Y hwh Shammah : The City as Gateway to the Presence of Y hwh *

1. Introduction

According to Julie Galambush, unlike old Jerusalem, which Scripture refers to as a former wife of Yhwh, the new City ¹ in Ezekiel 40–48 will have no gender. The City will not be called ‘Daughter’, ‘Mother’, or even ‘Wife’. ² Consequently, the City cannot commit adultery/idolatry; it can, however, retain its holy status. ³ Reading Ezekiel 40–48 as territorial rhetoric, Kalinda Rose Stevenson also emphasizes the holiness of the City by pointing out the very presence of Yhwh in its midst. ⁴ Meanwhile, Nancy R. Bowen, in her psycho-analytic commentary, identifies the City as ordinary or profane, emphasizing the fact of its juxtaposition to the sacred portion of the land, yet not belonging to the sacred land per se. ⁵

For these scholars, the City as well as other spaces seem to be pre-designated either as holy or as profane. It is hard to deny that the book of Ezekiel is seriously concerned about Jerusalem's holiness and its defilement in the past and the new City's possible profanity in the future. Nonetheless, when we attempt to understand the identity and function of the City, we come to realize that the illustration of the City in Ezekiel 40–48 is very much focused on showing its liminal or dual characteristics in relation to the holy dedicated area as well as to other tribal cities. In other words, Ezekiel 40–48 has three distinct categories in space recognition, not only the two categories of holy and profane. The City fits in this third category as a transitional space and functions even as a gateway to the holy presence of Yhwh. ⁶ By positioning the third category between the sacred and profane, and applying it to the identity of the City, we can observe how the notion of the gradation of holiness flows throughout the book and makes the book of Ezekiel coherent. Throughout the present study, I will pursue this unique characteristic of the City by examining three significant facets of the City described in Ezekiel 40–48: the identity of the City in terms of its holy dedicated area, the structure and shape of the City, and the theological meaning of the name of the City.

Studies of Ezekiel 40–48 have focused on the Temple to determine in what context this vision fits: Is it a heavenly temple, ⁷ or an earthly blueprint? If it is a blueprint, then from what model(s) is it designed? ⁸ Can we see it as an ideal plan for the returning exiles toward the utopian society, ⁹ or even a religious agenda for a new social structure? ¹⁰ Compared to these Temple studies, studies of the City have focused primarily on the narrower topics exploring the possible logic of the location of the twelve tribes’ names on the twelve gates and the meaning of the name of the City, Yhwh Shammah. ¹¹ Now in studying the City, I follow Stevenson's analysis of the purpose of Ezekiel 40–48 as referring to the construction of a new social order that delineates a new spatial access. ¹² However, for its genre I would employ a more neutral term, ‘Vision Report’, one which was written by an unknown third-person reporter. The reason for choosing the term ‘report’ is that the text is presented with more descriptive tones and style, that is, the narrator/reporter of Ezekiel 40–48 does not set up any speech form of the character Ezekiel to his audience either privately or publicly. Even if the text sets the persuasion of its audience as its goal, and persuasion lies behind every single line of the text, it is equally important that the author uses a vision tour report as its form, which supposedly occurs in Ezekiel's vision.

Within the larger context of Ezekiel 40–48, Ezekiel is told that the City will be on or nearby a very high mountain in the land of Israel (40.1–2), especially in the territory between the new portions of Judah and of Benjamin (48.8–22). Unlike other tribal allotments (47.22), however, the City is not assigned by lot, nor does it belong to any tribe. According to Ezek. 48.30–35, the City rather stands as the conceptualized center ¹³ for the whole of Israel by having twelve gates named after the twelve tribes; therefore, every Israelite has access to that City.

