Ezekiel - Lesson 23

Lessons from a Boiling Cauldron, Twisting the Doctrine of Eternal Security, Ezekiel 24 1 to 14 and 33 21 to 22. Earlier, when we looked at chapter 16, we noted that this book includes four Reeve oracles in which the Lord commands Ezekiel to arraign Judah, representing Israel, to summarize the charges against her and to declare the divine sentence for a history of infidelity and rebellion. That's chapters 16, 20, 23, and 22, 1 to 16. In the three longest of these, Yahweh adopted a shocking rhetorical strategy, rewriting the history of his treasured people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation, in ways no one would have imagined. In the two longest of these, 16 and 23, he cast Jerusalem as a hopelessly unfaithful and profligate wife. In 22, 1 to 16, she was the bloody city filled with crimes. And in chapter 20, the most controlled of all, he rewrote their history by breaking it down into seven phases. The first three involve the distant past, Israel and Egypt, chapter 20, verses 5 to 9, Israel in the desert, the first generation, 20, 10 to 17. Phase three, Israel in the desert, second generation, 20, 18 to 26. But then he shifts to the more recent past, so that verse four is Israel in the land, the settled generation, 20, 27 to 29. And the present, Israel outside the land, the exile generation, 20, 30 to 31. And the last two phases are in the future. Phase six, Israel in the desert of the peoples, the defiled generation. And phase seven, Israel on Yahweh's holy mountain, the transformed generation, 20, 39 to 44. We begin to anticipate a new day in verse 33, 20, verse 33, where Yahweh announced that he would assume the role of king over Israel, and then his promise to regather and purge the nation of her rebels and bring them back to their hereditary homeland, verses 34 to 38. Having had their fill of idolatry, they would serve Yahweh alone on the high mountain of Israel, and Yahweh would accept not only their offerings, but also the people themselves. But now, in this back-to-the-future summary of Israel's story, we are way ahead of the present historical realities. In fact, in chapter 24, Ezekiel announces the imminent arrival of the most horrific event in the nation's history, the Holocaust at the hands of the Babylonians. In 879 B.C., about 175 miles north of the city of Babylon, Emperor Asher-Nassir Paul II of Assyria, 884 to 859 B.C., had sponsored the greatest party ever recorded to celebrate the completion of his new capital in Kalach, Calhoun, near Mosul, in Iraq. Responding to his invitation to the whole country, 69,574 people came to the ten-day feast, including 16,000 cities of Kalach and 5,000 dignitaries from his own territories and foreign lands as far away as Tyre and Sidon and on the Mediterranean and modern Turkey. Using his voice, his scribes wrote, For ten days I gave them food, I gave them drink, I had them bathed, I had them anointed. Thus did I honor them and send them back to their lands in peace and joy. The document has preserved the menu from the great feast. The fare included, but was not limited to, 1,000 oxen, 1,000 domestic cattle and sheep, 14,000 imported and fattened sheep, 1,000 lambs, 500 game birds, 500 gazelles, 10,000 fish, 10,000 eggs, 10,000 loaves of bread, 10,000 measures of beer, 10,000 containers of wine, and the ingredients used to spice up the dishes included spices like sesame and grains and grapes and onions and garlic and honey and mustard and milk, nuts, cheese, olives, dates, ghee, and turnips. That was quite a feast. Our text in this session takes its cue from the kitchen, probably not the kitchen in Nebuchadnezzar's palace, but from the kitchen of an ordinary home preparing a meal for special guests, maybe like the meal Abraham and Sarah prepared for their heavenly visitors in Genesis 18, 1 to 8. But now again, we are way ahead of ourselves. Let's look at the setting of this oracle in verses 1 to 2 of chapter 24. For the fourth time in the book, notice 1, 1, 8, 1, 20, verse 1, here Ezekiel set the context of this prophecy by giving us the date. The following word of Yahweh came to me in the ninth year, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, 24, 1. Now the form of this date notice differs from all the others in the book, whereas elsewhere Ezekiel dated events idiosyncratically according to the years of our, that is Jehoiakim's exile. Here he followed the official Jewish system of reckoning based on the king's regnal year, which we find in 2 Kings 25.1. In fact, this text offers an expanded version of this statement. Now in the ninth year of his, Zedekiah's reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and all his forces launched their attack against Jerusalem. He set up camp against the city and constructed siege walls against it all around. According to this reckoning, the tenth day of the tenth month, Tevet, of Zedekiah's ninth year, computes to January 5, 587 BC, more than three years after the last dated prophecy in chapter 20, verse 1, which the prophet had received on August 14, 591 BC. We do not know what was happening