Ezekiel 38–48: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary

Abstract

Stephen L. Cook is the Catherine N. McBurney Professor of Old Testament Languages and Literature at Virginia Theological Seminary, the largest seminary of the Episcopal Church. He earned a doctorate from Yale University, and his specialties include Old Testament prophecy and apocalyptic material. Cook is also a member of the American Schools of Oriental Research. This breadth of experience comes through in his new commentary on Ezekiel.This volume completes a three-volume commentary on the book of Ezekiel begun by Moshe Greenberg (Ezekiel 1–20, Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 22 [1983] ; Ezekiel 21–37, Anchor Yale Bible Commentary 22A [1997]) more than 30 years ago. When Greenberg was unable to complete it, the work was passed on to Jacob Milgrom, who was also unable to finish. The project was finally brought to completion by Cook. He is to be commended for his thorough and well-researched explanations of one of the most difficult sections of the OT with its many hapax legomona, numerous textual issues, and complicated temple terminology.As with other commentaries in the Anchor Bible series (but unlike Greenberg’s earlier commentaries), the author’s own translation of chs. 38–48 appears after an introduction and an extensive bibliography. This translation is superfluous, however, since it is repeated for each passage in the “Notes” and “Comments” sections. The notes provide verse-by-verse notations regarding context, clarifications on grammar and vocabulary, and relevant extrabiblical information. In the comments that follow, overall meaning and its implications are discussed.Cook’s translation is, for the most part, very well done, and providing the dimensions of the temple in feet is particularly helpful. But there are a few places where Cook’s translation could be improved. For example, the reading “Human One” in 38:2 (p. 53, passim; it is unclear why he chose to capitalize this term) misses the wordplay on the name “son of man” which Jesus uses later in the NT. Or, “the word of the LORD happened to me” (38:1; emphasis added) does not really express the correct nuance. The reading “the LORD is Just Over There” (Ezek 48:35) is unlikely, since the context implies that God’s presence had returned to his city; thus, the reading “the LORD is there” is better.I question Cook’s rendering of 41:23–24: “the main hall and the [Most] Holy Place each had a partition with folding accordion doors.” He explains that it creates “a sort of ‘airlock’ between the rooms” and then refers to 1 Kgs 6:32–34, which mention folding doors on the entrance to the inner sanctuary. But the wording of the 1 Kings passage is clearly different and does not mention folding doors on the most holy place. Other passages, such as 2 Chr 3:14, Matt 27:51, and Heb 6:19, 9:3, suggest that there is a veil between the two areas through which only the high priest could enter once a year. If the most holy place depicted in Ezek 41 has folding or swinging doors, it suggests an increased access that was not possible in the earthly temple.Cook argues that, unlike much of preexilic prophecy, Ezek 38–48 is primarily a literary construction with “sophisticated intertextual echoes of preceding scriptural material” (p. 3). He makes a good case that much of this material draws on Holiness School and Zadokite traditions, since Ezekiel was a priest in the line of Zadok. He also argues that chs. 38–48 consist of two genres: (1) Ezek 38–39 is “proto-apocalyptic” literature, which he describes as “otherworldly eschatological prophecy” (p. 4) that precedes Daniel and Revelation (p. 4); and (2) Ezek 40–48 “fits the technical genre known as utopian literature” (p. 4).Utopian literature, as conceived by Sir Thomas More, is “a place of well-being” depicted as an imaginary place and is not perfection in the afterlife. Cook, therefore, argues that Ezekiel’s utopia is not “the eschatological realization of God’s reign (contrast Milgrom 2012, 43)” (p. 5), but rather a way of dealing with the chaos, trauma, and aggression in this present world. He cites in support of his argument several aspects in chs. 40–48: there are terrifying cherubim who keep out trespassers (41:17–20), atonement is still required (45:17, 20), the ideal David of 34:23–24 and 37:25 is missing, and the Israelites still had “hearts of stone” (11:19–20; 36:26–27; p. 5). Cook notes (p. 6) that recent critical theorists (Steven James Schweitzer, “Utopia and Utopian Literary Theory,” in Utopia and Dystopia in Prophetic Literature, ed. E. Ben Zvi, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 92 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006], 13–26) read utopian works “not as blueprints for ideal societies but rather as revolutionary texts designed to challenge the status quo” (Schweitzer, p. 19). Although Cook makes some interesting points, he does not seem to take into account the fact that other prophets picture the ideal eschatological reign of God in this physical world (e.g., Isa 2:1–4; 4:2–6; 11:1–9; Mic 4:1–8; Zech 14; etc.). This could be considered an intermediate reign of Christ (the Millennium) and not the eternal state, a concept not within Cook’s view of eschatology.Cook’s explanatory notes on the text are particularly helpful and of value. For example, he provides clear and thorough explanations of Gog . . . of Magog (p. 74), Hamonah (p. 89), My Spirit (p. 107), and many others. In his discussions of the temple in chs. 40–43, he also cites examples from other ancient Near Eastern temples, such as ʿAin Dara in northern Syria (pp. 115, 147, 149, etc.) and Tell Tayinat in southeastern Turkey (pp. 147, 149, 151, etc.). He highlights technical architectural details, such as a “pilaster” (ʿayil, a pillar of an archway). Pictures of the temple included in the book are especially helpful in demonstrating the intricacies of the temple. Unfortunately, the online pictures referenced with a “goo.gl” URL were no longer accessible to users as of March 30, 2019.Cook’s work on this very complicated section of Scripture is commendable, and I recommend examining his creative understanding of the temple as utopian literature. Particularly valuable are his descriptions of the temple in chs. 40–43 using modern measurements and drawings.