2. The Identity of the City in Terms of its Holy Dedicated Area (Terumah)

The first task in attempting to understand the identity of the City is to clarify the term Terumah and its relationship with the City. Terumah is a transliteration of Hebrew ‭המורת‬, commonly translated as ‘contribution’ or ‘portion’. As its verbal root ‭םור‬ shows, Terumah is generally understood as a separation or reservation that is lifted up for a higher purpose, not necessarily limited to the deity. ¹⁴ Offen appearing alongside forms of the verb ‭אוב‬ in hiphil form, Terumah usually refers to offerings or gifts set aside for the priests and Levites. This word is widely used in the Pentateuchal narratives from Exodus through Numbers, as well as in the postexilic literature including Ezra/Nehemiah. However, the word is most frequently used in the book of Ezekiel. ¹⁵ In most cases, Terumah refers to products of the soil, precious goods, or animals given up as offerings. When Terumah is given to the prince (Ezek. 45.13–17), the prince brings them back to Yhwh as a cultic tax. ¹⁶ As Num. 18.19 explicitly sets the Terumah to Yhwh as a perpetual covenant for the priests, Yhwh often allows for his temple servants, priests and Levites, to have his Terumah. ¹⁷

To this cultic connotation, the book of Ezekiel adds a unique example about which portions of the land are to be set aside for the Terumah. As Stevenson asserts, this unique phenomenon tells us that one of the main themes of the book of Ezekiel is Yhwh's claim of the land. ¹⁸ Concerning the City, Ezekiel's Vision Report distinguishes generally two categories for the land Terumah by combining with it the adjective ‘holy’ (‭שדק‬). If it indicates the lands of both the priests and the Levites, the adjective ‘holy’ or the adverbial phrase ‘to Yhwh’ is always attached to the noun Terumah. Obviously, this explanation can work if one reads the disputable translation on the dimensions of ‘the Terumah to Yhwh’ (‭הוהילהמורת‬) in 45.1 as 20,000 (‭ףלאםירשע‬) cubits broad, not as 10,000 (‭ףלאהרשע‬) cubits broad. ¹⁹ Despite the efforts to read 10,000 cubits as appeared in the MT version, the subsequent division with the phrase ‘and from this measure’ (‭תאזה הדמהןמו‬) in 45.3 requires the presupposition that the priestly portion (25,000 by 10,000 cubits) should belong to the larger dimension as translated as 25,000 by 20,000 in 45.1.

As expected, descriptions for the possessions of the priests and of the Levites are further distinguished in terms of the Terumah. To the Levites, those who minister at the temple, the assigned portion is the holy Terumah (‭שדקהתמודת‬, 45.6), while to the priests, those who minister in the sanctuary, the portion is expressed as the space which bears the highest degree of holiness (‭םישדקשדק‬, 45.3).

More important for our discussion is the description of the City in terms of the Terumah. The City is never described with the adjective ‘holy’, and is excluded when the description deals with the holy Terumah. And yet, in the description of the entire Terumah, the City appears as a part of the Terumah. For example, in 45.6–7, the City does not belong to the Terumah. This classification continues until the description of the holy Terumah is compared with the whole land of Israel (48.15–19). The City still belongs to the common land, that is, not to the sacred. The word ‭המע‬ (‘juxtaposition, alongside each other’, also in Ezek. 45.7; 48.13, 18 [×2], 21) clearly indicates that the City is not a part of that kind of Terumah. It is instead alongside the holy Terumah. Nonetheless, in 48.20a, the same City is classified as a part of the Terumah. According to this measurement, since the entire Terumah (‭המודתהלכ‬) will be 25,000 by 25,000 cubits, the Terumah should include the City in order to reach that dimension and the square shape of the entire Terumah.

As mentioned above, the identity of the City, whether holy or profane, somewhat depends on the conclusion of this classification. ²⁰ When the Terumah is designated for Yhwh, regardless of its substance as land or other offerings, it is not divided into the dichotomy of holy or profane elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible: since in its definition it is already something being lifted to Yhwh, it is already dedicated for sacred use. Here only in Ezekiel's vision, however, is the Terumah, which refers to the land, applied also to the City, the space which does not explicitly belong to anybody. Thus, according to 48.20, the entire Terumah consists of the holy Terumah (the portion of the priests including the Temple and the portion of the Levites) plus the City Terumah (the City itself and the Remainder of the City).