in Ezekiel's world and Babylon when Yahweh revealed the message of chapter 20, but Yahweh explained to the prophet in unequivocal terms what was happening 500 miles to the west and why this date was so significant. Human, record the date, this very day, the king of Babylon has laid siege to Jerusalem on this very day, Ezekiel 24, 2. The fateful day that Yahweh had marked on his calendar already in the days of Josiah, 2 Kings 22, 15-17, that day had finally arrived. Nebuchadnezzar had followed the counsel of Yahweh by means of his own oracular devices, as we saw in 21, 18-22, and he had arrived in Jerusalem where he was organizing his vast army, assigning the troops their positions all around the city to cut off the food supply from the countryside and setting up his battering rams against the gates and the walls of the city. However, the dating of this notice serves an additional function. Under normal circumstances, according to Deuteronomy 18, 21, 22, one of the proofs of true prophets was that their predictions would come true. Ezekiel's primary role was to appeal to his fellow exiles to repent of their sin, prepare for the day of restoration. But Yahweh had told him at the outset that there would be no fruit for his labor, none of this kind of proof that he was a true prophet. For this reason, in the absence of spiritual revival, the prophet needed to date and document these oracles so that when the event happened, both he and Yahweh who had inspired him would be vindicated. Had Ezekiel's audience heeded his warnings and amended their ways, there would have been no need to record either the date of his oracle or even the oracle itself. The fruits of his ministry would have confirmed his prophetic status. Now, since the exiles could not observe the fall of the city themselves, Yahweh and Ezekiel could answer their skepticism by preserving a written record of the present oracle and dating it precisely. Later, when messengers began to arrive with reports of the city's collapse, their accounts could be compared with the prophet's words. But Ezekiel had been preparing for that event for five years already. He had observed the gathering storm and had spared no effort in warning his countrymen for the outpouring of divine wrath on Jerusalem. On September 18, 592 BC, Yahweh had revealed to Ezekiel what was happening in the temple in Jerusalem through the vision in which he was physically transported back home, 8-1 to 1125. This time, all we have is a verbal announcement of what was happening far away across the Arabian desert. Can you imagine how Ezekiel felt? Oh no! Oh Yahweh, are you really intending to go through with this? Is there no other way? That's what verses 1 and 2 at the beginning of chapter 24, that's the question that is raised here. So now let's look at the actual oracle that begins in 3a, the genre and structure of the oracle. Yahweh's answer for Ezekiel was not long in coming. Compose a parable concerning the rebellious house. Declare to them, this thus has the Lord Yahweh declared. We saw in 1222 and 182 that by using the word Mashal, Yahweh introduces this oracle as another figurative metaphorical speech. But what followed was probably more than just another riddle for the people to figure out. Mashal is also the ordinary word for a popular proverb like, fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are blunted in chapter 18 verse 2. This meant that rather than composing another metaphor, here Yahweh told Ezekiel to open his prophecy with a proverb that was circulating among the people. Unlike other disputation speeches, Ezekiel did not explicitly identify verses 3 to 5 as a direct quotation as he had in 182. But what follows appears to be just that. Here Yahweh intended to debunk popular thinking about current realities, presumably the disposition of the people back home in Jerusalem. Our text divides into four principal parts which we have come to expect in these sort of disputation debates. First, there is the popular saying declaring the thesis verses 3b to 5. Then, there is the dispute verses 6 to 8. Then, the double counter-thesis verses 9 to 13. And then, the conclusion verse 14. This oracle resembles the disputation speech we encountered in 11.1 to 12 on several counts. Both texts include a two-part counter-thesis, but the most obvious link is the motif of the pot, bring back the pot, referred to in each case by the word seer, an expression for cooking pot that occurs nowhere else in the book, only in these two texts. Furthermore, the notion of election and special status vaguely hinted at in the two-fold reference to choice cuts in 24.4 to 5 was implied in the earlier claim of the people of Jerusalem to divine protection. The city is the pot and we are the meat, which speaks of flesh safely stored in a pot with a lid on. Ezekiel reinforced this impression in 11.15 where he quoted the Jerusalemites' claim to be the special objects of the Lord's favor. They are far away from Yahweh, it is ours, the land has been given to us as a possession, that's 11.15. And finally, the announcement, I will judge