a new exodus event (Ezek 36:24a). Yahweh will also bring Israel back to the Promised Land (Ezek 36:24b), renew and revitalize His people spiritually, (Ezek 36:25-28), and bless Israel with prosperity (Ezek 36:29-30). God does not break His promises.

The evidence of God keeping His promises exists within ancient history and the New Testament era, which both point to the keeping of promises in the eschaton. First, God’s promises were partially fulfilled within the context of ancient history when the exiles were allowed to return to their homeland (Ezra 1-2). Second, Yahweh’s promises were also partially fulfilled during the New Testament era. In the book of Acts, Yahweh gathers the Jerusalem Jews who were “devout men from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5). God also revitalizes the people by filling them with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4). The events in Acts 2 also launch the ministerial activity necessary for the partial fulfillment of blessing all the nations through the nation of Israel (Gen 12:1-3) as the Spirit-filled individuals in Jerusalem disperse and take the message of the Gospel back to their hometowns. Third, although scholars disagree on methodology, consensus exists that the promises of God have, in some ways, been inaugurated but have not been fully consummated. On the one hand, Robert Saucy asserts that the land promises in Ezekiel, which would include the prophet’s language in 36:24, points to a larger message of the prophet in chapters 40-48 where the land resettlement “merges into the eternal state” during an interim, millennium, period.^[77] On the other hand, Oren Martin contends that the land restoration is typologically linked to the resurrection motif of Christ and thus has international significance that extends to every nation.^[78] Regardless of God’s ultimate, precise resolution, the evidence is clear: God has kept, does keep, and will keep His promises.

The second theological principle is that God’s grace empowers obedience. Although the first principle focuses on what God does, He keeps His promises, the second principle focuses on how God accomplishes the task of promise keeping. Nicholas Piotrowski notes that only two verses in the entire Old Testament refer to saving individuals from an internal enemy such as sin rather than an external enemy such as a pagan nation, and one of those verses is Ezekiel 36:29b, “And I will save you from your defilements.”^[79] The intertextual connection with Matthew’s gospel, which sets the stage for the rest of the Evangelist’s message, is significant, “For he [Jesus] will save his people from their sins” (Matt 1:21). According to Piotrowski, in Matthew’s words, Jesus takes on the salvific role of Yahweh where Yahweh’s people become Christ’s people, and the forgiveness extended through Christ is tantamount to the forgiveness of covenant disobedience, which ends the exile through a Davidic heir.^[80]

Powerfully, the saving of God’s defiled people came through a motivating force that had nothing to do with the Israelites; but instead, it occurred for the sole purpose of vindicating God’s holy name. God’s motivation highlights that His miraculous activity had nothing to do with human merit or effort. The reconciliation of God’s people to Himself was and is a complete extension of grace. The methodology used by Yahweh to cleanse the Israelites was the sprinkling of pure water to cleanse from idols (Ezek 36:25) and a heart transplant through the infusion of God’s Spirit (Ezek 36:26-27). The author of Hebrews clearly connects the sacrifice of Christ to Ezekiel’s reference to cleansing by stating that believers are to draw near with “our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb 10:22). Furthermore, the apostle Paul also connects Yahweh’s Spirit in Ezekiel 36:27 with the Spirit of Christ in Romans 8:9 by asserting that Christ inhabits believers. Finally, it is the newly created, purified individual inhabited by the Spirit of Christ that is now empowered to obey.

Immediately following Ezekiel’s words that promise the indwelling of Yahweh’s Spirit within his listeners, the prophet claims that Yahweh will be the cause of His people to obey. Although Titus connects the purification of God’s people with those zealous for obedient behavior (Titus 2:5), Peter goes a step further by explaining that when qualities of obedience are absent, then the believer has “forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins” (2 Pet 1:9). In other words, obedience to a holy God is only possible when the individual is first cleansed, purified, and thus made holy, which is an act that God extends to believers by replacing their spirit with His Spirit as an extension of His grace. In sum, people do not cause obedience, God causes obedience. It is God’s grace that empowers obedience.

The third theological principle is that God is the giver of an abundant life. The first principle focused on what God does, the second principle focused on how God accomplishes the task, and the third principle identifies the result of God’s miraculous activity. The bountiful prosperity in Ezekiel 36:29-30 breaks forth in the form of abundant grain and fruitful trees. The fourth gospel directly relates Jesus with an abundant life in John 10:10. Furthermore, the references to food from heaven occurs multiple times in John 6 (vv. 32, 33, 41, 50, 51, 58). Brian Peterson connects Jesus’s miracle of feeding the five thousand in the book of John to the end of famine and privations in Ezekiel 36:29-30.^[81] Accordingly, when Jesus states that He is the bread of life, God’s promise certainly is partially fulfilled for all who believe in Christ will never hunger or thirst (John 6:35). Accordingly, although it appears at the beginning of Ezekiel 36:16-32 that Yahweh was more interested in death than life, the pericope clearly communicates that God keeps His promises, God’s grace empowers obedience, and God is the giver of an abundant life. Without question, God deserves honor.

