Глава 3

The Prophet's Entry into the Ministry 1–3. Eating a scroll. 4–11. The prophet's calming encouragement to accept the calling. 12–15. Removal of the Divine appearance and transfer of the prophet to Tel Aviv. 16–21. New clarifications about the prophetic calling. 22–27. The external state of the prophet during subsequent predictions. Ezek.3:1. And he said to me: Son of man! Eat what is before you, eat this scroll, and go and tell the house of Israel. Ezek.3:2. Then I opened my mouth, and He gave me this scroll to eat; Ezek.3:3. and he said to me: Son of man! feed your belly and fill your insides with this scroll that I am giving you; and I ate, and it was as sweet as honey in my mouth. The Lord distracts the prophet from looking at the scroll, reminding him of his demand to eat it with insistence (“eat, eat” well, eat; in glory 1 time, v. 1), and the prophet takes the scroll into his lips (v. 2), still not daring to swallow it; but the Lord clearly and definitely demands the latter (for the third time). This is a sign, of course, that he must internally assimilate the word of God communicated to him, as if transforming it into his own flesh and blood, so that later, when preaching, he can extract it from within himself and speak inexhaustibly. Having eaten the scroll, the prophet, contrary to his expectations, found it sweet and not just sweet, but extremely sweet, like honey. This was a sign that the word of God, which the scroll contained, is always for a person “the joy and gladness of the heart” (Jer 15.16; Ps 119.103), that “it is infinitely pleasant to be an instrument and broadcast of the Most High, and the most difficult divine truths for a person with spiritual understanding have joyful and soothing sides” (Hengstenberg). “Eating a scroll is not such a strange symbol for ancient times and the East as it is for us. We sharply distinguish between bodily and spiritual life and think that nutrition serves to maintain only the first; for ancient man, food was more than physical reinforcement; in ancient Arabia, communication in food served as the beginning for communication in life, connecting those who eat in spiritual aspirations; food is the direct nutrition of the blood, which in turn is the seat of the soul; Let us remember that through eating the fruit from the tree of paradise one could achieve the possession of spiritual knowledge; Finally, we can point to the Christian idea of ​​supper in the kingdom of heaven” (Bertolet). LXX in 1 tbsp. do not have euros sentences: “eat this scroll”, why is it considered a glossa according to Jeremiah 15.18, and in 3 v. instead of “womb” they have “mouth”, which is probably a copyist error: στομαχον – στομα σου. Ezek.3:4. And He said to me: Son of man! arise and go to the house of Israel, and speak to them in My words; Now Ezekiel has already been ordained as a prophet, which is why he immediately hears from the mouth of God the solemn stereotypical formula used during the embassy of the prophets (Exodus 3.10; Isaiah 6.8–9; Jeremiah 1.7). Ezek.3:5. For you are not sent to a people with unintelligible speech and an unknown tongue, but to the house of Israel, Already the sweetness that the prophet felt after eating the scroll and which showed him that the sermon itself would give him gracious consolation should have reassured him about the severity of his ministry; but the Lord also adds that his relationship with the people cannot be said to be incredibly difficult: in any case, he will have to deal not with some foreign people, whose language he would not even understand. “With slurred speech and incomprehensible language”; letters “with deep lips (slav. “deeply eloquent”, which therefore speak quietly) and a heavy, i.e., heavily moving (slav. “tongue-tied”) tongue." Here it can be indicated that the circle of the prophet’s listeners will be the best part of the Jewish population (which was precisely what was resettled to Babylonia by him and Jehoiachin), and not the common people with their barbaric jargon and corresponding development, whereas in Art. 6. We are talking about foreign languages ​​and peoples. Ezek.3:6. not to many nations with slurred speech and incomprehensible language, whose words you would not understand; Yes, if I had sent you to them, they would have listened to you; The circle of activity of the prophet will not be foreign nations (like Jonah) and not a whole series of them, but one related people. Language is the most striking sign of a people (hence the common name for both in the Slavic language - “language”), and the Jew measured the degree of alienation and hostility towards himself of a known people by the measure of the incomprehensibility and strangeness of its language: Isa 33.19. In addition to the purely physical difficulty (“which words you would not understand”), such a mission would also be morally difficult: it would not be inspired by love and spiritual closeness to the listeners. But the Lord notes with bitterness that the prophet’s mission even in such unfavorable conditions would have been more successful than among Israel. The history of the apostles later showed this. “It had already reached that point in Israel: the prophet seemed to have a presentiment of the future Paul” (Ewald). The idea that less evil can be expected from the pagans than from Israel is carried out more than once by Ezekiel: Ezekiel 5:6, 16:27, 48, 23:45. - This verse literally repeats the words from the previous one: “with slurred speech and incomprehensible language,” which are easy to do without and which weaken the thought: “which words you would not understand”; why are these words considered an addition from the 5th century; they are not in Pescito. Ezek.3:7. but the house of Israel will not listen to you; for they do not want to listen to Me, because all the house of Israel is of a strong forehead and a hard heart. If, nevertheless, the people of Israel do not listen to the prophet, then the reason for this is different. “The House of Israel will not listen to you, for they do not want to listen to Me.” With the same touching, God once consoled Samuel (1 Samuel 8.7–8) and the Savior consoled the apostles (Luke 10.16). A deeper reason for this is rooted in the natural spiritual properties of Israel: they are a people with a “strong forehead” (like butting animals; LXX: φιλονεικοι “unconquer”, because instead of “matzach” - “forehead” they read “matza” - “quarrel”) and “a cruel (hard) heart.” – Despite the closeness of the expression to Ezek.2.4, the idea here is different: here the characterization of Israel from the psychological side, there from the historical side (“they and their fathers”). Ezek.3:8. Behold, I have made your face strong against their faces, and your forehead strong against their forehead. God will contrast the tenacity of the people with the same tenacity of the prophet, persistence, of course, “in the noble sense of truly prophetic courage, which does not allow oneself to be broken by anything in the struggle” (Ewald). Ezek.3:9. I have made your forehead like a diamond stronger than stone; Do not be afraid of them and do not be dismayed in their presence, for they are a rebellious house. LXX read instead of “shamir” (“diamond”) a similar adverb “tamid” (“always”), and instead of “matzah” (“forehead”) “matza” (“quarrel”): “and your grass will always be stronger than the stone,” i.e. your pastoral-prophetic struggle with their stubbornness will be stronger than the stone. Ezek.3:10. And he said to me: Son of man! accept all My words that I will speak to you with your heart and listen with your ears; Having encouraged and armed the prophet to fight against obstacles, the Lord reminds him of the first condition for the proper completion of the prophetic ministry - attentive attention to the revelations he receives. “Receive with your heart and listen with your ears” - a rhetorical turn of phrase υστερον προτερον (back is in front) like Isaiah 64.4. Ezek.3:11. Arise and go to the exiles, to the sons of your people, and speak to them, and say to them: “Thus says the Lord God!” – whether they will listen or not. At the conclusion of the Lord’s invocation speech to the prophet, the closest circle of his ministry is indicated: immigrants, the sons of your people (no longer worthy to be called Mine). Consequently, Ezekiel was not a writer - only a prophet. Ezek.3:12. And my spirit lifted me; and I heard a great thunderous voice behind me: “Blessed is the glory of the Lord from his place!” The command to go to the people of Israel is immediately carried out on the prophet by the fact that the “spirit” lifts him up and, as can be seen from Art. 14 and 15, transfers to Tel Aviv. At the same time, the vision disappears before him; but this happens in such a way that the prophet himself moves away from him by a higher power, so that it ends up behind him (“behind me”); just as he did not produce the vision from himself, so he cannot with his own will keep it; he is entirely under the control of the previously mentioned “spirit” (see v. 2). Embraced by the spirit, ready to begin