you, which occurs twice in the earlier oracle, 11.10 and 11, finds an echo in 24.14, shefatuk, judge you. Together with 11.1 to 3, 24.1 to 14, for the before and after Ezekiel's oral pronouncements against Judah in 11.1 to 24.15, in contrast to the synax and the visions that we saw in chapters 4 to 12. So let's have a look at this fascinating text, which begins with, apparently, a popular saying, the thesis statement 3b to 5, thus has the Lord Yahweh declared, put on the cauldron, put it on, then pour water into it, gather into it the pieces of meat, every good piece, thigh and shoulder, fill it with the choicest cuts, take the choicest of the flock, further, furthermore, heap up the logs under it, bring it to a brisk boil. One of my lasting memories of my father was his habit of humming his favorite hymn tunes whenever he was working or driving. Actually, this was not that different from what my father-in-law, who would whistle while he worked. Indeed, he was the supreme adherent of the thesis developed in the lyrics written by Larry Morey in 1937 for the animate Disney film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Just whistle while you work, put on that grin and start right in to whistle loud and long, just hum a merry tune, do your best, then take a rest and sing yourself a song, when there's so much to do, don't let it bother you, forget your troubles, try to be just like a cheerful chickadee and whistle while you work, come on, get smart, tune up and start to whistle while you work. One version applies it to several categories of workers. When the work begins to pile up and your temper starts to rile up, that's the time a fellow needs a song. Doctor, banker, butcher, baker, you can be a merry maker if you keep on singing all day long. If you're hanging in suspense from eight till five and you want to keep the sense of humor alive, just whistle while you work, put on that grin and start right in to whistle loud and long. Really, there are times when other people's whistling or humming can be quite annoying. I interpret verse 3b to 5 as the words of a popular work song, an Arbeitslied. Elsewhere in Scripture we find references to songs that people would sing as they work. Numbers 21, 16 to 18 contains a well-digging song. The Lord said to Moses, gather the people together so I may give them water. Then Israel sang this song, spring up, oh well, sing to it the well that the prince has made, that the nobles of the people dug with their scepter and their staffs. Judges 9, 27 and 21, 21 and Isaiah 16, 10 suggest celebrations in the vineyards at harvest time. My brothers and I used to sing while we were milking cows. Well, our text involves a totally secular song that comes from the kitchen. Something like, Polly put the kettle on, Polly put the kettle on, Polly put the kettle on, we'll all have tea. Suki, take it back again, suki, take it back again, suki, take it back again, they've all gone away. We cannot be certain that the people were actually singing verses 3b to 5. Although the lyrics are quite secular, Yahweh may have composed it as a riddle to reflect what people were thinking and set the audience up for exposing the fallacies in their thinking. In 24.3, Yahweh characterized Ezekiel's house as a house of rebellion, the same expressions we've heard before in 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 3.9, five years earlier. Evidently, a half decade of preaching hadn't softened any fossilized hearts. And even as Nebuchadnezzar began to knock on the walls of Jerusalem, the Judeans' revolt against Yahweh's lordship continued. In verse 3b, Ezekiel launched directly into his message, specifically the song that the cook was singing in the kitchen as he or she went about his or her work. Yahweh cast the song in the form of a series of commands as if the cook was talking to himself, but in so doing, he traced the actions of the chef preparing a special cut of meal, preparing it for the banquet. Put on the cauldron, put it on. Yes, pour water into it, gather into it the pieces of meat we have to fill in the blank, every good piece, thigh and shoulder. Fill it with the choicest cuts, take the choicest of the flock. Yes, heap up the logs under it, bring it to a brisk boil. Yes, boil its cuts in it. Well, the process of preparing this piece of meat involved five stages. Setting up the apparatus for the fire and the cooking pot. Usually the word for pot refers to a wide-mouthed clay vessel, probably placed on a three-stone tripod. The duplication of the verb reflects the cook's enthusiasm for the work. Put it on. Second, pour in the water. In ancient times, people would normally boil meat in water, though the practice of boiling kids in milk was also known, Exodus 23, 19. Third, put in the meat once it's boiling. The common word for flesh, basar, occurs later, but here the use of a rare word, netach, for a cut of meat gives us an early clue about the significance of this meal. Four, pile up the logs under the pot, hinting at the strength of the fire to be lit. Five, boil the meat. The rare verb, ratach, only elsewhere