 Application

The idolatry of the Israelites caused Yahweh to scatter His people (Ezek 36:19) because the nation had desecrated the Promised Land and Yahweh’s name (Ezek 36:17-18, 21). Iain Duguid summarizes the challenge by stating that Israel moved from a category of “clean” to “unclean.”^[82] However, the New Testament sheds additional light on God’s redemptive history. In Acts 10, Peter receives a perplexing vision from God that further develops the idea of cleanliness when God makes clean what Peter considered unclean (Acts 10:9-16). Duguid explains that faith in Christ now determines the distinction between clean and unclean not ethnic origins; thus, gradations of holiness cease to exist for “all who are in Christ are sacred.”^[83] In Christ, all believers are holy, which point to two important applications, one external and one internal.

Externally, since all believers are holy in Christ, then all activities fall into the category of worship, which takes place in an environment of holy ground. From religious activities to work activities and from recreational pursuits to relational and family life, all special interests and enterprises are forms of worship. Paul appeals to believers in his letter to the Romans to present themselves as living sacrifices in all areas of life, which is the worship of Yahweh (Rom 12:1). Additionally, the internal application is not only transformative, but also informs the believer’s external worship. Paul continues in Romans 12:2 by explaining that transformation occurs by the renewal of the mind. When believers place their mind on their cleanness, when they place their minds on their purification (2 Peter 1:9), when they appropriate the reality of their crucifixion with Christ (Gal 2:20), then the power of the idols that the ancient Israelites fought become impotent. By living in Christ, no longer does money purify, no longer does power cleanse the palette, and no longer does approval or addiction fill a void. Instead, because believers are sprinkled clean and re-created with new hearts by the indwelling of Yahweh’s Spirit as promised by Ezekiel, the result is a life filled with the fruit of the Spirit that not only informs but also empowers the daily worship and honor of God (Gal 5:22-23).

___________________________________________

[1] Daniel I. Block, By the River Chebar: Historical, Literary, and Theological Studies in the Book of Ezekiel (Eugene: Cascade, 2013), 26.

[2] Ibid., 27.

[3] Tyler D Mayfield, “Literary Structure and Formulas in Ezekiel 34-37,” in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions, ed. William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 235–237.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 240.

[6] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).

[7] Jiří Moskala, “Notes on the Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel,” in Meeting with God on the Mountains: Essays in Honor of Richard M. Davidson, ed. Jiří Moskala (Berrien Springs, MI: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2016), 104, 110. See also Richard M. Davidson, “The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel,” in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, 1997), 1.

[8] Moskala, “Notes on the Literary,” 105–109.

[9] Gary V. Smith, Interpreting the Prophetic Books: An Exegetical Handbook (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2014), 39.

[10] Verena Schafroth, “An Exegetical Exploration of ‘Spirit’ References in Ezekiel 36 and 37,” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 29, no. 2 (2009): 64.

[11] Ibid., 65.

[12] Michaël N van der Meer, “A New Spirit in an Old Corpus?: Text-Critical, Literary-Critical and Linguistic Observations Regarding Ezekiel 36:16-38,” in The New Things Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene (Maastricht, 2002), 153.

[13] Ibid., 154–157.

[14] Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 344.

[15] Ibid. It is possible for prophets to have a seat in Yahweh’s divine council. For example, the call narrative of Isaiah 6:8 and the plurality of the senders seem to suggest the participation of a prophet within the divine council. Furthermore, Jeremiah 23:16-18 also suggests that only true prophets sit within the divine council.

[16] Willem A. VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 365–376.

[17] Block, By the River Chebar, 13–14.

[18] Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), 379.

[19] Steven Tuell, Ezekiel, ed. W. Ward Gasque, Robert L. Hubbard Jr., and Robert K. Johnston, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 246.

[20] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 346.

[21] For an expanded analysis of rhetorical features associated with repetition including multiclinatum, see Jack R. Lundbom, The Hebrew Prophets: An Introduction, 1st ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 168–178.

[22] Dietrich Horst Preuss, “גִּלּוּלִים,” ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. John T. Willis and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1978), 2.

