Abstract
It is well-known that the book of Ezekiel has seriously concerned itself with Jerusalem's holiness and its defilement in the past and the new City's possible profanity in the future. Unlike common assumptions, however, the new City in Ezekiel 40–48 is not pre-designated either as holy or as profane but shows its liminal or dual characteristics in relation to the holy dedicated area (terumah). In other words, Ezekiel 40–48 has three distinctive 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 Y
1. Introduction
According to Julie Galambush, unlike old Jerusalem, which Scripture refers to as a former wife of Y
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 Y
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, Y
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 Y
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 Y
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 Y
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 Y
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/Y
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 Y
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 Y
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, Y
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 Y
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 Y
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 Y
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 Y
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 Y
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, Y
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 Y
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, Y
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 Y
Furthermore, as implied in 46.3, ‘The people of the land shall bow down at the entrance of that gate before Y
A third aspect of distance involved with Y
Since Y
Theologically, understanding the name Y
Another theological significance of Y
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 Y
Footnotes
1.
I capitalize City (דיעה) to present its proper name as it is characteristically used in the case of Jerusalem. Until its name is revealed in the end of the book, the City is always used as a designated term with a definite article.
2.
Christl M. Maier, Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space, and the Sacred in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008); see especially pp. 110–40 for interpretation of Ezek. 16–23, and pp. 189–210 for Mother Zion as the pilgrimage site.
3.
As Galambush points out, after the fall of Jerusalem, the name Jerusalem is depicted as the totally dead and forgotten former wife, not merely as the abandoned city; see Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh's Wife (SBLDS, 130; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 87, 128–30, 147–57.
4.
Kalinda Rose Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40–48 (SBLDS, 154; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 149–52.
5.
Nancy R. Bowen, Ezekiel (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010), pp. 265–66.
6.
The third category is conceptually located in the middle zone, between the holy and the profane. This third category is similar to Kalinda Rose Stevenson's American copper quarter analogy, which is a middle zone. According to her, the significance of the space in the book of Ezekiel lies in the thin middle zone as a rhetorical claim which embraces both a theological and sociological land claim. As though the middle zone in Stevenson's term exists in order to hold the part of the front and the back together, I see ‘the City’ as a middle zone that stands to hold both sacred temple precincts and the rest of the land of Israel; see Kalinda Rose Stevenson, ‘The Land Is Yours: Ezekiel's Outrageous Land Claim’, in SBL Seminar Papers 2001 (Atlanta: SBL, 2001), pp. 175–96 (188–89, 91).
7.
Examples shown here can include the sacred literature after the Ezekiel tradition, which includes the book of Revelation, 1 Enoch, and Hekhalot literature. For the heavenly temple discussion, see Paul M. Joyce, ‘Ezekiel 40–42: The Earliest “Heavenly Ascent” Narrative?’, in Henk Jan de Jonge and Johannes Tromp (eds.), The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 17–41 (18).
8.
Corrine L. Patton, ‘Ezekiel's Blueprint for the Temple of Jerusalem’ (PhD dissertation, Yale University, 1991), p. 181. D.M. Sharon suggests Sumerian temple hymns introduce Gudea, King of Lagash, as the commissioned temple builder for his deity; see D.M. Sharon, ‘A Biblical Parallel to a Sumerian Temple Hymn? Ezekiel 40–48 and Gudea’, JANESCU 24 (1996), pp. 99–109.
9.
Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel (VTSup, 56; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 139.
10.
Steven Shawn Tuell, Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM, 49; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), pp. 13–15.
11.
Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48 (trans. J.D. Martin; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 535; Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), pp. 530–35.
12.
Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation, p. xxiv.
13.
I refer here to Henri Lefebvre's second type of space as ‘representations of space’, i.e., the conceptually established space in planning the new world. Henri Lefebvre, La production de l'espace (Paris: Anthropos, 4th edn, 2000); translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith, The Production of Space (Cambridge: MA: Blackwell, 2000). For First, Second, and Thirdspace, see also Edward W. Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places (Cambridge: MA: Blackwell, 1996), and Kanishka Goonewardena et al. (eds.), Space, Difference, Everyday Life: Reading Henri Lefebvre (New York: Routledge, 2008).
14.
Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, IV (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999), pp. 1788–90. For its definition and usage, also see Moshe Eisemann, Yechezkel (The Artschroll Tanak Series; New York: Mesorah Publications, 1988), pp. 152–53. English Bibles show various translations: ‘offering’ (
15.
Out of 76 times, it occurs 20 times in Ezekiel, and the book of Numbers follows it with 18 times.
16.
L. Wächter and T. Seidl, ‘terûmâ’, in TDOT, XV, pp. 770–77 (773).
17.
All of the examples of Exodus and Leviticus (Exod. 25.2, 3; 29.27; 30.13; 35.5, 21, 24; 36.3, 6; Lev. 7.14, 32, 34; 10.14; 22.12) show this case.
18.
See her overall presuppositions of her thesis in Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation, and her ‘The Land Is Yours’, pp. 175–91.
19.
Regarding this difficulty of translation, Bible versions also show two divided translations: several examples are
20.
Because of the existing disparity, some scholars have argued that these two texts are written by two or more authors. Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, p. 542) sees here multiple redactional authorships. Tuell (The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48, pp. 68–77) also argues that it is not the work of a single author, and that in Ezek. 40–48 the original work must have been expanded. According to his classification, the first part by Ezekiel himself includes 47.1–12 and 48.30–35, but the Terumah section was later inserted by the redactor group. Despite this disparity, I argue that the present text requires the readers to consider both texts of the two contrasting accounts on the City together simultaneously.
21.
Stevenson (The Vision of Transformation, pp. 30–31) clarifies the different perspectives of the term in both texts, but does not provide further explanation or underlying characteristics of the City regarding these two different presentations.
22.
According to Zimmerli (Ezekiel 2, p. 538), it is ‘a remarkable, profane area within the sacred center of the new land’.
23.
This hierarchy of holiness is well explained in the concept of accessibility and restrictedness. Regarding territoriality, Stevenson (The Vision of Transformation, pp. 79–95, esp. 81, 89) presents the concept of ‘space’ to be useful in understanding the characteristics of each area. Her concept helps one not to overstress the order or arrangement of the twelve tribes in study of Ezek. 48.30–35. For the notion of gradation in holiness/impurity, see Philip Peter Jenson, A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSup, 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992); Jacob Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Leiden: Brill, 1983), pp. 75–84.
24.
Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation, pp. 28–36, 46.
25.
Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation, p. 33.
26.
Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 733.
27.
Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM, 4; Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), p. 131.
28.
Hekhalot Rabbati 3.8; 11.179, 189; 18.229; 23.247, etc. For the argument of the original composition on the 8th heaven in The Apocalypses of Abraham, see John C. Poirier, ‘The Ouranology of the Apocalypse of Abraham‘, JSJ 35 (2004), pp. 391–408 (397).
29.
Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, p. 154.
30.
Joseph Blenkinsopp connects this absence of the temple to the characteristic of the name of the City, ‘there’ not ‘here’; see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel (Interpretation: Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990), p. 238. Paul Joyce also mentions the absence of the Temple in the City and no mention of Jerusalem in the report. Based on this, he considers possible development on the contingency of the heavenly temple; see Paul M. Joyce, ‘Ezekiel 40–42: The Earliest “Heavenly Ascent” Narrative?’, p. 20. Nancy Bowen and Iain Duguid also emphasize the absence of the Temple due to the profane characteristic of the City; see Bowen, Ezekiel, p. 266, and Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, p. 130.
31.
Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, pp. 87, 147–57.
32.
Julie Galambush, ‘God's Land and Mine’, in Stephen L. Cook and Corrine L. Patton (eds.), Ezekiel's Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality (Atlanta: SBL, 2004), pp. 98–101.
33.
Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel, p. 153.
34.
This implies that the City section in Ezek. 48.30–35 should be dealt separately from the former section and be connected to the very first scene in 40.2. If we read the text this way, the apparently sudden return to the City in the end of the book can be understood as the conclusion of the tour. Tuell also mentions the two references to the City in the vision; see Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48, p. 74.
35.
ANEP, #763, ‘Model of the Entemenanki, the tower of Babylon, and of the Esagila, the principal temple of Marduk’ (p. 237). John F. Kutsko also argues that Ezekiel uses Mesopotamian traditions in his performance; see John F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California San Diego, 7; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), pp. 154–56. Meanwhile, Othmar Keel's comparison between the god Ashur in his solar disc and God's throne surrounded by an aura comparable to the rainbow in Ezek. 1.28 suggests possible influence or connection between the Ezekiel vision and the Mesopotamian iconography; see Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (trans. Timothy J. Hallett; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1978), p. 216.
36.
Odell, Ezekiel, p. 490. Also see the figures # 746, ‘Section of wall of ziggurat of Ur-Nammu at Ur’, and #747, ‘Aerial view of the temple tower, or ziggurat, at Ur’, in ANEP, p. 233.
37.
Irene J. Winter, ‘“Seat of Kingship”/“A Wonder to Behold”: The Palace as Construct in the Ancient Near East’, Ars Orientalis 23 (Pre-Modern Islamic Palaces) (1993), pp. 31–34.
38.
For the translation issue for תאצות, see Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, pp. 735–36.
39.
James Dougherty, The Fivesquare City: The City in Religious Imagination (Indianapolis: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980), pp. 1–22; see also Martti Nissinen, ‘City as Lofty as Heaven: Arbela and Other Cities in Neo-Assyrian Prophecy’, in Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak (eds.), ‘Every City Shall be Forsaken’: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East (JSOTSup, 330; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 172–76, for its understanding against the ancient Near Eastern context.
40.
Although Stevenson emphasizes her horizontal language by disagreeing with Iain M. Duguid, who is highlighting vertical difference, Duguid's hierarchical concept based on the gradation of the holiness and limitation of the accesses seems to be more relevant to our discussion. See Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation, pp. xxiii-xxiv; cf. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, p. 1.
41.
Paul M. Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary (LHBOTS, 482; New York: T&T Clark International, 2007), p. 32.
42.
Odell, Ezekiel, p. 490.
43.
When we compare it with the occurrence of the word Zion in other prophetic books, the uniqueness of the book of Ezekiel becomes clearer: Isaiah, more than 40 times; Jeremiah, more than 15 times; Micah, more than 7 times; Zechariah, more than 7 times; and Joel, 6 times. In those books, ‘Zion’ is used both as the object of accusation and of restoration, but despite the possibly identical location of the high mountain with Mount Zion, Ezekiel shows no interest in the term at all.
44.
Michael Fishbane, in his inner-biblical analysis of Ezekiel with the Pentateuch, concludes that prophet Ezekiel reinterprets the earlier prophetic tradition in the Pentateuch as he confronted the unexpected historical reality. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 7–17. For a different intertextual reading, e.g., this passage with Num. 16–18, see Stephen L. Cook, ‘Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 and the History of the Priesthood’, JBL 114 (1995), pp. 193–208 (197–201).
45.
Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New Voices in Biblical Studies; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985). In addition to the basic notion by Levenson's work, for the sanctuary imagery in terms of the transcendent and outside the Promised Land concept, see also Mark K. George, Israel's Tabernacle as Social Space (Atlanta: SBL, 2009).
46.
Frank Baumgärtel, ‘Zu den Gottesnamen in den Büchern Jeremia und Ezechiel’, in A. Kuschke (ed.), Verbannung und Heimkehr (FS W. Rudolph; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1961), pp. 1–29 (27–29).
47.
Elizabeth Keck, ‘The Glory of Yahweh in Ezekiel and the Pre-Tabernacle Wilderness’, JSOT 37 (2012), pp. 201–18.
48.
Henry McKeating presents points of commonness between Moses and Ezekiel, which include main visionary experiences, ascending experience on the high mountain and visionary experience on the future temple; see Henry McKeating, ‘Ezekiel the “Prophet Like Moses”?’, JSOT 61 (1994), pp. 97–109. Levitt Kohn explains Ezekiel–new Moses phenomenon as a product of the interwoven Priestly and Deuteronomic concepts; see Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOTSup, 358; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), pp. 94–95, 102–18; also see Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leader of Israel, p. 1.
49.
Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul, pp. 106–12.
50.
Related to the characteristics of the time aspect in the Vision Report, rather than the word ‘prescription’, I choose ‘description’ in dealing with the deliverance by the bronze man. Descriptive language deals with pre-existing facts and is used for reporting; prescriptive language deals with plans and is used for instruction. Thus, the basic framework for the temple and the City plan had to be intentionally presented in the descriptive language.
51.
Corrine Patton, ‘“I Myself Gave Him Law That Were Not Good”: Ezekiel 20 and the Exodus Traditions’, JSOT 69 (1996), pp. 77–78.
52.
For the development of the Sinai tradition, Jon D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM, 10; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), pp. 37–53; idem, Sinai and Zion, pp. 187–206; and for more recent work, see Steven D. Fraade, ‘Hearing and Seeing at Sinai: Interpretive Trajectories’, in George J. Brooke, Hindy Najman, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck (eds.), The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity (Themes in Biblical Narrative; Boston: E.J. Brill, 2008), pp. 247–64. In regard to this discussion, however, one should not discard two things: the transcendent characteristic of Mount Zion, as Clifford points out in his analysis of Ps. 48, and the possible shifts between Mount Sinai and Mount Zion, as George J. Brooke suggests in his interpretation of the book of Jubilees; see Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), p. 142; George J. Brooke, ‘Moving Mountains: from Sinai to Jerusalem’, in Brooke, Najman, and Stuckenbruck (eds.), The Significance of Sinai, pp. 73–87.
53.
For example, Kirsten Nielsen interprets it as ‘Y
54.
Dougherty, The Fivesquare City, pp. 8–9, 14.
55.
Dougherty, The Fivesquare City, p. 15.
56.
John Berquist, ‘Spaces of Jerusalem’, in John L. Berquist and Claudia V. Camp (eds.), Constructions of Space II: The Biblical City and Other Imagined Spaces (LHBOTS, 490; New York: T&T Clark International, 2007), pp. 40–52.
57.
Steven S. Tuell, ‘Ezekiel 40–42 as Verbal Icon’, CBQ 58 (1996), pp. 649–64 (662).
58.
Cf. Elia Benamozegh and Maxwell Luria, Israel and Humanity (Classics of Western Spirituality; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1995); Gary D. Badcock, The House Where God Lives: Renewing the Doctrine of the Church for Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).
59.
Stevenson points out that overemphasis on the omnipresence of God derives from contemporary scholarship with the emphasis of historical tradition. With this in mind, Joyce offers valuable discussion in need of balancing these two distinguished characteristics of the deity: immanence and transcendence; see Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation, p. 162; Joyce, Ezekiel: A Commentary, pp. 30–32.
60.
For the Priestly crossover task between the holy and profane, see Richard Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 17–26.
61.
Block, Ezekiel 2, p. 740.
62.
Marvin A. Sweeney, TANAK: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), pp. 55, 319–22.
63.
Steve Moyise, ‘Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation’, in Paul M. Joyce and Andrew Mein (eds.), After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet (LHBOTS, 535; New York: T&T Clark International, 2011), pp. 45–57 (52–55).