Why does this Vision Report present two different classifications with one term Terumah, and what would be the implication for defining the characteristic of the City? The simplest answer would be that the two chapters present different perspectives on the City. As Stevenson's study implies, ²¹ in ch. 45, which focuses on the holy Terumah itself, the City is a common land, not treated as the Terumah. From the standpoint of the Levites and the priests, not the City but the Temple is the space which they lift up to Yhwh. On the contrary, in ch. 48, which deals with the whole land of Israel, the City, compared with other tribal lands, is somewhat holy along with the lands of the Levites and the priests, for 48.20 describes it from the standpoint of all Israelites who make the City as their raised offering to Yhwh.

At this point, we can conjecture that one of the functions of the City as Terumah would be as a bridge between the holy Terumah and the completely common world, probably as a station for the pilgrims toward the Temple and toward the world. For a successful temple pilgrimage, the towns near the Temple should provide various conveniences, not only to provide materials used by the Temple, but also to provide for the needs of pilgrims, including inns, markets, restaurants, etc. The City exists for the Temple pilgrimage as well as being the center of Israel as a whole. With this duality, ²² the City is a transitional space from the holy place to the common world and vice versa.

If the City functions as the way of transition, the gradation of holiness ²³ described in the text illustrates a transition from the profane world to the holiest realm as follows: outside the borders of Israel (outside the covenantal realm); Israel (allotted portions by lot/Yhwh for the twelve tribes); the portion of the prince or ‭אישנ‬ (pre-designated by Yhwh); and the Terumah. The land of the prince is located closer to the Terumah section than the ordinary tribal portions, both in terms of the geographical proximity to the Terumah (45.7) and in terms of its resemblance to the pre-ordination and limited condition of inheritance (45.16–18). Now this Terumah in a broader category can be more segmented toward the greatest holiness. Within the Terumah section is the portion of the City that is most common since it is open to any Israelite. Next, after the category of the City comes the holy Terumah consisting of the land of the Levites, the land of the priests, and the Temple proper, from the lesser degree of holiness. The Temple is definitely the holy realm, regardless of its degrees, so it is protected by the thick temple wall ‘to divide between the holy and the profane’ (42.20). Finally, the Temple too shows the gradual degree of holiness from the outer court, to inner court, to the sanctuary, and to the Holy of Holies.

With this observation, it becomes clear that the City in Ezekiel 48 neither includes a temple nor lies right beneath the temple zone. Indeed, there is a buffer zone, the portion of the Levites (cf. 48.15) between the City and the Temple. Nonetheless, focusing on the notion of the center as the most important and holy concept, Stevenson sets the Temple in the center, interpreting the structure of the entire Terumah, from north to south, as the land of the Levites, the land of the priests, and the City with its Possession (a Levites–Priests–City model). By so doing, she makes ‘center’ an analogy between the location of the altar at the Temple and the location of the Temple in the entire Terumah. ²⁴ Although she explains the difficulty of the other option, i.e., the portion of a Priests–Levites–City model as an interpretation to ignore ‘the strategy of the Rhetor’, ²⁵ it is not quite convincing to me. In fact, the greatest degree of holiness does not necessarily lie in the center, neither in the narrative order nor in the physical locus. The Holy of Holies (Debir) in the Tabernacle and in the Temple for example lies in the far west, and that is followed by the Holy Place (Hekhal), and the Porch (Ulam). Moreover, the order of location in 48.8–22 is too clear to allow it to be the subject of change, since the passage of 48.8–22 is a part of the report from 47.13 to 48.29 which describes the whole land of Israel from north to south. There is no exception, even in the more detailed digression in the account of the Terumah (48.8–22). Finally, the gradation of holiness fits more easily in the Priests–Levites–City model, that is, the sanctuary is protected by the cushioned zone of the Levite land. ²⁶

Possible objection to this model might arise from the question of vulnerability of the northern part of the Temple and the priestly portion. Nonetheless, we need to consider that the book of Ezekiel follows the concept of the divine presence on the mountain, as Richard J. Clifford points out. ²⁷ If we remember that the place where the bronze man brought the prophet was on the ‘very high mountain of Israel’ (40.2) and it was the designated site of the Temple, we need to admit that there is a somewhat steep slope for the Temple site in the priestly land so that the Temple is located on a higher slope than the City. If that is the case, nobody can describe what lies beyond the Temple, for that area is not allowed to be revealed to human beings. The silence of the narrative in that regard indeed reminds us to think about the notion of ‘beyond Debir’ in Hekhalot Rabbati as God's genuine residential place in the implied 8th heaven, if the 7th heaven is the official court of Yhwh. ²⁸ Thus, not only for the discussion of the Levites–Priests–City model but also in regard to the term ‘the Temple-City’, ²⁹ the discussions that the City has the Temple in it like the old Jerusalem are in fact inappropriate.

3. The Structure and Shape of the City in Relation to the Temple

The second significant facet in examining the identity of the City is found in its structure and shape. As becomes obvious, the City does not contain the Temple, and the City boundary is emphatically described as separate from the Temple precincts. ³⁰ It is striking when we think that Jerusalem, in both the pre- and post-exilic periods, always has the Temple in it. What made the City so different from old Jerusalem? What was the baneful factor for the pre-exilic Jerusalem in the eyes of the exiled prophet-priest Ezekiel? These questions are related to the fact that readers of Ezekiel cannot find any hope for restoration of Jerusalem even after punishment. Galambush sees in Ezekiel 16 and 23 the same fate of Jerusalem and the Temple as if Jerusalem is depicted as Yahweh's wife; according to Galambush, ‘the Temple is her vagina’. ³¹ Not only for this analogy, according to Galambush, land and its inhabitants have an identical fate in terms of guilt and consequence, and the Temple within the City is always vulnerable to being polluted, just as any wife is open to becoming a dangerous unclean source to her husband either by her menstruation or by her infidelity. ³² Although I appreciate Galambush's distinctive conceptualization of old Jerusalem as a female persona and the new City in the vision as a neuter or much-reduced female image, I cannot assent to her treatment of the new City as a Temple-City. ³³ Despite her consistent use of the term, in fact physically, symbolically, and theologically, the City in Ezekiel 40–48 is separated from the Temple, that is, the new City is not a Temple-containing City.

Thus, not only by the loss of its female persona but also by the loss of the Temple in it, the City now is freed from becoming the target of Yhwh's dangerous wrath. The remaining issue, then, is how the City can be called a holy city and belong to the Terumah if it does not embrace the Temple, the very presence of Yhwh. Of course, the shape of the City differs from the shape of old Jerusalem, too. As shown in the overall map of the country in regard to the distribution of the land, ‘a structure like a city’ which Ezekiel saw at the beginning of his vision tour (40.2) must be the Temple in its following contexts. What this means is that the tour starts from the Temple precinct in the very north point of the holy Terumah (40.4–5) and ends in the City Terumah in the south (48.35). ³⁴ If that is indeed the case, the City in Ezekiel's mind is square, as is the figure of the Temple. Interestingly, this perfect square shape resembles the temple of Esagila, ziggurat of Etemenanki, which is surrounded by walls. ³⁵ Odell points out that this description implies both a possible Babylonian readership and ‘the square proportion as a uniquely Babylonian architectural convention’. ³⁶ According to Irene J. Winter, ancient cities at Nimrud and Khorsabad also had a complete circuit of city walls. These Assyrian cities had the royal palace and citadel in the rectangular perimeter wall like the new City in Ezekiel 48. ³⁷ In light of this ancient Near Eastern context, the seemingly redundant informational word ‘18,000 perimeters’ in 48.35a in fact confirms that the City has completely defensible circuit walls and a square shape, and makes sure that the translation of ‭תאצות‬, usually translated as ‘exits’ in 48.30, would refer to ‘outer walls’ in this context. ³⁸

According to James Dougherty, typical holy cities are five-square cities, which means they have a square shape with the four corners, plus a fifth point identifying the temple as the center. ³⁹ However, Ezekiel's City does not seem to follow this pattern due to the absence of the Temple as a fifth focal point. This being the case, we must ask: Was the anxiety of the future defilement of the Temple by the City's potential idolatry intense enough to bring about abandonment of the typical holy city pattern? Is there any way to express the holy connection of the City, keeping a certain distance from the dangerous holiness? When we juxtapose these two facts—the holy city is a five-square city, but the City in Ezekiel 40–48 has no fifth focal point in it—we can imagine that the Vision Report might use creative imagination in order to provide the fifth focal point to the new City with the given situation. At this point, Stevenson's emphasis on the horizontal distinctions to control access in territoriality seems to need more and modified explanation. ⁴⁰ To explore this further, we now need to depart from the two-dimensional discussion and move to the three-dimensional picture. Once we see the relationship between the Temple and the City in its three-dimensional aspect, the Temple in Ezekiel's new society will first be removed from the City, and moved to the north as well as upward for the safer space. At this point, Joyce's approach on the ‘vertical plane or the heavenly dimension’ of the Temple can help us understand the transcendent concept. ⁴¹ In other words, the fifth focal point of the pyramid is located on the northern slope from the City. This locus of the Temple, physically elevated in the northward sector of the City, in fact gives its location a theological significance. The Temple zone as one tenth of the City zone in size (500 by 500 cubits) can shine its holy beam on the City area (5,000 by 5,000 cubits) in the south.

In sum, the new City does not completely lose the Temple, but gets the holy aura from the Temple at the more transcendent level in a pyramid structure, by placing the loss of the Temple as the fifth focal point outside it. Furthermore, the City imitates the Temple by having the square shape, walls, and open space so that it can guide pilgrims to the Temple not only by being located in close proximity to the Temple, but also by being similar in appearance. Thus, the City—which does not have the Temple in it but has a fifth focal point in a virtually and symbolically related space—can still be called a ‘holy’ city.

4. The Theological Meaning of the Name of the City, Yhwh Shammah

Finally, as the third facet, a theological observation in regard to the name of the City can help us understand the twofold character of the City. According to 48.35b, some day the City will be called by a new name, Yhwh Shammah, which reflects the City's dual characteristics. The City has a divine name in it, but unfortunately, the name is described by an adverb ‘there’ (‭המש‬) which indicates that Yhwh dwells in temporal, spatial, and spiritual distances from the future City or future City residents.

According to Odell, in mythological terms, ‘High Mountain’ is the intersection of heaven and earth, that is, the temple is built on its ‘original foundations, in the most basic sense of the term’. ⁴² Strangely enough, however, neither the term ‘Mount Zion’, which suggests a more immanent association of the deity with his residents, nor the term ‘Mount Sinai’, which suggests a more transcendent figure in light of the presence of Yhwh, occurs in the book of Ezekiel. ⁴³ Instead, the reporter uses the generic term ‘high mountain’ for the place of theophany. Intertextual readings of Exodus 19–24 with the book of Ezekiel ⁴⁴ will enhance our understanding that the City name reflects a certain distance in the relationship between Yhwh and the City, unlike the common assumption of an intimate connection between the two.

In the Zion theology, the dwelling place of God and the dwelling place of ‘Israel’ are both on Mount Zion, and Jerusalem is important primarily because of the existence of the Temple in it. In the Sinaitic theology, however, the place of assembly is and should be far distant from the presence of Yhwh. While in the Zion concept, the Temple is located in the center of the city, that is, people can settle around the Temple, in the Sinaitic notion, the space of the presence of God is not in the center but northward, setting a firm line between people and their deity. Accordingly, although the new Temple of the Vision Report itself has the Zion imagery in terms of God's eternal dwelling place (Ezek. 43.7), the new City in relation to the Temple in the book of Ezekiel has more Sinaitic imagery. It is true that the vision focusing on the Temple has all three imageries—Zion, Sinai, and Garden of Eden—as Jon D. Levenson points out, but when we focus on the City relating to the Temple, the Sinaitic theology is dominant for the heading off of any potential pollution. ⁴⁵

Frank Baumgärtel observes a possible shift from the Zion tradition to the Sinaitic in the book of Ezekiel after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. ⁴⁶ In fact, Mount Sinai, as a sanctuary outside the Promised Land, must have drawn the attention of the exiled prophet-priest Ezekiel. ⁴⁷ Moreover, the mountain/temple imagery as a worship place connects Ezekiel's vision to the Exodus event and to the main character Moses (cf. Exod. 19; 25; Ezek. 20.40).

First, abundant commonalities between the characters of Moses and Ezekiel provide sound reasons for presenting Ezekiel as a new Moses. ⁴⁸ Among them are the following: both were called to be a prophet outside the Promised Land and worked as mediator for conveying priestly instructions; both experienced the future Promised Land in a vision before their people enter; furthermore, both Moses and Ezekiel went up to the high mountain to receive the Torah (instruction), and thus became mediator; and finally, as Risa Levitt Kohn points out, both Moses and Ezekiel could hear the voice of Yhwh in the sacred place. ⁴⁹

Nonetheless, in terms of the building of the temple and performing the priestly office, differences between Moses and Ezekiel are apparent. Moses could see what was to be built after receiving the directions (Exod. 39.43), and could enter there (Lev. 1.1), and the text reveals its complete fulfillment by displaying the glory of Yhwh in the cloud in the Tabernacle (Exod. 40.34–35). In contrast, Ezekiel saw what had already been built by someone else, and the text does not go further to make the direction into reality. Accordingly and interestingly, the glory of Yhwh appears within the Vision Report as though everything has been done already in a future perfect sense. ⁵⁰ In other words, although all the descriptions are very idealistic and visionary, by using descriptive language, the text produces very realistic effects, and the audience might feel that they are listening to what has already been accomplished.

Secondly, making a comparison in phraseology gives evidence of the closeness between the two texts. The first topic would be ‘altar’ and ‘twelve tribes’. In Exod. 24.4, Moses built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and set twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of Israel; in the vision, Ezekiel saw the altar at the Temple court on the high mountain (43.13–27) and the twelve gates on the City wall which are beneath the Temple (48.30–34). The second topic would be the description of the throne vision. Exodus 24.10 describes, ‘There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone (‭דיפםה‬) like the very heaven for clearness’; Ezek. 1.26 employs a similar vocabulary (‭דיפםןבא‬). The third comparison would be the offering on the holy mountain by all the house of Israel. Ezekiel 20.40 delivers Yhwh's command, ‘For on my holy mountain, the mountain height of Israel, says the Lord god, there all the house of Israel, all of them, shall serve me in the land; there I will accept them, and there I will require your contributions and the choicest of your gifts, with all your sacred things’ (NRSV). Using the offering term Terumah, the text explicitly shows that the mountain refers to the holy Temple in its restored future. Meanwhile, we can find, in addition to the Terumah request in Exod. 25.2, the same kind of command to bring the offering of the first fruits in Lev. 23.10, which is the extension of the Sinai scene. Corrine Patton also argues that use of the Exodus tradition in Ezekiel 20 might be deliberate, allowing or even encouraging readers to prepare to accept the new instructions in chs. 40–48. ⁵¹

From these comparisons it can be seen that the Vision Report in the book of Ezekiel shares certain theological aspects with Exodus 19–24. ⁵² To begin with, Yhwh on Mount Sinai (Exod. 19.16–24) appears in a very transcendent sense, with his glory like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain. This distance is what the name of the City, Yhwh Shammah, in Ezek. 48.35b exactly expresses. Like the people of Exodus 24, those who arrive at the City can see where Yhwh descends, but still cannot approach him, or cannot experience him, pretending that ‘Yhwh is here’. Just as Exod. 19.23–24 very solemnly sets limits around the mountain and consecrates the area, the Temple and the City in Ezekiel's Vision Report are also separated by clear boundaries, and its access is strictly controlled according to the religious hierarchy. Finally, the people of Exodus respond by trembling (Exod. 20.18–19), asking Moses to become their mediator. We do not know how the future generation of Ezekiel's audience might respond to the theophany since the text ends with the Vision. Nonetheless, one obvious conclusion can be drawn: if people realize they need a mediator, nobody is denying the existence of the deity, and nobody can dare assert that God dwells with them.