the journey, the prophet hears behind him a “great thunderous voice” (literally, the voice of a great earthquake), saying (glor. “speaking,” i.e., to animals; not in Hebrew): “Blessed is the glory of the Lord from its place.” It is not said who the voice belonged to; based on Rev. 4.8; Isaiah 6.3 they think that the four animals, and that on their part it was a song of praise or gratitude for the calling of the prophet. The original text gives the impression that it was the voice of the earth itself, as if it had come into shock, into delight from the stopping at this place of its Glory of God. The voice explained something to the prophet in the vision: the Shekinah, which the former priest was accustomed to imagine in the darkness of the Holy of Holies, he now sees outside the church; so let him know that the church is not the exclusive or even the main place of her habitat; it reveals itself more fully in another mysterious area of ​​life and existence, where it has more worthy carriers, where it is blessed more worthy than “blessed is the Lord from Zion” (Ps. 135:21). Ezek.3:13. and also the sound of the wings of animals touching one another, and the sound of wheels near them, and the sound of strong thunder. The roar of the earthquake (Russian translation: “strong thunder”, cf. 12th century) was combined (hence the secondary mention of it in this verse) with the noise of the wings and wheels of the animals of vision, without obviously drowning out the latter, as no less strong. Along with its strength, this deafening noise was distinguished by its harmony, since it came from the contacting (glorious translation: “grinding”) wings and the wheels strictly coordinated with them in the movements, which spoke of the removal of the Glory of the Lord (cf. Ezek. 10:16, 19, 43:2). The LXX begin the verse with the seemingly unrelated “videh” (i.e., “voice”), but well supported by Exodus 20.18; Rev. 1.12, which, as incomprehensible, could easily fall out of the text. Ezek.3:14. And the spirit lifted me up and took me. And I walked in grief, with a troubled spirit; and the hand of the Lord was firmly upon me. “And the spirit lifted me up and took me. And I walked." It cannot be proven that it was a miraculous transfer of the prophet by the wind through the air. In addition to the strangeness of such an assumption, in this case it is contradicted by the expression: “I was walking”; the prophet, therefore, walked in the proper sense, but he walked in the spirit. What is obviously meant here is that semi-miraculous, semi-natural transfer from place to place, to which other prophets also underwent: Elijah (1 Kings 18.12), Elisha (2 Kings 2.11) and even the apostles (Acts 8.39). What it consisted of is difficult to say. The prophet made this extraordinary journey “in grief, with a troubled spirit”; Moreover, the special state in which he was at the time of the vision had not yet passed: “the hand of the Lord was firmly upon me.” "With a troubled spirit", in Heb. "khamat" απαξ λεγομενον; it is more correctly translated: “in irritation.” The prophet's chagrin and irritation are usually thought to be caused by the wickedness of Israel. But this wickedness was hardly revealed to him only during the former vision. Therefore, it may be more fair to explain the prophet’s grief and irritation with the awareness of the gravity of the task ahead of him and the indignation of his human nature against this; Wed Jeremiah's cry: "I will not prophesy." After the call to prophecy, Ezekiel’s thoughts, each more difficult than the other, should have appeared: he is the successor of Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the continuer of their work; but is it possible to continue a business that has almost died? what did these great zealots of the Glory of God achieve with their incredible labors? Has Israel become a better place? “They have persevered like their fathers to this day,” the Lord Himself, who sent him, said about Israel. It is not for nothing that the prophet needed two more revelations, two callings to perform public service (Ezek.3.16 et c. and Eze. 3.22 et c.). LXX were afraid to see here the idea of ​​​​any kind of grief and excitement: they convey the first concept “ascended”, μετεωρος, i.e. walked half-raised in the air, d.b. reading “ram” instead of “mar” (Vatican code omits); and the second - “in the aspiration, ορμη, of my spirit,” that is, with strong zeal for preaching. Ezek.3:15. And I came to those who had been exiled to Tel Aviv, living by the river Chebar, and I stopped