in Job 41, 23, and Ezekiel 30, verse 27. It speaks of the turbulence of cooking water. Boil it briskly. And the last line summarizes the entire process. Earlier, I suggested that what was happening here could have happened in any kitchen on any ordinary day, but it is clear this cook was not fixing an ordinary dinner. Notice the description of the extraordinarily sumptuous meal and the food of the highest quality. Not only was the slaughtered animal to be the choicest, mevchar, of the flock, the cauldron was to be filled with every good piece, with particular reference to the thigh and shoulder, and its choice cuts, mevchar etzamim. The word for cuts, etzamim, which most translations render as bones, this is correct if we are only translating words, but we are translating message. Dogs and coyotes eat the bones, but people do not normally do so. Here, NLT, New Living Translation, rightfully follows the early Greek and Syriac versions, the bones along with the meat. This was not about serving bones to the guests. It was about the meat on the bones. In the refutation, Ezekiel would reinforce our conclusion that this was no ordinary meal. In verse 11, he actually described the vessel as a bronze cauldron. Since common households cooked with clay pots, this song probably involved either a court banquet or a cultic meal at the temple. The prophet's concern with issues of purity and defilement in verses 11 to 13 may tip the scales in favor of the latter, perhaps a zavach celebratory meal at the temple. Given Ezekiel's priestly heritage and interests, that interpretation actually makes sense. But the tone of the song is quite secular, and we should link this disputation with the one in chapter 11. Three years earlier, Yahweh had commanded him to reinterpret a popular saying in which the pot had figured as a sign of the security of the residents of Jerusalem. We should interpret this song similarly, though we witness a change in the significance of the pot. Previously, the pot had symbolized the security of the upper classes in Jerusalem. They claimed to be the meat in the storage, and the lid was on, and they were secure. But then he changes it. The people were the meat being devoured, but the rulers were safe in the pot. On the surface, the present song could have emboldened Ezekiel's audience, whether his immediate fellow exiles or the hypothetical and rhetorical audience in Jerusalem. If this was a meal, then participation for the Zevach meal signified acceptance by and fellowship with Yahweh. But in any case, Israel's doctrine of election was implicit in this poem. The flock zone represented the nation, the people of Yahweh. To have been selected as the fair for this banquet was an amazing privilege. Just as in chapter 11 the pot had represented Jerusalem and the elect were those inside the pot, so these choice cuts referred to those remaining behind after the deportation of 597. Undoubtedly, a Jerusalem audience would have received this song with great enthusiasm and interpreted it positively. We are the choice cuts for a banquet in God's honor. But what did the song really mean? For that we turn to the disputation in verses 6 to 8. What they're singing is one thing and thinking may be one thing, but in the end what matters is what God intended by composing the song. So here we have the transformation of the banquet. This is the dispute in verses 6 to 8. Therefore thus has the Lord Yahweh declared, woe to the city of bloodshed, the cauldron whose corruption is incited, whose corruption has not been removed, remove it piece by piece, no lot has fallen on it, for her blood is within her. On the exposed rock she has put it, she did not pour it out on the ground to cover it with dust. In order to rouse wrath, to take vengeance, I have placed her blood upon the bare rock, that it might not be covered. Therefore thus has the Lord Yahweh declared. In verse 6, signal the transition from song to dispute. By now we know that this citation formula, beginning with therefore, announces the Lord's response to what had just happened. His disposition toward what the people were singing is evident from the opening scathing pronouncement, woe to the city of bloodshed. A description we heard earlier in 22 too, and we heard a lot about it, this bloodshed in chapter 23, the oracle against Oh Holy Ba and Oh Holy Ba Ma, chapter 23. And it's in other texts as well. Here the opening volley, woe to the bloody city, gave way quickly to a shocking reinterpretation of the status of the meat and its significance within the cauldron. As in chapter 11, the cauldron represented the city. But instead of praising the contents because they were choice cuts, Ezekiel had been singing about a container containing corruption. Traditionally, the word for corruption, chelah, has been translated as rust. Now the reddish color of oxidized iron could function as an appropriate representation of a bloody city. But this interpretation, which is very common in our translations as well, the rust, it cannot work. In verse 11, Ezekiel will inform us that this pot was made of copper or