How shall this notion of certain distance be related to the name of the City? The Vision Report consistently introduces Ezekiel's vision city as ‘the City’, and finally and suddenly it reveals the name in 48.35b, not as New Jerusalem but as Yhwh Shammah. What is the implication of the name Yhwh Shammah? Does it mean Immanuel as many scholars argue? ⁵³ Who would call the City by that name? Was it residents of the City, or guests of the City, including Israelites and other peoples?

It is significant that the name of the City shows three kinds of distance, suddenly waking up its audience from the vision to their real world. The first degree of distance relates to the time gap. The name of the City, Yhwh Shammah, not ‘Yhwh is here with us’, reminds both the speaker and the audience of their starting point (cf. Ezek. 40.1–4). The characters, both the speaker/reporter and the audience, are, in reality, in an exilic situation—they are in a Babylonian city. In terms of time distance, the dream does not yet come true. Some day in the future, and ‘from that day’ forever, the City will be called Yhwh Shammah. Whereas a typical time phrase of the prophetic oracle, ‘On that day’ (‭םויב‬), indicates a certain point in time, ‘From the day’ (‭םוימ‬) emphasizes the starting point of the event, even though in the case of Ezek. 48.35 it will last forever. The issue lies in whether ‘the day’ implies the narrative time or a distant future. Although it seems safer to leave the day as an unspecified future, it is not necessary to refer to eschatological time.

In the perspective of the original tour guide, the bronze man, the City has been built in his vision. The man first invites Ezekiel to experience the future, the time yet to come. According to Dougherty, this presents two interpretive versions of each city vision, one for a realistic experience in exile and the other for a resplendent apocalyptic vision. ⁵⁴ Then, Ezekiel, a first follower of the bronze man, must above all internalize the vision by overcoming these temporal and spatial gaps in order to invite his exilic audience. The Vision Report that we have must be one of the forms which the prophet Ezekiel delivered, although the text only provides a report form. Notice that here these descriptive and verbless clauses in this Vision Report, especially in the last part, 48.30–35, are used as literary devices to reduce the time gap. These verbless clauses are employed not only because of the unreality of the text but also because of the special intention/desire of the speaker. Verbless clauses with the phrase that establishes a temporal sense ‘from the day’ can allow Ezekiel as mediator to invite his audience to live in both times, in the present exilic reality and in the future restoration.

Secondly, the name Yhwh Shammah shows a spatial distance. At its first level, the name tells the audience that Yhwh is not yet with them. This spatial distance between their physical boundary and their imaginary spiritual center makes exiles overcome their status as ‘seemingly cast out from God's presence’ ⁵⁵ and survive, yearning for the imagined or ideally remembered city. Although Yhwh came to Ezekiel who lived in the polluted foreign land, this event should be treated as a special calling for the prophet/priest as mediator. Yhwh never appears or speaks directly to the exilic community in the book of Ezekiel.

Furthermore, as implied in 46.3, ‘The people of the land shall bow down at the entrance of that gate before Yhwh on the Sabbaths at the threshold of the gate’, and as John Berquist suggests, the new City may play a role as a pilgrimage city. ⁵⁶ Thus, the chamber of commerce of this City may have an advertisement like this: If you want to experience Yhwh, or if you need to show yourself to God, come/go to the new City, Yhwh Shammah. If the name is designed for this promotion, the name of the City would not be for the residents of the City; it is a matter of information for other residents of Israel and international groups including Babylonians, since they need guidance to seek Israel's deity. While Tuell portrays the icon of the Orthodox tradition as a window into heaven, one that aids laypeople in making devotional piety possible as a way to experience the divine presence, the City in Ezekiel's Vision Report helps its pilgrims by acting as a gate to the holy presence. ⁵⁷