where they lived, and spent seven days among them in amazement. “Tel Aviv” was not the original place of residence of the prophet before the vision, for he says that he came there and did not return, although this village was also located on the Khobar River, that is, in the region, its basin. Probably in the area of ​​the river. Chebar was a more significant Jewish colony, in which local Jewish government was concentrated, judging by the fact that we find “the elders of Judah” there (Ezek. 8:1, 14:1). Without a doubt, this significance of this city or colony was the reason why Ezekiel, following the generally received command to “go to the exiles,” did not begin preaching from the place where he lived, and where he was also “among the captives” (Ezek. 1.1), but went for this purpose to Tel Aviv, just as Amos from Tekoa, after his calling, went to Bethlehem, and Jeremiah from Anathoth to Jerusalem. As for the name and location of Tel Aviv, it has been established that in Assyria, Mesopotamia and Syria there were many places and cities with the prename Tel (1Ezra 2.59 and Neh. 7.61) they call the captives who returned to Judea from Telmelach and Telharsha, in addition Tel-Birte, Tel-Bazer, Tel-Eda and others are known. "Tel" in Aramaic means "hill", corresponds to the Assyrian "till", cf. Arab. “tal” – “heap” “pile”. This name is especially often applied to the piles of bricks that are so often found in the ruins of Babylonia. The second component of this name, “Aviv,” is already a purely Hebrew word and means “ear of corn.” Consequently, the whole name will mean “hill or pile of ears of grain” (Blessed Jerome), which name could speak of the fertility of the place. But the connection in the name of the Aramaic-Babylonian word with Hebrew. suspicious; in Babylonian “ear of grain” is “subultu”, and the word “aviv” does not exist at all in Babylon. language. And it is incredible (Kretschmar thinks) that the Jewish captives were settled in fertile places (it is remarkable that Peshito translates “Tel Aviv” - “hill of sorrow”), but rather in huge areas with sand drifts, which were called “til-abubi” and which are scattered throughout Babylonia; on one of these nameless drifts the practical Nebuchadnezzar could settle the bulk of the Jews so that they could cultivate it; and its name subsequently became a proper name, Hebraized or changed with the intention that later Jews could flatter themselves with the thought that the pagan king Nebuchadnezzar, who attracted the wise Daniel to his court, gave his brothers the best piece of land to live in, as Pharaoh once did to Joseph's brothers. The ancient city of Tallab, consonant with Tel Aviv, 37' latitude and 54' longitude, is too far to the north for Ezekiel's Tel Aviv and does not correspond to the position of Chebar established in the explanation of Ezekiel 1.1, but corresponds to the previously assumed identity of Ezekiel's Chebar with one of the tributaries of the Euphrates at Carchemish. LXX did not consider the word “Tel Aviv” to be its own name, the name of the city (probably because it stands without a preposition, which is really strange and rough) and translated “ascended (from “tala” - “to hang”, i.e., a carried spirit came to the captives) and bydoh” (reading instead of “aviv” it should be a similar style of “aces” or “saviv”, i.e. went around those living on Howare). "And he stopped where they lived." The increase is difficult to explain, especially in the form in which it exists in the euro. t. “who lived there” Greek. τους οντας εκει. Perhaps the closest definition is to “living on Khovar” (there, i.e. in Tel Aviv). And in the sense that Russian gives him. translation, this expression can apparently only mean that the prophet did not come to Tel Aviv in general, but to the place where the Jewish captives lived; but the Russian translation, like the Slavic translation, is read instead of the Hebrew. “vaesher” “and which” – “vayeshev” “and sat down”, “sedoh”, i.e. stopped. “I spent seven days among them in amazement.” “In amazement”, in Hebrew. “mashmim”, which is otherwise translated “in sorrow” (1Ezra 9.3–4; Dan 8.27). Amazement, of course, comes from the vision; sadness could come from one of those indicated in the explanation of Art. 14. reasons. Others also translate the word: “in silence” (Bertolet), “in unconsciousness and stunned” (Kretschmar), both from the vision (i.e. Ezekiel only slowly recovers from the state into which he was brought by the vision). LXX this rare word is translated: αναστρεφομενος, “walking,” that