bronze. But copper doesn't rust. When copper oxidizes, it turns green. Hence, New English Bibles, green with corrosion. Well, and if the pot was made of clay, as most were, this obviously would not rust. Clay doesn't rust. Now in the New Testament, the present Greek word, eos, refers to the tarnish of gold and silver, James 5, 2 to 3, and the corruption of earthly treasures in general, Matthew 6, 19 to 20. However, these interpretations assume that the problem was metallurgical. That is, it involves the container, a defect in the material of which the pot was made. But the Hebrew word chelah is quite rare, and in the First Testament, it is never used of metal. In 2 Chronicles 16, the verb chelah denotes to be diseased, which answers to chelah in the parallel text in 2 Kings 15, 23. Five times we find the noun from the same root, diseases, from the same root, Deuteronomy 29, 21, Jeremiah 14, 18, and elsewhere. In some of these, it seems to refer to gangrenous flesh. If this is correct, then Yahweh spoke of something that was spoiled. But what was it? This was not a sickness of the metal that cannot be removed by cleaning, as he says. The problem is not what the pot was made of, but what was inside the pot. Its corruption is inside it. Well, what was inside this pot? Meat, of course. And this makes perfect sense. The statement was a direct challenge to the people's mistaken perception of their status, far from being Yahweh's choice cuts. The residents of Jerusalem were nothing more than putrid flesh, fit only to be discarded as refuse, and totally not only cooked, but cooked up. This interpretation helps to clarify the problems with the last line in verse 6, remove it piece by piece, no lot has fallen on it. Well, what was this lot? In everyday life, people often made decisions by casting the lot, gural. To moderns, this practice seems like luck or chance, unless, of course, you're totally superstitious, or you trust Proverbs 16.33. The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from Yahweh. The best-known example of lot casting in the first testament involves the allocation of land among the tribes and families of Israel. But the lot was also used in cultic contexts. On the day of atonement, the high priest used the lot to determine Yahweh's choice of the goat for the sin offering and the scapegoat, Leviticus 16. With Ezekiel's declaration that no lot had fallen on this piece of meat, he repudiated the people's claim to special status, they are the elect, before Yahweh. Nobody had chosen them, let alone Yahweh revealing to the people by lot that they were specially favored. Mixing his metaphor somewhat, the thought of cooking a meat dish reminded Ezekiel of Leviticus 17.10-16, which spelled out how to prepare kosher food. The reference to her blood being within her means that this animal was not even properly butchered, the dominant issue in the Leviticus text. Since blood was considered sacred, representing the life of the victim which is sacred, Yahweh had strictly prohibited consumption of meat with blood still in it. The people of Jerusalem may have thought they were the choice cuts, but as far as Ezekiel was concerned, they were unfit for consumption, no lot would fall on her. However, the figure changed in the remainder of the verse which describes Jerusalem as the offender, not the victim. At issue in verses 7-8 was the violation of a second taboo cited in Leviticus 17.13, that is, leaving the blood of a slain animal exposed. It actually means that the ma, her blood was the blood she had shed or her blood guilt. The mosaic ordinance required that whenever a game animal or bird was slain, the blood was to be poured out and covered with earth, Deuteronomy 12, 16 and 24 and 15-23. To leave it exposed would provoke the wrath of God, the source and guarantor of all life. In the case of murder in particular, the blood of the victim cried out to heaven for vengeance, Genesis 4-10. However, the crime of the residents of Jerusalem was not merely neglecting proper procedure. They had willfully poured blood out on the smooth, bare rock where they could not even cover it because there was no soil. This meant that their evil was on full display to all who passed by. Here Yahweh may allude either to sacrificial slaughter of children on the high places, 1620-21, 20, 26, and 31, particularly if the meal being prepared was intended for some cultic celebration. Or it could refer to blatant criminal activity, the judicial murders being perpetrated by the leaders of the city, and God saw all that blood on the surface. With a purpose clause at the end of verse 8, Yahweh announced his shocking response to this blatant impiety. With pointed irony, he declared, in effect, if you want to pour out the blood of your victims on the exposed rock as an act of sacrilege, I shall see to it that it remains there. His motive was clear. In Job 16-18, Job had requested that his blood not be covered so that God might forever be reminded not to allow the offenses committed against him to be forgotten. Here Yahweh ensured that the blood on the rock would remain