A third aspect of distance involved with Yhwh Shammah is that of a spiritual distance, for Yhwh has not yet been fully met. Of course, the answer to the question of where to find God depends on various theological understandings of the deity. ⁵⁸ Yhwh in the book of Ezekiel can move anywhere and thus visits the profaned and exiled priest Ezekiel in Babylon. Despite this mobility, by his will, Yhwh will dwell in a certain place, the Temple in this case, ⁵⁹ saying, ‘this is the place of my throne and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the people of Israel for ever’ (Ezek. 43.7). Based on this statement, we can say that Yhwh will be in the Temple, and the priests and some Levites can live near the presence of Yhwh. And yet, for the common people of Israel and foreigners, to find access to the Temple involves many hierarchical and stern restrictions. ⁶⁰ For them, God is somewhere in ordinary times. Nonetheless, by having the new name of the City, whose nearby area is the Temple, whenever people enter and exit the gates of the City, they can know that Yhwh is there (in the Temple and in heaven).

Since Yhwh is not here with humans, but always there, nobody in fact knows how the City life would flow. Block also summarizes this characteristic by saying ‘the city reflects Yahweh’ and argues that ‘the aura of the divine presence’ transforms ‘a symbol of a mere social and civic egalitarianism into a portent of the new spiritual reality’. ⁶¹

Theologically, understanding the name Yhwh Shammah as a constant and permanent gap between the deity and humanity supports the effort to see the book of Ezekiel as a whole. The deity in the book of Ezekiel is neither in the present time, nor in intimate relationship with his people. No miracle or salvation by the divine intervention has happened in public. The only phenomena that might be considered supernatural were Ezekiel's becoming mute for a while and the sudden death of his wife. As we have observed, this elusiveness of the deity will not change even though Yhwh decided to return to the Temple with his glory. In the first three chapters of the book, how many similes using the preposition ‘like’ (‭כ‬) can we find? The God of Ezekiel's calling narrative and of subsequent visions is a tantalizing deity. God was there, but when one reaches that point God is no longer there. For Ezekiel, then, the name of the City cannot become the real presence of Yhwh; instead, it always works as a sign to point somewhere beyond.

Another theological significance of Yhwh Shammah is that this name serves as a recognition formula in this book. The book of Ezekiel is famous for its recognition formula, ‘So that they know I am Yhwh’. This phrase, occurring 23 times in the book, serves to show Yhwh's sovereignty both by judgment and salvation. Sometimes, ‘they’—the subject of the recognition—are Israelites; sometimes, however, the subject is extended to the whole universe. The City name YHWH Shammah plays the same role. The name first shows that yhwh is the God of Israel, so that the City name of Israel bears its deity's name. And yet, at the same time, this name can extend beyond the scope of the audience to the whole universe to reveal that yhwh is Shammah, that is, the new Temple is the center of the restored Creation. ⁶²

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the last clause of the book (48.35b), which serves as its summary and conclusion, shows both the speaker and the audience coming back to the original starting-point. By so doing, it reaffirms the genre of Ezekiel 40–48 as a Vision Report and the essential characteristics of the divine elusiveness found throughout the book. Regardless of its symbolic ⁶³ or practical function, the name of the City ironically makes its first audience alert to the fact that they are now in exile. The vision does not yet come true; rather, they need to endure gaps—temporal, spatial, and spiritual—by clinging to this vision with which they have been presented.

When the discussion comes to its conclusion, we realize that the studies of Galambush and Stevenson are still valuable. The book of Ezekiel concerns itself with holiness and presents very carefully all structures of society in order to prevent future defilement, especially in regard to the relationship between the Temple and the City. By setting the City in the liminal space between the holy and the profane, and by understanding its function as a transitional gateway to the presence of Yhwh, this study provides more well-founded support for the theology of holiness found in the book of Ezekiel. Overall, we can say, yes, the City has gates, but indeed the City is the gateway by which the holy presence of Yhwh can be accessed.