is, the prophet walked among the captives for 7 days, perhaps getting to know them and studying the future field of his activity. In this state, whatever it was, the prophet spent 7 days: among the Jews, the time of solemn mourning lasted 7 days (Job 2.13; Gen. 50.10 and many others); in general, 7 is a symbolic number that is attached to the works of God; and for Ezekiel, as a priest, it had a special meaning for liturgical use, for example, in relation to ritual purity, dedication (Ex. 29:29–30; Lev. 8.33; cf. Eze. 39:9, 12, 14). The arrival of the prophet in Tel Aviv could not but be known to its inhabitants (this is indicated by the remark “among them” and the reading LXX: “walking in the midst of them”); by his strange state of mind and appearance, and perhaps by his stubborn silence about what happened to him (about the Khobar vision it was not noticed, as about others, that it was immediately told by the prophet to anyone), Ezekiel should have aroused surprise and curiosity; and this prepared the ground in the souls of the people for the perception of future speeches of the prophet. Ezek.3:16. After seven days the word of the Lord came to me: The new revelation to the prophet, perhaps in the form of the inner voice of God, and not heard from outside, as during the vision (as can be seen from Eze. 2.1–2), concerned the immediate tasks of his prophetic activity - in relation to his contemporaries, while during the calling broader tasks were indicated - in relation to the entire “house of Israel”. Occurring 7 days after the vision and calling, this revelation to the prophet could have been God’s answer to the prophet’s thoughts about how he should begin his difficult ministry, where to begin. We need to start not with the people as a whole, but with individuals - with inveterate sinners and wavering righteous people. The people as a whole could be considered (for now) as lost and it was necessary to save at least individuals. At the same time, the revelation reassured the prophet regarding the obvious, at least for him, futility of his future activities: if with his denunciations he does not save those exposed, he will at least save his soul; his silence will destroy both those who sin and him. Ezek.3:17. son of man! I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel, and you will hear the word from My mouth, and you will admonish them from Me. Comparing the prophet with a guard standing on a high tower and warning of an approaching and invisible danger to others indicates the special moral height of the prophet above his contemporaries and his spiritual insight. This comparison was used by Isaiah (Isaiah 56.10) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 6.17); in Ezekiel 33.2, 6–7 it is repeated and explained in detail. “You will hear the word from My mouth and you will admonish them from Me.” The prophet is warned against bringing anything of his own, his own initiative and views, into prophetic activity. Acting as a guardian only at critical moments in the life of the people and individuals, he must speak only what is inspired by God and in the name of God. He is not a speaker or a public figure. When God does not speak to him, he must remain silent (cf. vv. 26, 27). Ezek.3:18. When I say to the wicked, “You will surely die!”, and you do not admonish him and speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way so that he may live, then that wicked will die in his iniquity, and I will require his blood at your hands. “When I speak to the wicked,” that is, I instruct you to speak in My name. It is possible that, in addition to individual individuals, the wicked and then the righteous “mean an ideal being that personifies the species” (Hengstenberg). - “You will die.” Made for the first time regarding the paradise commandment (Gen. 2.17), this threat has the same meaning here, embracing all earthly disasters consisting of death. - “And you will not admonish him” - “out of fear, laziness or indulgence” (Blessed Jerome). - “I will exact his blood from your hands.” An expression also borrowed (as “you will surely die”) from Genesis (Gen. 9.5; cf. Ezek. 13.22). A negligent prophet is punished by God as a murderer (death). “If someone guilty of the death of a body that will never die is considered such a serious criminal, then how much more serious is the crime of someone guilty of the death of a soul that would live forever if it had heard the word of correction” (St. Gregory the Dvoeslov). Ezek.3:19. But if you admonished the wicked, and he did not turn from