[23] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 347.

[24] John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2000), 53.

[25] Robert W. Jenson, Ezekiel, ed. R. Reno, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009), 278.

[26] Tuell, Ezekiel, 246.

[27] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 347.

[28] Ibid., 100.

[29] Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 22A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven: Yale University, 2008), 728.

[30] Ralph H. Alexander, “Ezekiel,” in Jeremiah–Ezekiel, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, Revised. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2010), 843.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Lexham Press, 2015), 144–145. Recent scholarship has attempted to disprove that the Name is an entity:  see Sandra L Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: Lešakkēn Šemô Šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002). However, for a rebuttal to Richter’s claim, see Michael B Hundley, “To Be or Not to Be: A Reexamination of Name Language in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History,” Vetus Testamentum 59, no. 4 (2009).

[33] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 348–349.

[34] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 351.

[35] For an expanded treatment of the rhetorical device of inclusio see Lundbom, The Hebrew Prophets, 172–175.

[36] Brown, Driver, and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 871–872.

[37] Jenson, Ezekiel, 278.

[38] Tuell, Ezekiel, 246.

[39] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48, 351.

[40] Alexander, “Ezekiel,” 844.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48, 353.

[43] Alexander, “Ezekiel,” 844.

[44] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48, 354.

[45] Olugbemiro O Berekiah, “A Historical-Liturgical Critique of וזרקתּי מים טהורים ‘I Will Sprinkle Clean Water’ in Ezek 36.25-27 and Its Translation Options in English,” The Bible Translator 69, no. 1 (2018): 14.

[46] Berekiah, “A Historical-Liturgical Critique,” 16.

[47] Tova Ganzel, “The Descriptions of the Restoration of Israel in Ezekiel,” Vetus Testamentum 60, no. 2 (2010): 207.

[48] Brown, Driver, and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Brigg, 924–926.

[49] Ibid., 524–525.

[50] Block, By the River Chebar, 155–156.

[51] Schafroth, “An Exegetical Exploration,” 66–67.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Schafroth, “An Exegetical Exploration,” 67-68.

[54] Block, By the River Chebar, 157–158.

[55] Christopher J. H. Wright, Knowing the Holy Spirit Through the Old Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 128.

[56] Paul Joyce, “Ezekiel and Moral Transformation,” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, ed. William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons (Eugene: The Lutterworth Press, James Clarke & Co Ltd., 2010), 155–156.

[57] Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37, 22A:735.

[58] Tuell, Ezekiel, 248.

[59] Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose, vol. 23, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), 154.

[60] Leonard P Maré, “Ezekiel, Prophet of the Spirit: רוח in the Book of Ezekiel,” Old Testament Essays 31, no. 3 (2018): 564.

[61] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 357.

[62] Daniel I. Block, OT362 Book Study: Ezekiel (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Segment 118.

[63] Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 167–168.

[64] Stephen L. Cook, “Burgeoning Holiness: Fecundity Let Loose in Ezekiel 34-36,” in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions, ed. William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 351. For additional intertextual references connecting Ezekiel 36:30 to an Edenic vision, see Leviticus 23:40 that speaks of gathering of festival fruit linked to Eden and Zechariah 1:8 with the unveiling of the Sukkot trees of Eden.

[65] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 358.

[66] Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37, 22A:731.

[67] Brown, Driver, and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs, 1072.

[68] Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37, 22A:731.

[69] Block, OT362 Book Study: Ezekiel, Segment 119.

[70] Thomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function the Book of Ezekiel (Boston: Brill, 1999), 57.

[71] Renz, The Rhetorical Function, 59-60.

[72] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 13–15.

[73] Tobias Häner, “Reading Ezekiel 36:16-38 in Light of the Book: Observations on the Remembrance and Shame after Restoration (36:31-32) in a Synchronic Perspective,” in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions, ed. William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 327–328.

[74] Häner, “Reading Ezekiel 36:16-38,” 329.

[75] Renz, The Rhetorical Function, 113–117.

[76] Block, By the River Chebar, 38.

[77] Robert Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 230.

[78] Oren Martin, “The Land Promise Biblically and Theologically Understood,” in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies, ed. Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 265–266.

[79] Nicholas G Piotrowski, “‘I Will Save My People from Their Sins’: The Influence of Ezekiel 36:28b-29a; 37:23b on Matthew 1:21,” Tyndale Bulletin 64, no. 1 (2013): 33.

[80] Piotrowski, “I Will Save,” 53-54.

[81] Brian Neil Peterson, John’s Use of Ezekiel: Understanding the Unique Perspective of the Fourth Gospel (Minneapolis, 2015), 135.

[82] Iain M. Duguid, The NIV Application Commentary: Ezekiel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 1999), 417.

[83] Ibid., 418.

Bibliography

• Alexander, Ralph H. “Ezekiel.” In Jeremiah–Ezekiel, edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, 643–924. Revised. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2010.
• Berekiah, Olugbemiro O. “A Historical-Liturgical Critique of וזרקתּי מים טהורים ‘I Will Sprinkle Clean Water’ in Ezek 36.25-27 and Its Translation Options in English.” The Bible Translator 69, no. 1 (2018): 9–18.
• Block, Daniel I. By the River Chebar: Historical, Literary, and Theological Studies in the Book of Ezekiel. Eugene: Cascade, 2013.
• ________. OT362 Book Study: Ezekiel. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020.
• ________. The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
• Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.
• Cook, Stephen L. “Burgeoning Holiness: Fecundity Let Loose in Ezekiel 34-36.” In Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions, edited by William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter, 345–359. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.
• Davidson, Richard M. “The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel.” In To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, edited by David Merling, 71–93. Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, 1997.
• Duguid, Iain M. The NIV Application Commentary: Ezekiel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 1999.
• Ganzel, Tova. “The Descriptions of the Restoration of Israel in Ezekiel.” Vetus Testamentum 60, no. 2 (2010): 197–211.
• Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21-37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 22A. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven: Yale University, 2008.
• Häner, Tobias. “Reading Ezekiel 36:16-38 in Light of the Book: Observations on the Remembrance and Shame after Restoration (36:31-32) in a Synchronic Perspective.” In Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions, edited by William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter, 323–344. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.
• Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. First Edition. Lexham Press, 2015.
• Hundley, Michael B. “To Be or Not to Be: A Reexamination of Name Language in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History.” Vetus Testamentum 59, no. 4 (2009): 533–555.
• Jenson, Robert W. Ezekiel. Edited by R. Reno. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009.
• Joyce, Paul. “Ezekiel and Moral Transformation.” In Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, edited by William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, 139–158. Eugene: The Lutterworth Press, James Clarke & Co Ltd., 2010.
• Lapsley, Jacqueline E. Can These Bones Live? The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000.
• Lundbom, Jack R. The Hebrew Prophets: An Introduction. 1st ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010.
• Maré, Leonard P. “Ezekiel, Prophet of the Spirit: רוח in the Book of Ezekiel.” Old Testament Essays 31, no. 3 (2018): 553–570.
• Martin, Oren. “The Land Promise Biblically and Theologically Understood.” In Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies, edited by Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016.
• Mayfield, Tyler D. “Literary Structure and Formulas in Ezekiel 34-37.” In Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions, edited by William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter, 235–244. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.
• Meer, Michaël N van der. “A New Spirit in an Old Corpus?: Text-Critical, Literary-Critical and Linguistic Observations Regarding Ezekiel 36:16-38.” In The New Things Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene, 147–158. Maastricht, 2002.
• Moskala, Jiří. “Notes on the Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel.” In Meeting with God on the Mountains: Essays in Honor of Richard M. Davidson, edited by Jiří Moskala, 102–110. Berrien Springs, MI: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2016.
• Peterson, Brian Neil. John’s Use of Ezekiel: Understanding the Unique Perspective of the Fourth Gospel. Minneapolis, 2015.
• Piotrowski, Nicholas G. “‘I Will Save My People from Their Sins’: The Influence of Ezekiel 36:28b-29a; 37:23b on Matthew 1:21.” Tyndale Bulletin 64, no. 1 (2013): 33–54.
• Preuss, Dietrich Horst. “גִּלּוּלִים.” Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis and Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1978.
• Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. Boston: Brill, 1999.
• Richter, Sandra L. The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: Lešakkēn Šemô Šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002.
• Saucy, Robert. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
• Schafroth, Verena. “An Exegetical Exploration of ‘Spirit’ References in Ezekiel 36 and 37.” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 29, no. 2 (2009): 61–77.
• Smith, Gary V. Interpreting the Prophetic Books: An Exegetical Handbook. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2014.
• Tuell, Steven. Ezekiel. Edited by W. Ward Gasque, Robert L. Hubbard Jr., and Robert K. Johnston. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009.
• VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Vol. 2. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.
• Walton, John H., Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2000.
• Williamson, Paul R. Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose. Vol. 23. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007.
• Wright, Christopher J. H. Knowing the Holy Spirit Through the Old Testament. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006.