exposed as a perpetual witness to their crimes and a reminder to him to visit the criminal city with his judgment. For the first time in this oracle, Ezekiel declared Yahweh's response to the sins of Jerusalem, which set the stage then for the counter-thesis, which will emphasize the fury of Yahweh's judgment. Verses 9 to 13, the fate of Jerusalem's population. Therefore, when we hear that, listen up, thus has the Lord Yahweh declared, woe to the city of bloodshed. Yes, I myself will make the pyre huge. Pile on the logs, kindle the fire, cook the meat thoroughly, pour in the broth, let the bones be charred. Then let it stand empty on the coal so it becomes hot, and its copper glows, and its filthiness inside it is poured out. Its corruption will be consumed. Its corruption is troublesome, and the magnitude of its corruption will not leave. Into the fire with its corruption, on account of your lewd filthiness, because I tried to cleanse you, but you would not be cleansed of your filthiness. You will never be cleansed again until I have satisfied my fury against you. Now, the Hebrew text is clear that at this point, either Yahweh's or Ezekiel's excisement had reached its peak. Many details in the text are very difficult, but the thrust of the argument seems clear enough. Again, the prophet opened with, therefore, thus has the Lord Yahweh declared. If we thought the move from song to its interpretation was shocking, what followed involves a whole new category. Ezekiel led off this new song with another pronouncement of woe, woe to the city of bloodshed. But then in a shocking move, Yahweh took over the kitchen, and people had better stay out of the way of this cook. The emphatic construction in the first line highlights the focus on Yahweh, who now reacted to those who claimed the privileged status of the prophet's marshal, this parable at the beginning. This counter-thesis divides into two parts. Verses 9b to 12 deal with the way Yahweh will give vent to his wrath, and verses 13 to 14 justify his vengeance. In the first part, 9 to 10, Ezekiel's concern was getting rid of the tainted meat, and in the second, purifying the pot that had been totally polluted by the disgusting and dangerous flesh inside it. Ezekiel, that is, Yahweh, drew his imagery from the song of the kitchen in verses 3 to 6, so it's a new song, but it's not a pleasant, happy song. As noted earlier, the opening statement announced emphatically that Yahweh had now taken over the kitchen, and he was now the cook. His first task was to make a huge fire. The term madura, pyre, p-y-r-e, comes from the same word we saw in verse 5, which spoke of heaping up piles of firewood. The present punitive usage recalls the only other first testamental occurrence of this noun in Isaiah 33. Topheth has long been ready. It has been prepared for the king. Its fire pit has been made deep and wide. Its pyre, meduratha, a fire with plenty of wood, the breath of Yahweh, like a stream of burning sulfur, sets it ablaze. In verse 10, we find only imperative verbs, as if Yahweh was commanding someone else to assist him. However, again, he seems to have been talking to himself, put on the fire, so he puts on the fire, and he deliberately lets us hear what he is thinking. The first three actions in this series seem innocent enough. He piled on the logs, he lit them, and then he cooked the meat. Even the choice of basar for meat is natural. Compare the choice cuts we saw in verse 4, and the pejorative chela corruption in verses 6 to 9. By now, Ezekiel's immediate audience would have grasped that he was not talking about merely cooking meat. Why this stress on the size of the pile of logs? Why does the prophet use the expression, which could mean, finish the job of cooking the meat? But it also could signify, finish off, do away, destroy the meat. In 2215, Yahweh had spoken of consuming your uncleanness. The following lines are textually difficult, but my translation helps us recognize the progression. The liquid broth is to be poured out, leaving the bones with their meat to be charred into a useless mass of carbon. Since Ezekiel used the feminine plural form, etzamoth, elsewhere used only of human bones, we hear a clue to what it refers. The contents of the pot about to be destroyed were not animal bones, they were human. But the process wasn't finished. In verse 11, it becomes apparent that the putrid flesh had affected the vessel. It had been defiled and now must be cleansed before it can be used again. But this could be accomplished not by superficial washing. The pot was to be heated red-hot so that every remnant of the defiled meat was destroyed. The use of the verb to pour out in the following line is striking. It often refers to melting metal down to a liquid state, 2215, which in this case would be the pot. But here Yahweh referred to the contents of the pot as its filthiness. The prophet obviously held no hope at all for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The only solution was to pour them out into the fire, verse 10, and then to stoke up the flame so hot that every remnant of the stew inside the vessel was burned up. In verse 12, Ezekiel explicitly refuted the Jerusalemites' false claims of security and privilege. Once more, he highlighted the meat as the problem. Its corruption is troublesome. The magnitude of its corruption meant there was only one solution, from the frying pan into the fire. The prophecy reached its climax in verse 13. Now Yahweh abandoned the figure and concentrated on its theological significance. He replaced third-person references to the meat and the city with a second person of direct address, the second-person feminine forms confirming that the judgment announced applied to the bloody city itself. Verse 13 opens with a purpose clause that Yahweh never completed. He was very excited. The description of the city's corruption as lewd filthiness, betumathek, simmah, recalls 1627. However, Yahweh moved quickly to explain, if not justify, his harsh treatment of Jerusalem. All his past efforts at purifying the city had failed. We can only guess which historical events he had in mind. Perhaps he thought of Josiah's recent attempts at reformation, 2 Kings 22-23, or Hezekiah's earlier reforms, 2 Kings 18-4 and 22. There was no point now in putting up with this people any longer. The problem could not be fixed without destroying this lot and starting all over. Yahweh would not relax until he had given full vent to his fury. On the expression, to satisfy, to appease one's wrath, see our comments on 1513 and 1642 and 21-22. The conclusion in 2414. I am Yahweh. It is coming. I will carry it out. I will not hold back. I will not spare. I will not relent. According to your conduct and your wanton behavior, I will judge you. The declaration of the Lord Yahweh. This oracle concluded with the most emphatic affirmation of divine resolve in the whole book. This highly charged statement, on the day that Nebuchadnezzar is setting up his siege works around Jerusalem. This highly charged statement is deliberately constructed. It consists of seven verbs, three positive, three negative, and then a final positive. The first two verbs stress that it was in Yahweh's nature to fulfill his pronouncements. He who issued the word guaranteed its fulfillment. The tripartite, three-part form of his self-identification, I am Yahweh, I have spoken, I will act, is characteristically Ezekielian. We've seen this many times already. And then he interrupts it with, it's coming. He inserts an ominous reference to Nebuchadnezzar, who was even now poised for attack. Yahweh announced his refusal to reconsider with three negative statements whose reverberation sound the death knell of the city. The first, literally, I will not refrain, which means I will not leave alone, I will not disregard, occurs only here in the prophets. It affirms that Yahweh's mind was irrevocably made up. He would not relax or disregard the constraints and structures foundational to his system of justice. Far from a capricious or arbitrary act of ill-temper, his judgment would represent an act of justice based upon Yahweh's cosmically and historically ordering, life-sustaining and reliable will. The second, I will not spare, lo achush, is familiar from previous passages, 511, 7479, 818, and elsewhere. And the third, I will not be sorry or move to pity, lo inachem, highlights the irrevocability of his decision. Again, the justification of Yahweh's action toward Jerusalem concludes with a final statement of principle. The judgment pronounced corresponds perfectly with a wanton behavior, eliloth, of the city. He sealed the sentence with his customary signatory formula, the declaration of the Lord Yahweh, his stamp of affirmation. The official theology on which the Judeans based their security was deeply entrenched. So long as temple and city remained, these convictions would not be abandoned. After the deportation in 597 BC, those left behind in Jerusalem interpreted their lot as a special mark of divine favor. The fact that many of their compatriots had been exiled to Babylon, the unclean land, confirmed that those of us who were at home, that they were rejected by Yahweh, but those of us who reside here at home, we were the chosen remnant. They alone were entitled to all the privileges that came with this status, including, as we saw in chapter 11, the right to confiscate the property of their departed countrymen, 1115. Ezekiel struggled hard to destroy such illusions using a variety of rhetorical strategies, sign actions, parabolic speech, pronouncements of woe, judgment speeches. However, in his disputation speeches, he attacked prevailing opinion head-on. The mashal of the boiling cauldron challenged Jerusalemite illusions of security. The residents of the city perceived themselves as the choice portions of meat specially selected for a sumptuous banquet. By implication to them, the exiles in Babylon represented the discarded offal, O-F-F-A-L. In refuting this illusion, what will have been greeted as a favorable figure initially has turned into a frightening literary caricature. As cook, calling for the wood to be piled on and the fire to be stoked as hot as possible, Yahweh was not interested in preparing a meal. His mind was only on destruction. In his rage, he poured the contents of the pot onto the fire. Lest any shred of hope remain, he stoked the fire so hot every vestige of meat or broth in the pot was burned and the vessel purified of its defiling contents. Residents in Jerusalem offered no security. It guaranteed only destruction and judgment. And even as Ezekiel spoke, the people back home in the city were watching as Nebuchadnezzar piled up the wood and prepared to light the fire. The fate of Jerusalem and the inhabitants was sealed. The people there may compose clever proverbs and take delight in songs celebrating their privileged place under the sun. But they were deluded. Yahweh had spoken. He will have the last word. But they fiddled in the face of Jerusalem's conflagration. The implications of this oracle are sobering for the people of God in any age and in any context. There is no security in tradition or position in the kingdom of God if the claims of privilege are not matched by love for God and one's fellow human beings demonstrated in action in their interests and for their well-being. Singing songs about the promises of God is no substitute for obedience to him. Indeed, the true kingdom is often found among those whom the spiritual elite have written off. The message of Ezekiel is that there is hope for the rejected, but for those who make claims of status before God, the prospects of an encounter with him are frightening. As Hebrew reminds us, it is indeed a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. This text emphasizes that there is no security for those who live in high-handed sin. In their theological pronouncements and in their appeals to the four bases of security, Ezekiel's audience would have appeared totally orthodox. They sign all the right creedal statements. But to God, neither creedal affirmations nor recording the dates of our conversion on the calendar can camouflage the idols we set up in our hearts. Ezekiel had something to say about this in chapter 14. Thus says the Lord, Yahweh declared, if anyone from the house of Israel who sets up his idols, piles of manure on his heart or places an iniquitous stumbling blocks right in front of his face, he talks about that. Therefore say to the house of Israel, thus has the Lord, Yahweh declared, repent, turn away from your idols, your piles of manure. Turn your faces away from all your abominations. And then God ends with, I will set my face against that person who does not turn away from his sin. I will make him a sign and a proverb. I will cut him off from the midst of my people. Then you will know that I am Yahweh. And then listen to Ezekiel 20, 15 to 16. But I swore to them in the desert that I would not bring them to the land that I had granted them flowing, oozing with milk and honey. It is the fairest of all the lands because they rejected my ordinances and did not follow my demands. And they desecrated my Sabbaths for their hearts followed after their idols. There's that old word again. Of course, for the exiles in Babylon, this was actually a word of grace. To be told I am a sinner is grace. To be warned of impending judgment, that's grace. To be offered a way of salvation, that's grace. But of course, there's more good news here. While there is no security for those who rebel against the Lord and who demonstrate their rebellion with idols in their hearts and sophisticated arrogance, or who disregard or disrespect the revealed will of God, there is total security for those who trust in Christ and who demonstrate that trust of life, that trust in a life of grateful obedience. And Jesus declared in John 15, 7 to 16, if you remain in me and my words remain in you, you may ask anything you want and it will be granted. When you produce much fruit, you're my disciples. This brings great glory to my Father. I have loved you even as the Father has loved me. Remain in my love. When you obey my commands, you remain in my love, just as I obey my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you these things so that you will be filled with my joy. Yes, your joy will overflow. This is my command. Demonstrate love for each other in the same way as I have demonstrated love for you. There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. I no longer call you slaves because a master doesn't confide in his slaves, but you are my friends, my confidence, since I've told you everything the Father told me. You didn't choose me. I chose you. I appointed you to go and produce lasting fruit so that the Father will give you whatever you ask for using my name. The last piece of good news I need to mention is that hearing Ezekiel reminds us of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, who became sin, that is the sin offering for us. There with Jerusalem of Ezekiel's day, but for the grace of God go we all. May the Lord fill our hearts with gratitude for calling us undeserving sinners to himself, and may we be burdened for those around us who are still dead in their trespasses and sins.