his iniquity and from his lawless way, then he will die in his iniquity, and you saved your soul. “From his iniquity and from his lawless way.” The first here means a separate sinful act, and the second means a sinful direction in life. Ezek.3:20. And if a righteous man departs from his righteousness and acts lawlessly, when I place a stumbling block before him, and he dies, then, if you did not admonish him, he will die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he did will not be remembered to him; and I will require his blood at your hands. “When I put a stumbling block before him,” that is, temptation (glor. “torment”, Greek βασανον “investigation through torture”). Of course, this is the so-called God's permission to temptation, which in its true sense cannot come from God (Job 1.12; James 1.13). - “If you did not admonish him, he will die for his sin.” No such assumption was made about the wicked (cf. vv. 18 and 19) because in relation to a righteous man who has sinned, the lack of timely reproof may turn out to be the only cause of his spiritual death, while a sinner is rarely saved by reproof. - “And his righteous deeds will not be remembered.” A grave sin can so spoil a righteous person that all his former virtues will disappear without a trace from his soul. In addition, the prophet Ezekiel, as an Old Testament man, speaks more about the earthly fate of the righteous and the sinner than about the afterlife, where each is rewarded according to his deeds. Ezek.3:21. If you admonish the righteous, so that the righteous does not sin, and he does not sin, then he will live, because he was admonished, and you saved your soul. The verse does not withstand parallelism with 19 to the same extent as 20 with 18. The following possibilities are given: a) the prophet does not admonish, and the one who sins (wicked or righteous) perishes; b) the prophet admonishes, but they do not listen to him; c) the prophet admonishes and they listen to him; in relation to a sinner, a and b are allowed, in relation to a righteous person, a and c, it is clear why. - “Then he will live... and you saved your soul.” “You acquired two lives at once: for yourself and for him” (Blessed Theodoret). “You save both yourself and us when you leave iniquity; We save both ourselves and you when we are not silent about what is bad” (St. Gregory the Dvoeslov). Ezek.3:22. And the hand of the Lord was upon me there, and He said to me: Arise and go out into the field, and I will speak to you there. Ezek.3:23. And I got up and went out into the field; and behold, there stood the glory of the Lord, like the glory which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. The repetition of the Khobar vision, so majestic and exceptional after such a short period of time (now or very soon after the revelation of Eze. 3.16, as shown by the absence of a date in 22 v. when it is present in 16; in any case, less than a year; cf. 1, 2, and Eze. 8.1) could be caused by the continued indecision of the prophet to begin his ministry in view of his thoroughly expected futility. It is unfairly assumed that after the revelation of Ezek.3.16 etc. the prophet began his preaching, but was forced to remain silent, which is why in Ezek.3.25–27 he is given a new program; if it were, why not say so and leave it between 21 and 22 art. “gaping hole” (Bertolet). If internal revelation (Ezek. 3.16–21) was sufficient to clarify some of the perplexities generated in the prophet by his invocation speech, then to actually introduce the prophet into his ministry and to communicate to him detailed and precise instructions for his activities, external revelation, a new appearance of God, was needed. “Go out into the field” - for the sake of solitude, which was required for the vision. “Field”, more precisely from the Hebrew. "plain" surrounding the hill on which Tel Aviv was located. “There stood the glory of the Lord.” Consequently, the prophet found her already there, and on Khobar she appeared, came to the prophet; exactly the same in the next vision VIII-XI chapters. the prophet finds her already in the church. Having descended to earth, God does not seem to leave it even until the events of Chapters VIII-XI. “Stood” shows that the glory of the Lord means the whole appearance, and not, for example, He who sits on the throne; The following words also indicate: “like the glory that I saw at the river Chebar,” the phenomenon was repeated before the prophet in its entirety. Although the possibility cannot be excluded that “the glory of the Lord” is used here in a narrow sense - about the Human Image seen on Chebar: 1) the expression is not as decisive as in Ezek.43.3; 2) repetition of the entire phenomenon was not as necessary here as in Chapters VIII-XI. and in XLIII; 3) here only the Image of the Lord was needed, as in Ezek.8.2. The mention of Khobar shows that this river did not flow near Tel Aviv. Ezek.3:24. And a spirit came into me, and made me stand on my feet, and He spoke to me, and said to me: Go and shut yourself in your house. God gives the prophet the most unexpected and could not help but seem strange to the prophet himself (which is why, by the way, God needed a new appearance to him) instructions about his first steps in his field. Ezekiel should not, like his great predecessors, walk through the hills and streets with menacing speeches, should not enter with them into the houses of the noble and the poor; let him sit quietly at home. That “lock yourself in the house” must be understood in this way, and not in a narrow and proper sense, is clear from Ezek.8.1; Ezek.14.1 and from the 4 symbolic actions immediately following this command, which, in order for them to have meaning, had to be seen by even casual visitors to the prophet. The imprisonment of the prophet in the house had to have a period specified in article 27, the same as his silence, and just like the latter, could not be unconditional. With this conclusion one could test how his compatriots would behave towards the prophet. Blazh. Jerome, in conclusion, in the binding of the prophet by bonds (v. 25) already sees the first symbolic action pointing to the siege of Jerusalem. But I-III ch. entirely, as can be seen from Ezek.3.26–27, are devoted, as an introduction to the book, to a description of the calling of the prophet in general to the prophetic ministry. Ezek.3:25. And you, son of man, behold, they will put bonds on you and bind you with them, and you will not walk among them. To make it better and easier for the prophet to fulfill this imprisonment in the house, difficult for a person with social initiative (especially an eastern one), God wants to bind him. As Eze. 4.8 shows, this connectedness at times reached the point that the prophet could not turn over from side to side. We are obviously talking about real numbness, a paralyzed state of the prophet’s body, which also affected the tongue (v. 26). “They will lay down”, “they will bind” - obviously impersonal expressions, the logical subject of which is heavenly power; but it’s great that it’s following. verse - about language - already a personal turn; LXX also have a personal, but passive turn here: “behold, I am in vain.” “These bonds may also have been placed visibly on the prophet in a vision” (Maldonat). The whole expression is too decisive for the following understanding: “the malice and stubbornness of the prophet’s compatriots will be like bonds, bound by which he will not be allowed to act freely in the performance of his ministry” (Trochon). Ezek.3:26. And I will cleave your tongue to your throat, and you will be dumb, and you will not be a reprover against them, for they are a rebellious house. Ezek.3:27. And when I speak to you, then I will open your mouth, and you will say to them: “Thus says the Lord God!” Whoever wants to listen, listen; but whoever will not listen, do not listen: for they are a rebellious house. Unlike the previous prophets, who were not silent in their denunciations of wickedness, Ezekiel’s preaching, at least at first, will be silent. For this purpose, the prophet’s tongue will also be physically inactive (there may be periodic muteness), serving as a striking sign of the uselessness of prophetic denunciations for the people. Experience has shown that the stubbornness of the people cannot be broken by denunciations; we must wait until it is broken in another, more decisive way - the fall of Jerusalem, after which the mouth of the prophet will only be opened (Ezek.33.21-22). Until this time, the mouth of the prophet will be opened only to convey direct and, probably, especially necessary revelations of God, namely denunciations (Ezek. 3.17 etc.). That the prophet was not completely silent even before the fall of Jerusalem is shown by Ezekiel 11:25, 14:4. But after this event, the prophet could freely, and not only by the will of God, speak his tongue, and the most prophetic speeches flowed from him more abundantly, not only on exceptional occasions, not only for denunciations; from that time his consoling speeches began. You might be interested in: