Ezekiel 3 commentary

EZEKIEL 3 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
1 And he said to me, “Son of man, eat what is
before you, eat this scroll; then go and speak to
the people of Israel.”
BARNES, "Son of man - This phrase (which occurs elsewhere in Scripture) is
applied especially to Ezekiel and Daniel, the prophets of the captivity. Ezekiel is thus
reminded of his humanity, at the time when he is especially permitted to have contact
with God.
CLARKE, "And he said unto me - In the last verse of the preceding chapter we
find that the prophet was so penetrated with awe at the sight of the glory of God in the
mystical chariot, that “he fell upon his face;” and, while he was in this posture of
adoration, he heard the voice mentioned here. It is evident, therefore, that the present
division of these chapters is wrong. Either the first should end with the words, “This was
the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord,” Eze_1:28; or the first verse of
this chapter should be added to the preceding, and this begin with the second verse.
GILL, "And he said unto me,.... The glorious Person who sat upon the throne, whose
appearance is described in the latter part of the preceding chapter:
son of man; as he was to be that spake unto him; and so it may denote relation,
affection, and familiarity; or otherwise it is expressive of humiliation; of the frail, mean,
and low estate of man, through the fall, Psa_8:4; wherefore some think Ezekiel is thus
addressed, lest he should be lifted up, and think himself as one of the angels, because he
had seen so great a vision; just as the Apostle Paul was humbled, lest he should be
exalted above measure, through the visions and revelations he had, 2Co_12:7. Kimchi
mentions this, but assigns another reason; that because he saw the face of a man in the
above vision, he let him know that he was right and good in the eye of God; and was the
1

son of man, and not the son of a lion, &c. which is exceeding weak and trifling.
Abendana, besides these, mentions some other reasons given; as that because he saw the
"mercavah" or chariot, and ascended to the dignity of the angels on high, it is as if it was
said, there is none born of a woman, as this; or because he was carried out of the holy
land, as Adam was drove out of Eden; and therefore called the son of the first Adam,
being drove out of Jerusalem, and out of the temple, where he was a priest. It may be
observed, that this is a name which our Lord frequently took to himself in his state of
humiliation; and that none but Ezekiel, excepting once the Prophet Daniel, is called by
this name; and no doubt the reason of it is, because he was an eminent type of Christ;
and particularly in his mission and commission, as a prophet, to the rebellious house of
Israel:
stand upon thy feet; for he was fallen upon his face, at the sight of the vision, Eze_
1:28; when a divine Person speaks, men ought to stand and hear, and be in a readiness to
do his pleasure:
and I will speak unto thee; which is said for his encouragement, being spoken by
him who has the words of truth and grace, and of eternal life.
HENRY, "The title here given to Ezekiel, as often afterwards, is very observable. God,
when he speaks to him, calls him, Son of man (Eze_2:1, Eze_2:3), Son of Adam, Son of
the earth. Daniel is once called so (Dan_8:17) and but once; the compellation is used to
no other of the prophets but to Ezekiel all along. We may take it, 1. As a humble
diminishing title. Lest Ezekiel should be lifted up with the abundance of the revelations,
he is put in mind of this, that sill he is a son of man, a mean, weak, mortal creature.
Among other things made known to him, it was necessary he should be made to know
this, that he was a son of man, and therefore that it was wonderful condescension in God
that he was pleased thus to manifest himself to him. Now he is among the living
creatures, the angels; yet he must remember that he is himself a man, a dying creature.
What is man, or the son of man, that he should be thus visited, thus dignified? Though
God had here a splendid retinue of holy angles about his throne, who were ready to go
on his errands, yet he passes them all by, and pitches on Ezekiel, a son of man, to be his
messenger to the house of Israel; for we have this treasure in earthen vessels, and God's
messages sent us by men like ourselves, whose terror shall not make us afraid nor their
hand be heavy upon us. Ezekiel was a priest, but the priesthood was brought low and the
honour of it laid in the dust. It therefore became him, and all of his order, to humble
themselves, and to lie low, as sons of men, common men. he was now to be employed as
a prophet, God's ambassador, and a ruler over the kingdoms (Jer_1:10), a post of great
honour, but he must remember that he is a son of man, and, whatever good he did, it
was not by any might of his own, for he was a son of man, but in the strength of divine
grace, which must therefore have all the glory. Or, 2. We may take it as an honourable
dignifying title; for it is one of the titles of the Messiah in the Old Testament (Dan_7:13,
I saw one like the Son of man come with the clouds of heaven), whence Christ borrows
the title he often calls himself by, The Son of man. The prophets were types of him, as
they had near access to God and great authority among men; and therefore as David the
king is called the Lord's anointed, or Christ, so Ezekiel the prophet is called son of man.
I. Ezekiel is here set up, and made to stand, that he might receive his commission,
Eze_2:1, Eze_2:2. He is set up,
2

1. By a divine command: Son of man, stand upon thy feet. His lying prostrate was a
posture of greater reverence, but his standing up would be a posture of greater readiness
and fitness for business. Our adorings of God must not hinder, but rather quicken and
excite, our actings for God. He fell on his face in a holy fear and awe of God, but he was
quickly raised up again; for those that humble themselves shall be exalted. God delights
no in the dejections of his servants, but the same that brings them low will raise them
up; the same that is a Spirit of bondage will be a Spirit of adoption. Stand, and I will
speak to thee. Note, We may expect that God will speak to us when we stand ready to do
what he commands us.
How he must deliver that divine revelation to others which he himself had received
(Eze_3:1): Eat this roll, and then go, speak to the house of Israel. He must not
undertake to preach the things of God to others till he did himself fully understand
them; let him not go without his errand, nor take it by the halves. But when he does
himself fully understand them he must be both busy and bold to preach them for the
good of others. We must not conceal the words of the Holy One (Job_6:10), for that is
burying a talent which was given us to trade with. He must go and speak to the house of
Israel; for it is their privilege to have God's statutes and judgments made known to
them; as the giving of the law (the lively oracles), so prophecy (the living oracles)
pertains to them. He is not sent to the Chaldeans to reprove them for their sins, but to
the house of Israel to reprove them for theirs; for the father corrects his own child if he
do amiss, not the child of a stranger.
JAMISON, "Eze_2:1-10. Ezekiel’s commission.
Son of man — often applied to Ezekiel; once only to Daniel (Dan_8:17), and not to
any other prophet. The phrase was no doubt taken from Chaldean usage during the
sojourn of Daniel and Ezekiel in Chaldea. But the spirit who sanctioned the words of the
prophet implied by it the lowliness and frailty of the prophet as man “lower than the
angels,” though now admitted to the vision of angels and of God Himself, “lest he should
be exalted through the abundance of the revelations” (2Co_12:7). He is appropriately so
called as being type of the divine “Son of man” here revealed as “man” (see on Eze_1:26).
That title, as applied to Messiah, implies at once His lowliness and His exaltation, in His
manifestations as the Representative man, at His first and second comings respectively
(Psa_8:4-8; Mat_16:13; Mat_20:18; and on the other hand, Dan_7:13, Dan_7:14; Mat_
26:64; Joh_5:27).
K&D 1-3, "After the Lord had pointed out to the prophet the difficulties of the call
laid upon him, He prepared him for the performance of his office, by inspiring him with
the divine word which he is to announce. - Eze_2:8. And thou, son of man, hear what I
say to thee, Be not stiff-necked like the stiff-necked race; open thy mouth, and eat what
I give unto thee. Eze_2:9. Then I saw, and, lo, a hand outstretched towards me; and, lo,
in the same a roll of a book. Eze_2:10. And He spread it out before me; the same was
written upon the front and back: and there were written upon it lamentations, and
sighing, and woe. Eze_3:1. And He said to me: Son of man, what thou findest eat; eat
the roll, and go and speak to the house of Israel. Eze_3:2. Then opened I my mouth, and
3

He gave me this roll to eat. Eze_3:3. And said to me: Son of man, feed thy belly, and fill
thy body with this roll which I give thee. And I ate it, and it was in my mouth as honey
and sweetness. - The prophet is to announce to the people of Israel only that which the
Lord inspires him to announce. This thought is embodied in symbol, in such a way that
an outstretched hand reaches to him a book, which he is to swallow, and which also, at
God's command, he does swallow; cf. Rev_10:9. This roll was inscribed on both sides
with lamentations, sighing, and woe (‫י‬ ִ‫ה‬ is either abbreviated from ‫י‬ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫,נ‬ not = ‫י‬ ִ‫,א‬ or as
Ewald, §101c, thinks, is only a more distinct form of ‫י‬ ‫ה‬ or ‫.)ה‬ The meaning is not, that
upon the roll was inscribed a multitude of mournful expressions of every kind, but that
there was written upon it all that the prophet was to announce, and what we now read in
his book. These contents were of a mournful nature, for they related to the destruction of
the kingdom, the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple. That Ezekiel may look over
the contents, the roll is spread out before his eyes, and then handed to him to be eaten,
with the words, “Go and speak to the children of Israel,” i.e., announce to the children of
Israel what you have received into yourself, or as it is termed in Eze_3:4, ‫י‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָ‫ב‬ ְ‫,דּ‬ “my
words.” The words in Eze_3:3 were spoken by God while handing to the prophet the roll
to be eaten. He is not merely to eat, i.e., take it into his mouth, but he is to fill his body
and belly therewith, i.e., he is to receive into his innermost being the word of God
presented to him, to change it, as it were, into sap and blood. Whilst eating it, it was
sweet in his mouth. The sweet taste must not, with Kliefoth, be explained away into a
sweet “after-taste,” and made to bear this reference, that the destruction of Jerusalem
would be followed by a more glorious restoration. The roll, inscribed with lamentation,
sorrow, and woe, tasted to him sweetly, because its contents was God's word, which
sufficed for the joy and gladness of his heart (Jer_15:16); for it is “infinitely sweet and
lovely to be the organ and spokesman of the Omnipotent,” and even the most painful of
divine truths possess to a spiritually-minded man a joyful and quickening side
(Hengstenberg on Rev_10:9). To this it is added, that the divine penal judgments reveal
not only the holiness and righteousness of God, but also prepare the way for the
revelation of salvation, and minister to the saving of the soul.
CALVIN, "When the Prophet is ordered to eat whatever he receives, this ought not
to be extended to everything which he meets with, but, whatever may be the taste of
the book, he is forbidden to refuse it: for its bitterness might possibly cause him to
reject the threats of God. Lastly, the quality of the book is noted, because it
contained nothing but the material for sorrow. He adds, that he opened his mouth,
for the sake of obedience; by which he signifies that he was not curious or dainty in
seeking to taste it, but that he took what was divinely offered him, without the
slightest hesitation. Now he adds —
COFFMAN, "EZEKIEL'S COMMISSION CONCLUDED
In this chapter we have: (1) Ezekiel commanded to eat the roll of the book (Ezekiel
4

3:1-3); (2) God promises Ezekiel power to overcome the difficulties of his mission
(Ezekiel 3:4-9); (3) Ezekiel is brought to the place where he is to labor (Ezekiel
3:10-15); (4) Ezekiel is warned of his responsibility for the souls entrusted to his
watchfulness (Ezekiel 3:16-21); and (5) we have the conclusion (the third phase) of
Ezekiel's divine commission to Israel (Ezekiel 3:22-27).
Ezekiel 3:1-3
"And he said unto me, Son of man, eat that which thou findest; eat this roll, and go,
speak unto the house of Israel. So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat the
roll. And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with
this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for
sweetness."
EATING THE ROLL OF THE BOOK (Ezekiel 3:1-3)
Some have supposed that there was some hesitation or reluctance on the part of
Ezekiel to eat this roll, basing such a view upon the repetition of the commandment
and the statement at the end of Ezekiel 3:3, "Then did I eat it"; but we do not
believe that such a notion is fully supported by the text.
The significance of eating the roll and of its sweetness in the mouth shows that, "It is
sweet to do the will of God and to be entrusted with tasks for him."[1] It does not
mean that the sad news God's message contained for the fallen people of Israel was
the source of any "sweetness" for the prophet.
This symbolical action of eating the roll teaches that, (1) the words of Ezekiel would
not be his words but the Word of God; (2) the written word of God would become
the very life of the prophet; (3) the eating of the roll by Ezekiel indicated his
acceptance of the commission God was here giving him; and (4) that he would need
to digest it, assimilate it into his very being, and speak nothing else, absolutely, to
the people except as God would direct him. As Feinberg stated it, "He who gives
5

forth the Word of the Lord must feed on it himself."[2]
The similar symbolical action of the apostle John (Revelation 10) comes to mind
instantly as this passage is read; and the remembrance that in the New Testament
incident the taste of the roll changed into bitterness "in his belly," and one wonders
why a similar thing was not mentioned here. We believe with Plumptre that,
"Perhaps verse 14 implies the very same bitterness that John experienced when the
first ecstatic joy passed away and the sense of the awfulness of the task came upon
the prophet."[3]
PETT, "Verses 1-3
‘And he said to me, “Son of man, eat what you find. Eat this roll and go, speak to
the house of Israel.” So I opened my mouth and he caused me to eat the roll, and he
said to me, “Son of man, cause your stomach to digest and fill your bowels with this
roll that I give you.” Then did I eat it and it was in my mouth as honey for
sweetness.’
The vision continues, and in vision Ezekiel is commanded to eat the roll and then
deliver its message to the house of Israel. He cannot pick and choose. He must eat
what he finds. And that is what he must speak. (Whether he was actually to eat it or
not is irrelevant. It was all in vision. The main point was that he was to fully digest it
and make it a part of himself).
Then he is told that he must fully digest its contents. We too have a ‘scroll’. It is
called the Holy Bible. It too is the word of God, and we too must ensure that we read
and fully digest its contents.
‘Then did I eat it and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.’ So Ezekiel
obeyed, and ate, and although its contents were dreadful he found it sweet to the
taste, for it was the word of God and necessary for that time. It contained tough
love, God being cruel to be kind. And it could only be for good. Compare Jeremiah
15:16, ‘Your words were found and I ate them, and your words were to me a joy
and the rejoicing of my heart, for I am called by your name, Oh Yahweh, God of
6

hosts’. There it was contrasted with the food with which men make merry. Jeremiah
had chosen his course and delighted in it, as must Ezekiel. See also Psalms 19:10;
Psalms 119:103.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest;
eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
Ver. 1. Son of man, eat that thou findest.] Eat this roll or volume, without
equivocation, or so much as questioning; yield simple obedience to the heavenly
vision. It was in vision doubtless that the prophet did eat the roll, and not in very
deed, as the foolish patient did the physician’s recipe, or as Mr Lewis of Manchester
made the bishop’s summoner eat the citation which he brought for his wife, a
martyr in Queen Mary’s days, by setring a dagger to his heart, and to drink to it
when he had done. (a) It was non reipsa, sed spiritu, saith an interpreter. See
Ezekiel 3:10.
Eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.] First learn, and then teach
others, that thou mayest utter my mind readily, dexterously, and affectionately,
speaking a corde ad cor - ex intimo cordis affectu - and digging thy discourses out of
thine own bosom, as it is said of Origen, and after him of Petrus Comestor, who
merited that title, because, by his often allegations of the holy Scripture, he seemed
to have eaten it up and digested it.
WHEDON, "1-3. Ezekiel’s preparation for future speech, by making the truth
which he was to utter a part of himself, required the co-operation of the human and
the divine. God furnished the truth (Ezekiel 2:9) and caused him to eat it (Ezekiel
3:2); but it was also needed that Ezekiel should accept it of his own will and use all
his energies in the attempt to assimilate it (Ezekiel 3:3). Notwithstanding the
bitterness of the message it became sweet to the taste when obediently accepted. To
the true prophet even “God’s bitter word is sweet.” (Compare Jeremiah 15:16;
Psalms 19:10; Revelation 10:8-11.)
BI 1-3, "He caused me to eat that roll.
The mystic mind
1. There are few writers in the Bible who have imprinted the characteristics of their
7

own mind on their writings more than the prophet Ezekiel, and this is so remarkably
the case that we can hardly rise from the perusal of his book without being more
forcibly than ever convinced that inspiration is not in such Sense literal as robe
independent of the medium through which it passes. In fact we may almost feel that
it is more than probable that God selects the peculiar dispositions and characteristics
of men for the media of His revealed truths on account of some similarity between
their tendencies and the subject matter of the truth revealed. Important practical
results flow from these considerations, especially under the three following heads.
First, that this being the case, many superficial difficulties are cleared away from the
surface of Scripture from the consideration of the various dispositions and modes of
expression of the writers. Secondly, very considerable encouragement and comfort
may be derived from the circumstance that persons with similar dispositions to our
own have written portions of the Word of God. And thirdly, it leads us to see that
from this analogy of His providence we may expect certain similar results in the
conduct of the Church and the world in our own day.
2. With this view the study of Ezekiel’s prophecy is remarkable. It reflects a very
distinct order of disposition. He delights in mystery, allegory, and the awful; he is far
less beautiful and sublime than Isaiah, but far more terrible and alarming. He has
scarcely any common ground with Jeremiah, for while the latter constantly appeals
to the deeper feelings of our nature, he lacked, to a great degree, the energy of
character to make him their martyr; while, on the other hand, Ezekiel seems to have
despised an appeal to them, and without hesitation or complaint showed his mastery
over them. With Daniel Ezekiel stands in strong contrast; he lacks his refinement, his
reserve, and the high sculpture of his character. He seems to have been a man of
great power of self-command and of the suppression, for the sake of religion, of the
tenderer emotions of nature. God told him that his wife should die in order that her
death and his mode of bearing it might be an allegory to the people. The event took
place, and he yielded to no human sensation on account of it.
3. But my more immediate object is, first to show that in all these respects he is one
of a large class of individuals, and secondly, that that class have a direct office in the
Church of God. His was the mind suited and suiting itself to mystery and allegory,
which, after all, are handmaids to each other. The allegory is the expressed mystery.
The allegoriser is the poet of the mystery. Thus the minds which can appreciate the
mystery and express themselves in the allegory are cognate the one to the other. In
the same way the disposition which inclines towards the comprehension of mystery
is one which sees with a firm and unwavering eye the great truths that lie beyond the
present state. There is another property and virtue of the man of mystical mind
which is an important one; he is one who will consent to bow the ordinary
understanding in homage to the superior spiritual perceptions, and the exercise of
the reason to the moral sense. Thirdly, the mystical mind is one that is able to
comprehend the sacramental nature of God’s world. We are in danger nowadays,
from a dread of mysticism, of accepting nothing as true but that which can be both
suggested and finally proved by human reason.
4. But while what I have called the mystical mind is one so suited to peculiar crises
of the history of man, it is, nevertheless, subject to its own infirmities and faults.
Inasmuch as it is able to transcend the ordinary perceptions of religion it will be
inclined to pass by with contempt those who are unable to expand its limits, and
from a professed dread of narrowness of mind in things to do with religion and faith,
8

will itself become narrowed by the most rigid limits of superstition and
conventionalism. Again the allegoriser will sometimes become hazy, indefinite, and
uncertain in his descriptions, and tend at last as much to mislead those who follow
him, as those who refuse to take a bold step in the guidance of their fellow creatures
induce them to stop short of the fulness of spiritual truth.
5. But I proceed to elucidate the rules that I have laid down with regard to the
character which Ezekiel represents by some illustrations borrowed from those
occasions in which their influence is felt, and their operation called into action. It is
very apparent how important a witness minds of this description have to bear in a
day like our own, when upon all sides of us we see the inclination to discredit old
received opinions, and to cast a dimness over that clear light which had shone to the
eyes of our ancestors from the far-off days of antiquity. He, then, who is able to
discern in connection with the Church, the sacramental force of religion, has
nowadays a great mission to fulfil. It is not merely the power to perceive and to
appreciate the mysteries of our faith, but to discern under the external surface of
things a deep sacramental meaning.
5. But independently of the mind that can conceive or the poetic power that can find
the fitting term of expression, this kind of character must enforce thought and word
by example. Acts are great allegories, and the parables of men’s lives are most
efficient in their sufferings. The actions of Ezekiel told more on the Jewish people
than either his genius or his parables. His loathsome food and the tearless tomb of
his wife preached the most effective lesson to the captive Jews. His was the peculiar
character which could do great acts of daring and suffer manfully; and the mind
which I have been describing above under the title of the allegorical, is the one
capable of those powerful and speaking deeds which so affect a generation. (E.
Monro.)
Experience of the truth
The symbol showed that Ezekiel accepted his call. He humbly gave in to God, hard as the
task was. Spiritual submission is the first lesson of religion. He opened his mouth in
faith. If we trust God, we can trust even His judgments. The bitter of His procuring is as
sweet as honey. The symbol also expressed the prophet’s mandate. God’s will can be
known, and is known. The prophet bad waited till it was burned in on him that his was a
distinct call, a distinct work. He ate the roll. He was able to expound the book. The great
temptation is to talk without the book, to enter the pulpit whether the roll has been
eaten or not. We have to learn the contents of our Christian faith. Personal submission,
experimental knowledge, testimony. Obedience is the one law of life, and the one secret
of peace. (Christian Commonwealth.)
Realisation of the truth
Sweeter than honey is the Word of God in the mouth. What is comparable to the taste of
a Divine communication? To know that God is, that is much. One tells how he “danced
with delight” when he realised that there was a God. To know past all doubting that God
has spoken, that is far more. To see the darkness which we had thought impenetrable
impaled and stabbed through by a living light, is there any ecstasy comparable with that?
9

To those who have exhausted themselves in question and conjecture, how sweetly comes
the Voice that speaks with authority and from behind the veil!
2 So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the
scroll to eat.
GILL, "So I opened my mouth,.... To take in the roll, and eat it; he was not
disobedient to the heavenly vision; he did all that he could towards eating it, but was not
sufficient of himself; and therefore it follows:
and he caused me to eat that roll; he, the Lord, put it into his mouth, caused him to
eat it, and tilled him with it, according to his promise, Psa_81:10. The efficacy and
sufficiency to think of good things, to meditate upon them, receive and digest them, are
of God; it is he that makes men prophets, and able ministers. The Targum is,
"and I inclined my soul, and he taught me (or made me wise "with") what was written in
this roll.''
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 3:2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
Ver. 2. So I opened my mouth.] Without delays or consults, I obeyed Christ’s
command, et hausi quodammodo donum prophetiae, (a) and yielded to become a
prophet. This was well; but not long after, Ezekiel, through infirmity of the flesh,
would have declined the office, and therefore sought to lurk among his countrymen
at Telabib, [Ezekiel 3:15] till Christ called him out again and newly employed him.
[Ezekiel 3:16]
And he caused me to eat that roll.] See on Ezekiel 3:1.
10

3 Then he said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll I
am giving you and fill your stomach with it.” So I
ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my
mouth.
CLARKE, "It was in my mouth as honey - It was joyous to me to receive the
Divine message, to be thus let into the secrets of the Divine counsel, and I promised
myself much comfort in that intimate acquaintance with which I was favored by the
Supreme Being. In Rev_10:10 we find St. John receiving a little book, which he ate, and
found it sweet as honey in his mouth, but after he had eaten it, it made his belly bitter,
signifying that a deep consideration of the awful matter contained in God’s word against
sinners, which multitudes of them will turn to their endless confusion, must deeply
afflict those who know any thing of the worth of an immortal spirit.
GILL, "And he said unto me, son of man, cause thy belly to eat,.... Or "devour"
(f), and consume; that is, concoct and digest; do not cast it out of thy mouth, as soon as
thou hast tasted of it; but let it go down into the stomach, and there digest it; and from
thence into the belly, that so, upon the whole, virtue may be received, and nourishment
come by it:
and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee; eat to satiety; so the Targum,
"son of man, thou shalt satiate thy soul, and fill thy belly, if thou receivest what is written
in this roll, which I give thee:''
this was sufficient to qualify the prophet for prophesying, and furnish him with
materials enough; and these fit and proper for the discharge of his office; and so such
who study the word of God with application become scribes well instructed in the
kingdom of heaven; and being filled themselves, are able to bring forth things to the
comfort and satisfaction of others:
then did I eat it, and it was in my mouth, as honey for sweetness; that is, as the
roll was spread before him, he looked into it, and read it, and meditated upon it, and laid
it up in his memory, in order to deliver it out when commanded; and though it contained
things very distressing, and which would occasion lamentation, and mourning, and woe;
yet, considering that these were the will of God, and in righteous judgment to men, he
could not but acquiesce in and approve of them. All the words that come out of the
mouth of God are as sweet as, honey, yea, sweeter than that, Psa_19:10; and so the
Targum interprets it of the words of the Lord,
"and I took it, and his words were in my mouth as sweet honey;''
11

and especially the Gospel, and the truths of it, are like honey; they are gathered by
laborious ministers, as honey by the industrious bee, out of the various flowers of the
Scriptures, with which being laden, they bring into the hive of the church, and dispose of
for general usefulness; these are like honey for healthfulness, for nourishment, and for
sweetness to the taste; that which makes the Gospel so are the exceeding great and
precious promises in it: its doctrines of grace, and those of peace and reconciliation, of
pardon, righteousness, eternal life and salvation, by Jesus Christ; and, above all, Christ
himself, who is the sum and substance of it; and all its truths being quickening;
comforting, and refreshing: but thou the Gospel is, only sweet when it is eaten; not
merely heard, assented to, and superficially tasted of, but eaten and fed upon by faith;
and so, it is sweet, not to unregenerate persons, whose taste is not changed; nor to
nominal and notional professors, who have only a superficial taste of it; but to true
believers in Christ, spiritual men, who judge and discern all things; see Rev_10:9.
JAMISON, "honey for sweetness — Compare Psa_19:10; Psa_119:103; Rev_10:9,
where, as here in Eze_3:14, the “sweetness” is followed by “bitterness.” The former being
due to the painful nature of the message; the latter because it was the Lord’s service
which he was engaged in; and his eating the roll and finding it sweet, implied that,
divesting himself of carnal feeling, he made God’s will his will, however painful the
message that God might require him to announce. The fact that God would be glorified
was his greatest pleasure.
CALVIN, "Verse 3
Ezekiel, as we have just seen, proceeds to say, that a book was given him to eat,
because God’s servants ought to speak from the inmost affection of their heart. We
know that many have a tongue sufficiently fluent, but use it only for ostentation:
meanwhile, God treats their vanity as a laughing stock, because their labor is
fruitless. Hence we must observe the passage of Paul already quoted, “the kingdom
of God is with power.” (1 Corinthians 4:20.) But the efficacy of the Holy Spirit is not
exerted unless when he who is called to teach applies his serious endeavors to attain
to the discharge of his duty. For this reason, then, Ezekiel is commanded to eat the
roll Next he says, it was as sweet as honey; and, but a little before, he said it was
filled with curses: therefore, either he had put off all humanity, or ought to be
grieved, when he found himself appointed to be the herald of God’s vengeance. But,
in other places, we saw that the servants of God were endued with feelings of an
opposite kind; for, as they were often rough and stern like their work, so they
condoled with the miserable people: but, their grief did not hinder them from
proceeding in the discharge of their duty. For this reason Ezekiel now says, the book
was sweet, because he acquiesced in God’s commands, and although he pitied his
own people, yet he acknowledged that it could not happen otherwise, and subscribed
to the just judgment of God. Therefore, by the word sweetness, he signifies his
12

acquiescence in embracing the office enjoined upon him, and he so obeyed God that
he forgot all the material for sorrow in the book, because the justice of God
prevailed and thus extinguished the feeling of too great humanity which might
otherwise have delayed him. Jeremiah uses the same expression. (Jeremiah 15:16.)
He says, that he found the words of God, and that they became to him gladness and
joy of heart. For we saw, that he was only anxious but very sorrowful when he
thought that utter destruction was impending over the people. But, as I have just
said, these two things are not discordant: that Prophets should desire the safety of
the people, and use their utmost endeavors to promote it, and yet manifest a firm
constancy, and never hesitate, when necessity demands it, to condemn the people
and to utter God’s threats which are enjoined ‘upon them. Thus shortly afterwards
Jeremiah says, that he was filled with anger; thy words were found, says he, and I
did eat them, and they afforded me joy and gladness of heart, because thy name has
been called over me, O Jehovah God of hosts: that is, because I have been taught by
the power of thy Spirit, and as I have been called to this office, so thou hast
stretched forth thy hand unto me that I may fulfill thy commands with good faith
and constancy: therefore thy words were my delight. Afterwards he adds, (Ezekiel
3:17,) neither have I sat in the council of scorners, nor have I exalted myself for the
sake of throwing off the yoke; for since I perceived that thou must be obeyed, I was,
as it were, overpowered, yet I did not sit with the scorners, but I sat alone, says he,
because thou hast filled me with indignation. Hence we see, that in one person were
two feelings very different and contrary in appearance, because he was filled with
indignation, and yet received joy through the words of God.
COKE, "Ezekiel 3:3. Cause thy belly to eat— Thy belly shall eat this roll which I
give thee; and thy bowels shall be filled with it: And while I did eat it, it was sweet in
my mouth like honey. Houbigant. See Revelation 10:10 where St. John, eating the
roll, found it sweet at first, but afterwards bitter; that is to say, observes Bishop
Newton, "The knowledge of future things at first was pleasant; but the sad contents
of the little book afterwards filled his soul with sorrow."
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 3:3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and
fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat [it]; and it was in my
mouth as honey for sweetness.
Ver. 3. Cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels,] i.e., Deeply and duly ponder and
practise those holy truths thou hast to press upon others; preach thine own
13

experiences, &c. See 1 Timothy 4:15.
And it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.] So was God’s law to good David;
[Psalms 119:29; Psalms 119:103] to Augustine, Scripturae tuae sunt deliciae meae,
saith he, Thy Scriptures are my delight; to Alphonsus, King of Arragon, who
professed he would rather lose his kingdoms than be without the knowledge of
God’s blessed book, which he had read over above a dozen times, together with such
commentaries thereupon as those times afforded. See Revelation 10:10.
PULPIT, "It was in my mouth as honey, etc. The words remind us of Psalms 19:10;
Proverbs 24:13; and again of those of Jeremiah in the darkest hour of his ministry
(Jeremiah 15:16). They are reproduced yet more closely by St. John (Revelation
10:9). There is, after the first terror is over, an infinite sweetness in the thought of
being a fellow worker with God, of speaking his words and not our own. In the case
of St. John, the first sweetness was changed to bitterness as soon as he had eaten it;
and this is, perhaps, implied here also in verse 14. The first ecstatic joy passed away,
and the former sense of the awfulness of the work returned.
4 He then said to me: “Son of man, go now to the
people of Israel and speak my words to them.
GILL, "And he said unto me, son of man, go,.... After he had eaten the roll; for
then was he qualified to prophesy:
get thee unto the house of Israel; to whom he was to prophesy:
and speak with my words unto them: not with his own words; nor with the words
of men, the enticing words of man's wisdom; but with the words of Christ; with the
taught words of the Holy Ghost; with what is written in the roll; the words of this
prophecy are meant. So the Targum,
"and thou shalt prophesy the words of my prophecy unto them;''
14

in like manner John after he had eaten the little book, is told that he must prophesy
before many people, nations, tongues, and kings, Rev_10:9; though Ezekiel was only
sent to one nation, as follows:
HENRY, " The instructions given him in speaking to them are much the same with
those in the foregoing chapter.
(1.) He must speak to them all that, and that only, which God spoke to him. he had
said before (Eze_2:7): Thou shalt speak my words to them; here he says (Eze_3:4),
Thou shalt speak with my words unto them, or in my words. He must not only say that
which for substance is the same that God had said to him, but as near as may be in the
same language and expressions. Blessed Paul, though a man of a very happy invention,
yet speaks of the things of God in the words which the Holy Ghost teaches, 1Co_2:13.
Scripture truths look best in scripture language, their native dress; and how can we
better speak God's mind than with his words?
(2.) He must remember that they are the house of Israel whom he is sent to speak to,
God's house and his own; and therefore such as he ought to have a particular concern for
and to deal faithfully and tenderly with. They were such as he had an intimate
acquaintance with, being not only their countryman, but their companion in tribulation;
they and he were fellow-sufferers, and had lately been fellow-travellers, in very
melancholy circumstances, from Judea to Babylon, and had often mingled their tears,
which could not but knit their affections to each other. It was well for the people that
they had a prophet who knew experimentally how to sympathize with them, and could
not but be touched with the feeling of their infirmities. It was well for the prophet that
he had to do with those of his own nation, not with a people of strange speech and a
hard language, deep of lip, so that thou canst not fathom their meaning, and heavy of
tongue, whom it is intolerable and impossible to converse with. Every strange language
seems to us to be deep and heavy. “Thou art not sent to many such people, whom thou
couldst neither speak to nor hear from, neither understand nor be understood among
but by an interpreter.” The apostles indeed were sent to many people of a strange
speech, but they could not have done any good among them if they had not had the gift
of tongues; but Ezekiel was sent only to one people, those but a few, and his own, whom
having acquaintance with he might hope to find acceptance with.
K&D 4-9, "The Sending of the Prophet. - This consists in God's promise to give him
power to overcome the difficulties of his vocation (Eze_3:4-9); in next transporting him
to the place where he is to labour (Eze_3:10-15); and lastly, in laying upon him the
responsibility of the souls entrusted to his charge (Eze_3:16-21). After Ezekiel had
testified, by eating the roll which had been given him, his willingness to announce the
word of the Lord, the Lord acquaints him with the peculiar difficulties of his vocation,
and promises to bestow upon him strength to overcome them. - Eze_3:4. And He said to
me, Son of man, go away to the house of Israel, and speak with my words to them.
Eze_3:5. For not to a people of hollow lips and heavy tongue art thou sent, (but) to the
house of Israel. Eze_3:6. Not to many nations of hollow lips and heavy tongue, whose
words thou dost not understand; but to them have I sent thee, they can understand
thee. Eze_3:7. But the house of Israel will not hear thee, because they will not hear me;
for the whole house of Israel, of hard brow and hardened heart are they. Eze_3:8. Lo, I
make thy countenance hard like their countenances, and thy brow hard like their brow.
15

Eze_3:9. Like to adamant, harder than rock, do I make thy brow: fear not, and tremble
not before them, for they are a stiff-necked race. - The contents of this section present a
great similarity to those in Eze_2:3-7, inasmuch as here as well as there the obduracy
and stiff-neckedness of Israel is stated as a hindrance which opposes the success of
Ezekiel's work. This is done here, however, in a different relation than there, so that
there is no tautology. Here, where the Lord is sending the prophet, He first brings
prominently forward what lightens the performance of his mission; and next, the
obduracy of Israel, which surrounds it with difficulty for him, in order at the same time
to promise him strength for the vanquishing of these difficulties. Ezekiel is to speak, in
the words communicated to him by God, to the house (people) of Israel. This he can do,
because Israel is not a foreign nation with an unintelligible language, but possesses the
capacity of understanding the words of the prophet (Eze_3:5-7), ‫ם‬ַ‫ע‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫ק‬ ְ‫מ‬ ִ‫ע‬ ‫ה‬ָ‫פ‬ָ‫,שׂ‬ “a people
of deep lips,” i.e., of a style of speech hollow, and hard to be understood; cf. Isa_33:19. s'
'‫י‬ ֵ‫ק‬ ְ‫מ‬ ִ‫ע‬ is not genitive, and ‫ם‬ַ‫ע‬ is not the status constructus, but an adjective belonging to
‫ם‬ַ‫,ע‬ and used in the plural, because ‫ם‬ַ‫ע‬ contains a collective conception. “And of heavy
tongue,” i.e., with a language the understanding of which is attended with great
difficulty. Both epithets denote a barbarously sounding, unintelligible, foreign tongue.
The unintelligibility of a language, however, does not alone consist in unacquaintance
with the meaning of its words and sounds, but also in the peculiarities of each nation's
style of thought, of which language is only the expression in sounds. In this respect we
may with Coccejus and Kliefoth, refer the prophet's inability to understand the language
of the heathen to this, that their manner of thinking and speaking was not formed
according to the word of God, but was developed out of purely earthly, and even God-
resisting factors. Only the exclusive prominence given by Kliefoth to this side of the
subject is incorrect, because irreconcilable with the words, “many nations, whose words
(discourse) thou didst not understand” (Eze_3:6). These words show that the
unintelligibility of the language lies in not understanding the sounds of its words. Before
'‫ית‬ ֵ‫אל־בּ‬ ‫,ישׂ‬ in Eze_3:5, the adversative particle sed is omitted (cf. Ewald, §354a); the
omission here is perhaps caused by this, that ‫ה‬ ָ‫תּ‬ ַ‫א‬ ַ‫לוּח‬ָ‫,שׁ‬ in consequence of its position
between both sentences, can be referred to both.
In Eze_3:6 the thought of Eze_3:5 is expanded by the addition of ‫ים‬ ִ‫מּ‬ַ‫ע‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫בּ‬ ַ‫,ר‬ “many
nations” with different languages, in order to show that it is not in the ability, but in the
willingness, to hear the word of the Lord that the Israelites are wanting. It is not to many
nations with unintelligible languages that God is sending the prophet, but to such men
as are able to hear him, i.e., can understand his language. The second hemistich of Eze_
3:6 is rendered by the old translators as if they had not read ‫ֹא‬‫ל‬ after ‫ם‬ ִ‫,א‬ “if I sent thee to
them (the heathen), they would hear thee.” Modern expositors have endeavoured to
extract this meaning, either by taking ‫ם‬ ִ‫א‬ ‫ֹא‬ ‫ל‬ as a particle of adjuration, profecto, “verily”
(Rosenmüller, Hävernick, and others), or reading ‫ם‬ ִ‫א‬ as Ewald does, after Gen_23:13.
But the one is as untenable as the other: against ‫ם‬ ִ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ֻ‫ל‬ stands the fact that ‫לוּ‬ is written
with ‫,ו‬ not with ‫;א‬ against the view that it is a particle of adjuration, stands partly the
position of the words before '‫ם‬ ֶ‫יה‬ֵ‫ֲל‬‫א‬ ‫,שׁל‬ which, according to the sense, must belong to
'‫ה‬ ָ‫מּ‬ ֵ‫ה‬ ‫,ישׁם‬ partly the impossibility of taking ‫י‬ ִ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ח‬ַ‫ל‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ conditionally after the preceding ‫ם‬ ִ‫א‬
‫ֹא‬‫.ל‬ “If such were the case, Ezekiel would have really done all he could to conceal his
meaning” (Hitzig), for ‫ם‬ ִ‫א‬ ‫ֹא‬ ‫,ל‬ after a negative sentence preceding, signifies “but;” cf.
16

Gen_24:38. Consequently neither the one view nor the other yields an appropriate
sense. “If I had sent thee to the heathen,” involves a repenting of the act, which is not
beseeming in God. Against the meaning “profecto” is the consideration that the idea,
“Had I sent thee to the heathen, verily they would hear thee,” is in contradiction with the
designation of the heathen as those whose language the prophet does not understand. If
the heathen spoken a language unintelligible to the prophet, they consequently did not
understand his speech, and could not therefore comprehend his preaching. It only
remains, then, to apply the sentence simply to the Israelites, “not to heathen nations, but
to the Israelites have I sent thee,” and to take ‫עוּ‬ ְ‫מ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ִ‫י‬ as potential, “they are able to fear
thee,” “they can understand thy words.” This in Eze_3:7 is closed by the antithesis, “But
the house of Israel will not hear thee, because they will not hear me (Jehovah), as they
are morally hardened.” With 7b, cf. Eze_2:4. The Lord, however, will provide His
prophet with power to resist this obduracy; will lend him unbending courage and
unshaken firmness, Eze_3:8; cf. Jer_15:20. He will make his brow hard as adamant (cf.
Zec_7:12), which is harder than rock; therefore he shall not fear before the obduracy of
Israel. ‫,צר‬ as in Exo_4:25, = ‫.צוּר‬ As parallel passages in regard of the subject-matter, cf.
Isa_50:7 and Jer_1:18.
CALVIN, "Now at greater length God explains why he wished his servant to eat the
volume which he held forth in his hand, namely, that when instructed by it he might
approach the children of Israel; for he ought not to come empty, and we know that
man of himself can bring forward nothing solid: hence Ezekiel must receive from
God’s hand what he delivers to the Israelites. Let us then preserve this order, as the
volume is first given to the Prophet, and then transferred to the people. God orders
him, to offer or speak his own words, which is worthy of remark, as having the same
meaning. But if Ezekiel ought to bring forward nothing but what he had received
from God, this rule ought to prevail among all God’s servants, that they should not
heap up their own comments, but pronounce what God teaches them as if from his
mouth: lastly, that passage of Peter (1 Peter 4:11) ought to guide us, he who speaks
in the Church ought to speak the words of God. Now he adds, I do not send thee to a
people strange in speech and hard in language, but to the house of Israel Stone think
that the prophet is here animated to his duty, because God demanded nothing from
him which was too difficult. For if he had been sent to remote nations with whom
there was no interchange of speech, he might object that a greater burden than he
could bear was imposed upon him. The difficulty would then have been a complete
obstacle. They think that remote and foreign nations are here compared with the
people of Israel, that he may discharge his duty with alacrity, as if it had been said,
“I do not send thee to strangers. For neither could they understand thee, and they
also would be barbarians to thee, but because thou art familiarly acquainted with
thine own people, thou canst not turn thy back when I send thee unto them.” But
17

this opinion does not approve itself to me, because I read these three verses in the
same context, as they are united. It is by no means doubtful, that, by this
comparison, God aggravates the impiety of the people. For this sentence is first in
order, that the Israelites would be deaf, although the Prophet should use among
them the common and vernacular language: this is the first point: now he shows the
reason, because they were a bitter people Here God signifies, that nothing prevented
the Israelites from obeying the doctrine of the Prophet but their malice and impiety.
For this reason he says, I do not send thee to a people profound in speech I know not
how some have conjectured that this epithet means learned or clever; for it is the
same thing for a people to be of a strange speech and of a hard language. For what
is a “hard” but a barbarous language? Now we perceive the genuine sense, that the
Prophet is not sent to men of an unknown language because he would have been a
barbarian to them and they to him. I do not send thee to them, therefore, but to the
house of Israel.
COFFMAN, ""And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of
Israel, and speak with my words unto them. For thou art not sent to a people of
strange speech and of a hard language, but to the house of Israel; not to many
peoples of a strange speech and of a hard language, whose words thou canst not
understand. Surely, if I sent thee to them, they would hearken unto thee. But the
house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all
the house of Israel are of a hard forehead and of a stiff heart. Behold, I have made
thy face hard against their faces, and thy forehead hard against their foreheads. As
an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead: fear them not, neither be
dismayed at their looks, though they are a rebellious house."
GOD'S PROMISE OF POWER TO EZEKIEL
As our study of Ezekiel moves forward, we are impressed by the right of this
prophet to be called a type of Jesus Christ: (1) The name alone (Son of man)
suggests it; (2) In this passage Ezekiel is sent "only to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel" (Matthew 15:24); and again in this passage, (3) Ezekiel was told that Israel
would not hear him, because they would not hear God (Ezekiel 3:7); and the exact
duplicate of this was promised the apostles by Jesus Christ (John 15:20).
18

Still another fundamental element of Jesus' teaching is in Ezekiel 3:6.
"Surely, if I sent thee to them, they would hearken unto thee ..." (Ezekiel 3:6). "The
thought here finds its analogue in our Lord's reference to Sodom and Gomorrah
(Matthew 11:21-24)."[4]
This paragraph repeats much that was stated in Ezekiel 2 regarding the rebellious
house of Israel and their attitude toward God; but, as Taylor noted, the previous
mention of such qualities in Israel were a description of Ezekiel's commission; "But
these later verses represent the equipping of the prophet with the qualities which he
will need in order to fulfill his commission."[5]
As Keil noted, the concluding clause in Ezekiel 3:6 has no primary application to the
Gentiles, other than the truth that was demonstrated by the spread of Christianity
into "all nations." "Here, the words emphasize the contrast between the excusable
inability of people to understand a foreign language and the quite inexcusable
stubbornness of Ezekiel's Israelite hearers."[6]; "Strange speech ... and hard
language ..." (Ezekiel 3:6). In the Hebrew here, the literal words are, "of deep lip
and heavy tongue."[7] This passage also suggests the words of Isaiah 28:11, where
"tongues" appear as a curse to God's people and not as a blessing.
PETT, "Verses 4-7
‘And he said to me, “Son of man, go, get you to the house of Israel and speak to
them with my words. For you are not sent to a people of a strange speech and of a
hard language (literally ‘deep of lip and heavy of tongue’), but to the house of Israel.
Not to many peoples of a strange speech and of a hard language, whose words you
cannot understand. Surely if I sent you to them they would listen to you. But the
house of Israel will not listen to you, for they will not listen to me, for all the house
of Israel are of a hard forehead and of a stiff heart.” ’
19

Ezekiel is to go to the people of Israel with Yahweh’s words, and the message as
revealed in the scroll, but he is warned that in general they will not listen to him.
There will of course always be some few who listen, but his message will not be
popular with the people as a whole.
There is a strong element of sarcasm here. Theoretically his task should be easy. He
is going to people who speak the same language as himself, rather than to people
who speak and think differently, and whose language is very difficult to understand
(for ‘deep of lip’ compare Isaiah 33:19 and for ‘heavy of tongue’ compare Exodus
4:10). It seemingly made his task much simpler. But in practise it will not be so.
Those of another language may well have been willing to listen to his words, but
Israel will not do so, because their minds and hearts are hardened. They do not
want to listen to God, so they will certainly not listen to Ezekiel. Their minds are
already made up. Compare Isaiah 6:9-13; Jeremiah 1:17-19.
The point here is the obstinacy and pig-headedness of Israel. Even with stumbling
words others might be willing to listen. But Israel is so set in its mind and ways that
no words, however clear, will be sufficient to move them or change their ideas, as
they have already proved by their response to Jeremiah and the other prophets, and
their reactions in the face of disasters. They just will not recognise their own folly
and guilt. It is a stress on the total stubbornness of Israel.
This repetition of the ideas in chapter 2 demonstrates how hard his task is going to
be. God wants Him to be forewarned and forearmed. It stresses the hardness of
men’s hearts when faced with truth which is unpalatable.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 3:4 And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house
of Israel, and speak with my words unto them.
Ver. 4. Go, get thee unto the house of Israel.] This was a hard task, all things
considered; but hard or not hard, there was a necessity of going on God’s errand.
Ubi mel ibi fel. Necesse est ut eat, non ut vivat, Where there is honey, there is
20

bitterness. It is necessary to go but not to live, as he once said.
And speak with my words unto them.] But see they be mine, and then I will bear
thee out; then also they will the sooner take impression. Speak as the oracles of God.
[1 Peter 4:11]
WHEDON, "Verses 4-7
4-7. The prophet having learned the character of the message he is expected to
deliver, Jehovah urges him to immediate action. Although no word is recorded one
can be sure that there has come into the prophet’s mind, and perhaps been uttered
by his lips, the self-depreciative argument against his acceptance of the commission
which Moses had uttered many centuries before: “O my Lord, I am not eloquent,…
but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue” (Exodus 4:10). Jehovah replies: Thou
art not sent, as Moses was, to a foreign people, “of dark speech and heavy tongue,”
but to your own countrymen. Thou art not sent to the Babylonian capital, amidst
the strange multitude of many peoples “whose words thou canst not understand,”
but to those who speak your own language. There is no need of any gift of tongues.
But do not be deceived, it is not eloquence that you need any more than Moses did.
Even the Assyrians would listen to your broken and stammering message with more
respect than will these men, so “stiff of forehead and hard-hearted,” even though
your words be like music (Ezekiel 33:32). It is not the manner, but the message to
which they object. “They will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto
me.”
5 You are not being sent to a people of obscure
speech and strange language, but to the people of
Israel—
CLARKE, "Thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech - I neither send
21

thee to thy adversaries, the Chaldeans, nor to the Medes and Persians, their enemies.
Even these would more likely have hearkened unto thee than thy own countrymen.
GILL, "For thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech,.... "Deep of lip"
(g), or "speech"; difficult to be got at and understood:
and of a hard language: or "heavy of tongue" (h) of a barbarous and unknown
language, whom he could not understand, nor they him; and so would have been
barbarians to one another; and consequently it could not be thought his prophesying
among them, could have been of any use. This may be considered, either by way of
encouragement to the prophet to go on his errand to such a people; since as he could
understand them, and they him he might hope to meet with success; or, however he
could deliver his message so as to be understood: or as an aggravation of the impiety
perverseness and stupidity of the Israelites; that though the prophet spoke to them in
their own language, yet they would not hear nor receive his words:
but to the house of Israel; who were a people of the same speech and language with
the prophet; all spoke and understood the language of Canaan; nor were the things he
delivered such as they were altogether strangers to being the same, for substance, which
Moses, and the other prophets, had ever taught.
JAMISON, "See Margin, Hebrew, “deep of lip, and heavy of tongue,” that is, men
speaking an obscure and unintelligible tongue. Even they would have listened to the
prophet; but the Jews, though addressed in their own tongue, will not hear him.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 3:5 For thou [art] not sent to a people of a strange speech and of
an hard language, [but] to the house of Israel;
Ver. 5. For thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard
language.] Heb., Deep of lip and heavy of tongue. Qui strident sermone, et quasi e
profundo gutture barbarum loquuntur. As Jonah was so sent, and those that now
preach to the natives in New England in their own language, not without some good
success.
But to the house of Israel.] Among whom thou must use vulgari et vernaculo
sermone, who also are well seen in the Scriptures; they are indeed God’s library
keepers, which is no small privilege, [Romans 3:2] and therefore the better to be
dealt with.
22

PULPIT, "Of a strange speech and of a hard language, etc.; literally, as in margin,
both of Authorized Version and Revised Version, to a people deep of lip and heavy
of tongue; i.e. to a barbarous people outside the covenant, Chaldeans, Assyrians,
Scythians: not speaking the familiar sacred speech of Israel (compare the
"stammering lips and another tongue" of Isaiah 28:11; Isaiah 33:19). The thought
implied is that Ezekiel's mission, as to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
(Matthew 15:24), was outwardly easier than if he had been sent to the heathen. With
Israel there was at least the medium of a speech common both to the prophet and
his hearers. In verse 6 the thought is enlarged by the use of "many peoples."
BI, "Thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech.
The danger of abused privileges
If you consider ministers simply as the labourers of God, you will perceive that he whose
scene of cultivation is an English parish, has not necessarily an advantage over him who
is appointed to a Hottentot settlement. We do not undervalue the sufferings of the
missionary or the merchant; but if the merchant abroad grows richer than the merchant
at home, his superior wealth is regarded as a counterpoise to his toil; and in like manner
if the minister of the Hottentot settlement win more souls than the minister in an
English parish, his greater success must be considered as balancing his greater
privations. Hence with all our admiration of that moral chivalry which leads a man to
abandon home, and give himself to the work of a missionary, we are far enough from
allowing that he deserves more of our sympathy, than another who is devoting his
strength to the work of the ministry in the land of his birth. There is many a district in
this country which offers more resistance to spiritual cultivation, than the wilds of
absolute paganism; and he whose lot is cast in one of such districts, and who wrestles
apparently uselessly from year to year, would make an exchange incalculably in his
favour if he were transferred to a village in some far distant land where Christianity is
humanising the savage, where the truths of the Bible are preached in their simplicity,
and faithful men are overthrowing the superstitions and exterminating the vices of a
long-degraded tribe.
I. The first thing that we consider is the truth that the foreign field would have been
more productive than the home; in other words, to make the case completely our own,
that ministerial success in an English parish may be far less than in the missionary
settlement. We now wish to press upon your notice, as worthy of the closest attention,
that the likelihood of men giving ear to the Gospel must diminish in proportion to the
frequency of its repetition. It is with spiritual things as with natural; you may live within
the sound of the roar of the cannon till you become insensible to the sound, and sleep
without being disturbed by it; yes, and you may grow deaf to the thunders of the Word,
and listen so often as not to be startled by them! Can it, then, be said on any principle of
human calculation, that a man who has stood for many years the formal hearer of the
Gospel till the preaching of it has deafened him, is a more promising subject for
ministerial attack than the rude dweller in the desert, who never yet has been told of
immortality, and never been offered salvation? In the one case we are opposed by
ignorance, barbarism, and superstition; and these are formidable adversaries: in the
23

other, we are opposed with enlightened heads and untouched hearts; and this is the
combination which, of all others, presents an effectual resistance. It is this tendency of
Christianity, to harden where it does not soften, which renders our home parishes so
unpromising as fields of ministration. So that whatever the advantage of the home
minister, there is so vast a counterpoise in the increased resistance to spiritual
impression, which is the produce of a disregarded Gospel, that encouragement drawn
from the words—“thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech, and of a hard
language,” is quite overborne by the melancholy statement, “surely had I sent thee to
them, they would have hearkened unto thee.”
II. If the foreign field of labour would be more productive than the home—if the heathen
would repent though the house of Israel be obdurate;—why was Ezekiel not sent to men
of a strange speech and a hard language? There is a mystery which is wholly
impenetrable, why God should send the Gospel to one nation, and withhold it from
another. We have no sufficient means of determining the election of nations; it appears
well-nigh as inexplicable as the election of individuals,—at least we can only resolve both
to the sovereign will of the Almighty, and say in the words of the Saviour, “Even so,
Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” The heathen are as much redeemed men by
the blood-shedding of Jesus, as those who are blessed with all the privileges of the
Gospel; and in what degree the energies of the atonement may extend themselves to
procure the acceptance of those who act up to the light of the dispensation in which they
live, we pretend not to determine; neither will we have the hardihood to say, that those
who are excluded from all privileges, must be necessarily excluded from all benefit. The
heathen will be judged by the laws of the dispensation beneath which he lived. We are
assured by infallible authority, that it shall be more tolerable in the judgment for the
heathen who never heard of the Gospel, than for those who have heard and rejected it.
Though strictly we can only infer from this, that there shall be a graduated scale of
punishment; is it not a fair induction that everyone may be tried according to his
opportunities? and if this be admitted, then, where the opportunities are small, so also is
the responsibility; and we the less marvel that God should have given only little, seeing
only little will be demanded in return. (H. Melvill, B. D.)
BI, "Thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech.
The danger of abused privileges
If you consider ministers simply as the labourers of God, you will perceive that he whose
scene of cultivation is an English parish, has not necessarily an advantage over him who
is appointed to a Hottentot settlement. We do not undervalue the sufferings of the
missionary or the merchant; but if the merchant abroad grows richer than the merchant
at home, his superior wealth is regarded as a counterpoise to his toil; and in like manner
if the minister of the Hottentot settlement win more souls than the minister in an
English parish, his greater success must be considered as balancing his greater
privations. Hence with all our admiration of that moral chivalry which leads a man to
abandon home, and give himself to the work of a missionary, we are far enough from
allowing that he deserves more of our sympathy, than another who is devoting his
strength to the work of the ministry in the land of his birth. There is many a district in
this country which offers more resistance to spiritual cultivation, than the wilds of
absolute paganism; and he whose lot is cast in one of such districts, and who wrestles
apparently uselessly from year to year, would make an exchange incalculably in his
favour if he were transferred to a village in some far distant land where Christianity is
24

humanising the savage, where the truths of the Bible are preached in their simplicity,
and faithful men are overthrowing the superstitions and exterminating the vices of a
long-degraded tribe.
I. The first thing that we consider is the truth that the foreign field would have been
more productive than the home; in other words, to make the case completely our own,
that ministerial success in an English parish may be far less than in the missionary
settlement. We now wish to press upon your notice, as worthy of the closest attention,
that the likelihood of men giving ear to the Gospel must diminish in proportion to the
frequency of its repetition. It is with spiritual things as with natural; you may live within
the sound of the roar of the cannon till you become insensible to the sound, and sleep
without being disturbed by it; yes, and you may grow deaf to the thunders of the Word,
and listen so often as not to be startled by them! Can it, then, be said on any principle of
human calculation, that a man who has stood for many years the formal hearer of the
Gospel till the preaching of it has deafened him, is a more promising subject for
ministerial attack than the rude dweller in the desert, who never yet has been told of
immortality, and never been offered salvation? In the one case we are opposed by
ignorance, barbarism, and superstition; and these are formidable adversaries: in the
other, we are opposed with enlightened heads and untouched hearts; and this is the
combination which, of all others, presents an effectual resistance. It is this tendency of
Christianity, to harden where it does not soften, which renders our home parishes so
unpromising as fields of ministration. So that whatever the advantage of the home
minister, there is so vast a counterpoise in the increased resistance to spiritual
impression, which is the produce of a disregarded Gospel, that encouragement drawn
from the words—“thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech, and of a hard
language,” is quite overborne by the melancholy statement, “surely had I sent thee to
them, they would have hearkened unto thee.”
II. If the foreign field of labour would be more productive than the home—if the heathen
would repent though the house of Israel be obdurate;—why was Ezekiel not sent to men
of a strange speech and a hard language? There is a mystery which is wholly
impenetrable, why God should send the Gospel to one nation, and withhold it from
another. We have no sufficient means of determining the election of nations; it appears
well-nigh as inexplicable as the election of individuals,—at least we can only resolve both
to the sovereign will of the Almighty, and say in the words of the Saviour, “Even so,
Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” The heathen are as much redeemed men by
the blood-shedding of Jesus, as those who are blessed with all the privileges of the
Gospel; and in what degree the energies of the atonement may extend themselves to
procure the acceptance of those who act up to the light of the dispensation in which they
live, we pretend not to determine; neither will we have the hardihood to say, that those
who are excluded from all privileges, must be necessarily excluded from all benefit. The
heathen will be judged by the laws of the dispensation beneath which he lived. We are
assured by infallible authority, that it shall be more tolerable in the judgment for the
heathen who never heard of the Gospel, than for those who have heard and rejected it.
Though strictly we can only infer from this, that there shall be a graduated scale of
punishment; is it not a fair induction that everyone may be tried according to his
opportunities? and if this be admitted, then, where the opportunities are small, so also is
the responsibility; and we the less marvel that God should have given only little, seeing
only little will be demanded in return. (H. Melvill, B. D.)
25

6 not to many peoples of obscure speech and
strange language, whose words you cannot
understand. Surely if I had sent you to them, they
would have listened to you.
BARNES, "To many people - To various nations using diverse languages.
Surely - The thought is that expressed by our Saviour Himself (margin reference).
Some render it: “but I have sent thee unto these; they can hearken” etc.
GILL, "Not to many people of a strange speech and of an hard language,....
The prophet was sent, not to different nations, of different languages; but to one nation
of the same language; indeed several of his prophecies concern other nations, as the
Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Tyrians, Philistines, Egyptians, and Assyrians; but
then these had a relation to the, people of Israel, and were chiefly on their account; and
therefore he was not sent to those nations to deliver his prophecies unto them, but to the
people of Israel only; and so had no difficulty on his part concerning their language,
which he would have had, had he been sent to the barbarous nations;
whose words, thou canst not understand: the prophet being, only used to the
language of the Jews and not having the gift of speaking with and understanding divers
tongues; as the apostles of Christ had, when they were sent to many people of different
languages, and which is here tacitly intimates:
surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee; which
is an aggravation of the obstinacy and disobedience of the people of Israel; that had the
barbarous nations been favoured with the same means of instruction they were they
would have been obedient; see Mat_11:21; for though they could not understand the
prophet's language, nor he theirs; yet, as Kimchi observes, they would have sought for an
interpreter to have explained the prophecy to them. The thing is very strongly affirmed,
"surely", verily, ‫,באמת‬ "of a truth"; as the same Jewish writer interprets ‫לא‬ ‫;אם‬ and both
he and Jarchi take it to be the form of an oath. Some render the words, "if I had not sent
thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee" (i); and the sense is, either that if
the Lord had not sent him to the Israelites, but to the peopled a strange speech, they, the
people, would have hearkened to him: or, if the Lord had not sent the prophet, but he
had gone of himself, as the false prophets in their own name, the Israelites would have
26

hearkened to him; such was their perverseness and rebellion: others render the words,
"if not", or had it not been for their strange speech and hard language, "I would have
sent thee to them" (k), the barbarous nation, and "they would have hearkened unto
thee"; but the first sense seems best; which is confirmed by the Targum, Septuagint,
Vulgate Latin, and the Oriental versions.
JAMISON, "many people — It would have increased the difficulty had he been
sent, not merely to one, but to “many people” differing in tongues, so that the missionary
would have needed to acquire a new tongue for addressing each. The after mission of the
apostles to many peoples, and the gift of tongues for that end, are foreshadowed
(compare 1Co_14:21 with Isa_28:11).
had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened — (Mat_11:21, Mat_
11:23).
CALVIN, "Now he adds, not to many peoples Those who translate “many” by
“great,” do not understand the Prophet’s meaning, for God had spoken in the
singular number concerning all people, but now he uses the plural, as if he had said,
I send thee neither to Egyptians, nor to Chaldeans, nor to any other remote nation,
since the world is on all sides of thee, inhabited by peoples whose language thou dost
not understand: to those therefore I do not send thee. The particle, if not, follows,
and Jerome translates, “If I had sent thee unto them,” although the negative particle
is interposed, literally, if not, but because this phrase appears harsh, some have
supposed ‫אם‬-‫לא‬ , am-la, to have the sense of swearing, and interpret it affirmatively
for ‫כאמת‬ , cameth, “truly,” or “surely.” But if we receive it so, the passage will be
defective; for they understand ‫אם‬ , am, “again,” “afterwards:” for these two words,
‫אם‬-‫לא‬ , am-la, have the force of an oath interposed. What sense then shall we extract
from the words, “truly I will send thee unto them, and they shall hear thee?” We see
then this sense to be too forced. Some explain the passage thus: “If I had not sent
thee unto them, they would have heard thee,” as if God here blamed the disposition
of the people, because they rather sought vain and foolish prophecies:, than
submitted themselves to the truth; just as if he had said, if any impostor should pour
darkness upon them, they would immediately embrace his fables and lies, as they
are so prone to foolishness. Since, therefore, I send thee, therefore they do not hear.
But this explanation does not suit, because a little afterwards we shall see it in its
own place. To me therefore this context is most probable, if I had not sent thee to
them, these also would have heard thee, as if it had been said, unless a difference of
speech had interposed, I had rather have used thine assistance with reference to
foreign nations. In this way God signifies his displeasure, when he says, that he
would rather send his Prophet hither and thither than to the Israelites, except
through the want of a common language; for this difference of language presented
the only boundary to the Prophet, so that he was confined to his own people. In this
27

sense there is nothing forced. I do not, therefore, send thee to many peoples,
profound in speech and strange in tongue, because thou wouldst not understand
their language But if this had not been an obstacle, I would have sent thee, and they
would have heard thee. We see then what I have just touched upon, that the
Israelites are compared to foreign or uncircumcised tribes, because they rejected the
instruction offered them, not through ignorance of the language, but through the
hardness of their heart. Isaiah also says, (Isaiah 28:11,) that the word of God would
be deep and obscure to even the Jews themselves, but in another sense; he also
compares his prophecies to a sealed book, since God had blinded them according to
their deserts. Since therefore they were so given over to a reprobate mind, and were
destitute of sound understanding, therefore he says, that his teaching would be like
a closed and sealed book: then he says, that he would be a barbarian, as if he was
using an unknown language. So God in this place clearly shows that the house of
Israel were suffering no impediment in profiting by his word, except their own
unwillingness to hear. (Isaiah 8:16; Isaiah 29:11.) For he says, that the heathen
would be obedient, if they could be partakers of such a benefit. Unless therefore the
language of the Prophet had been unknown to the profane and uncircumcised
heathen, he had there found attentive and obedient disciples, as God testifies. How
then comes it to pass that the house of Israel cannot hear! It now follows, But the
house of Israel are unwilling to hear, that is, the house of Israel is unwilling to hear
thee, because it will not hear me, says he.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 3:6 Not to many people of a strange speech and of an hard
language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them,
they would have hearkened unto thee.
Ver. 6. Surely had I sent unto them, they would have hearkened.] Or, If I had sent
thee to them, would they not have hearkened unto thee? It may seem by the
Ninevites that they would, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, [Matthew
12:41] at one single sermon made by a mere stranger, who sang so doleful a ditty to
them that their city should be shortly destroyed, &c. Vatablus rendereth this text,
Dispeream nisi te audissent, ei ad cos te misissem. And couldst thou but skill of
foreign languages, thou couldst not easily be without disciples. The punishment of
strange language, saith a grave divine, (a) was a heavy punishment, next to our
casting out of paradise and the flood.
28

PULPIT, "Surely, if I sent thee to them, etc. The "surely" represents the Hebrew "if
not" taken as a strong affirmation, just as "if" in Psalms 95:11 represents a strong
negation; compare the use of the fuller formula jurandi in 1 Samuel 3:17; 2 Samuel
3:35; 2 Samuel 19:13; and of the same in Deuteronomy 1:35; Isaiah 62:8; and in
Ezekiel himself (Ezekiel 17:19). The margin of the Authorized Version, If I had sent
thee to them, would they not have hearkened, etc.? expresses the same meaning, but
is less tenable as a translation. The thought in either case finds its analogue in our
Lord's reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, to Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 11:21-24;
Luke 10:12-14). Israel was more hardened than the worst of the nations round her.
7 But the people of Israel are not willing to listen
to you because they are not willing to listen to me,
for all the Israelites are hardened and obstinate.
CLARKE, "Impudent and hard-hearted - “Stiff of forehead, and hard of heart.” -
Margin. The marginal readings on several verses here are very nervous and very correct.
GILL, "But the house of Israel would not hearken unto thee,.... "They are not
willing" (l); they have no desire, no inclination, to hear and hearken; but the reverse;
they were capable of hearing and understanding his speech and language, and though he
was sent unto them by the Lord: and indeed the reason why they did not hearken to him
was not because they rejected him and his words, but because they rejected the Lord and
his words; they were the words of the Lord, and his reproofs; and therefore they would
not hearken to them as follows:
for they will not hearken unto me; and which is an argument why the prophet
should bear with patience their disregard to him and his words, and their neglect and
contempt of them; for, seeing they would not hear the Lord, how could he exact they
should hear him? and therefore he should not be uneasy at it; see Joh_15:20;
for all the house of Israel are impudent and hardhearted; or, "strong of front,
29

and hard of heart" (m); they had a whore's forehead, an impudent face, that could not
blush and be ashamed; and hearts of stone, like a rock, and harder than the nether
millstone, on which no impressions, could be made by all the admonitions and reproofs
given them; see Eze_2:4; and this was the case of all of them in general, excepting some
very few; which shows the sad degeneracy of this people.
HENRY, "He must remember what God had already told him of the bad character of
those to whom he was sent, that, if he met with discouragement and disappointment in
them, he might not be offended. They are impudent and hard-hearted (Eze_3:7), no
convictions of sin would make them blush, no denunciations of wrath would make them
tremble. Two things aggravated their obstinacy: - [1.] That they were more obstinate
than their neighbours would have been if the prophet had been sent to them. had God
sent him to any other people, though of a strange speech, surely they would have
hearkened to him; they would at least have given him a patient hearing and shown him
that respect which he could not obtain of his own countrymen. The Ninevites were
wrought upon by Jonah's preaching when the house of Israel, that was compassed about
with so great a cloud of prophets, was unhumbled and unreformed. But what shall we
say to these things? The means of grace are given to those that will not improve them
and withheld from those that would have improved them. We must resolve this into the
divine sovereignty, and say, Lord, thy judgments are a great deep. [2.] That they were
obstinate against God himself: “They will not hearken unto thee, and no marvel, for they
will not hearken unto me;” they will not regard the word of the prophet, for they will not
regard the rod of God, by which the Lord's voice cries in the city. If they believe not God
speaking to them by a minister, neither would they believe though he should speak to
them by a voice from heaven; nay, therefore they reject what the prophet says, because
it comes from God, whom the carnal mind is enmity to. They are prejudiced against the
law of God, and for that reason turn a deaf ear to his prophets, whose business it is to
enforce his law.
CALVIN, "Now, therefore, we clearly see the sloth of the people assigned as a
reason why they purposely rejected the Word of God, and hardened themselves in
obstinacy. He also ascends higher, and says, that the people were not only
disobedient to the Prophet but to God himself, as Christ also when he exhorts his
disciples to perseverance in teaching. Therefore, says he, they will not hear you,
because they will not hear me, and why am I and my teaching hated by them, unless
because they do not receive my Father? (John 15:18.) For this stumblingblock is
likely to break the spirits of the pious, when they see their teaching so proudly
rejected. This reproach alone, therefore, is often accustomed to recall the servants of
God from their course: but this admonition is proposed to them in the midst, that
God himself is despised. Why then should they take it ill, that they are held in the
same estimation as God, who is himself rejected? They think themselves
undeserving of such contempt and haughtiness being thrown upon their labor. But
is not God worthy of being listened to before all angels? Since, then, they are proud
30

and unbelieving towards God himself, it is not surprising that they do not reverently
receive what is proposed to them by mortal man. Now, therefore, we see what the
intention of God is when he says, the house of Israel will not hear thee, because they
do not hear me: lest it should be vexatious to the Prophet to see his labor profitless,
nay, even the children of Israel rising against him: because he ought to bear it
patiently, if he should suffer the same obloquy which they did not hesitate to display
against the Almighty himself. It follows, Because the whole house of Israel is of a
bold or a daring aspect, and of a hard heart He repeats what we saw before, but in
other words — namely, that the people’s hardness of heart was untameable, and
that they were not only obstinate in heart but brazen in countenance, so that they
cast aside all modesty; and lastly, he implies that their obstinacy was desperate,
when he joins a brazen countenance with a hard heart.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 3:7 But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they
will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel [are] impudent and
hardhearted.
Ver. 7. But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee.] They will not. See the
like, John 5:40; John 8:44. A man’s will is his hell, saith Bernard. And it is easier,
saith another, to deal with twenty men’s reasons, than with one man’s will. What
hope is there of those that will not hear; or, if they do, yet have made their
conclusion beforehand, and will stir no more than a stake in the midst of a stream?
For they will not hearken unto me.] Speaking unto them in the Scriptures. See
Hosea 8:12, Matthew 10:24-25, John 15:18, &c. Let this speech of God to the
prophet comfort faithful ministers, contra cervicosos et cerebrosos istos hypocritas,
that reject or resist their preaching. What are we that we may not be slighted,
whenas Christ himself the arch-prophet is?
Impudent.] Heb., Stiff of forehead. This was a point next the worst. Illum ego
periisse dice cui periit pudor, said that heathen: (a) he is an undone man who is past
shame.
PULPIT, "For they will not hearken unto me, etc. The words are, as it were, an a
fortiori argument. Those who had despised the voice of Jehovah, speaking in his
31

Law, or directly to the hearts of his people, were not likely to listen with a willing
ear to his messenger. We are reminded of our Lord's words to his disciples in
Matthew 10:24, Matthew 10:25. Impudent and hard-hearted; literally (the word is
not the same as in Ezekiel 2:4), in Revised Version, of an hard forehead and of a stiff
heart. The word "hard" is the same word as the first half of Ezekiel's name, and is
probably used with reference to it as in the next verse.
BI, "But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto
me.
The distinction between predestination and foreknowledge
God gives Ezekiel an express command to speak his words to the house of Israel (verse
4), and, at the same time, distinctly informs him that the house of Israel will not hearken
or attend. The prophet is commanded to speak, and told, at the same time, that the
preaching would be useless in regard of the working contrition and amendment in his
hearers. Now we are well assured that God honours the ordinance of preaching, seeing
that it is His chief engine for rousing those who are dead in trespasses and sins. But
though this be the main use of preaching, it is clear from our text that it is not the only
use. We shall not meddle with the mysterious things of God’s predestination, though
there may be much in our text which is associated with this inscrutable doctrine. We
have only to remark that God’s foreknowledge must be carefully distinguished from
God’s predestination. They are often confounded, but never without injury to all that is
fundamental in Christian theology. It is essential to the correctness of our every notion
of God that we consider Him unconfined, whether by space or by time; and as, therefore,
having possessed throughout the eternity already passed, an acquaintance with every
event which shall occur in the eternity to come God foreknows, with unvarying accuracy,
whether or not an individual, who is privileged to hear the Gospel, will so listen to the
Word as to be benefited by its delivery. But this is a widely different thing from saying
that God predestines the reception which shall be given to the message; and thus fixes,
by a positive decree, that such or such hearers shall put from them the proffers of
forgiveness. But, because known, must you pronounce it decreed? Will you say that God
cannot be certain of a thing unless He Himself have determined that thing, and made
arrangements for its occurrence? What! not foresee the shipwreck, unless He take the
helm, and steer the vessel to the quicksand? But the chief question still remains to be
examined—why God should enjoin the preaching of the Gospel in cases where He is
assured, by His foreknowledge, that this preaching will be wholly ineffectual? We think
the answer is to be found in the demands of the high moral government which God,
undoubtedly, exercises over the creatures of this earth. There is no more common, and
at the same time, no more palpable mistake, than that of considering the Almighty’s
dealings with our race as referring wholly to man, and not at all to his Maker. I cannot
understand how there could be equity in the sentences which shall be finally passed on
Christians, unless there be now what we shall dare to call moral honesty in the offer of
pardon which the Gospel makes to all men. We are apt to regard the preaching of the
Gospel merely as an engine for the conversion of sinners, and lose sight of other ends
which it may undoubtedly subserve, even when it fail of accomplishment. But we are to
blame in confining our thoughts to an end in which we have an immediate concern, in
32

place of extending them to those in which God Himself may be personally interested. We
forget that God has to make provision for the thorough vindication of all His attributes
when He shall bring the human race to judgment, and allot to each individual a portion
in eternity. We forget that in all His dealings it must be His own honour to which He has
the closest respect; and that this honour may require the appointment and contrivance
of the means of grace, even when those means, in place of effecting conversion, are sure
to do nothing but increase condemnation. We will hope that God had other ends in view
than that of making His minister the savour of death unto death in bringing you up to
His courts this day. We have no foreknowledge of the reception that you will give to the
message; we can therefore deal with you all as with beings of whom we have hopes. Yes,
indeed, hopes!—strong, earnest, scriptural hopes! We could pursue each one of you to
the very verge of the grave, and still say we had hopes. We should not be hopeless,
though the life were just ebbing, and the soul departing, and the Saviour not embraced.
We should still feel—feel even in that moment of terrible extremity—that nothing was
too hard for the Lord; and it would be in hope-a faint hope it would be—but still in hope,
that we sat down by your bedside, and said to the fainting and almost lost man, “Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” (H. Melvill, B. D.)
Attention in listening
In the act of listening we are not only distinctly conscious of sounds so faint that they
would not excite our notice but for the volitional direction of the attention, but we can
single out these from the midst of others by a determined and sustained effort, which
may even make us quite unconscious of the rest so long as that effort is kept up. Thus a
person with a practised “musical ear” (as it is commonly but erroneously termed, it
being not the ear, but the brain, which exerts this power), whilst listening to a piece of
music played by a large orchestra, can single out any one part in the harmony and follow
it through all its mazes; or can distinguish the sound of the weakest instrument in the
whole band and follow its strain through the whole performance. And an experienced
conductor will not only distinguish when some instrumentalist is playing out of tune, but
will at once single out the offender from the midst of a numerous band. (Carpenter,
“Mental Physiology.”)
Truth unheeded
All this and more than this you have been told, and told again, even till you are weary of
hearing it, and till you could make the lighter of it, because you had so often heard it; like
the smith’s dog, that is brought by custom to sleep under the noise of the hammers, and
when the sparks do fly about his ears. (R. Baxter.)
The wilfulness of the impenitent
“A man’s will is his hell,” saith Bernard. “And it is easier,” saith another. “to deal with
twenty men’s reasons than with one man’s will.” What hope is there of those that will not
fear; or if they do, yet have made their conclusion afore-hand, and will stir no more than
a stake in the midst of a stream? (J. Trapp.)
33

Responsiveness not easily evoked
Tyndall, in 1857, took a tube, a resonant jar, and a flame. By raising his voice to a certain
pitch he made the silent flame to sing. The song was hushed. Then again the proper note
was sounded, and the response was at once given by the flame. If the position varies,
there is a tremor, but no song. Again it stretches out its little tongue and begins its song.
When the finger stopped the tube the flame was silent. Standing at the extremity of the
room one may command the fiery singer. Immediately sonorous pulses call out the song.
What greater skill is needed to evoke the melody of a reluctant, shrinking soul! The
adjustments of the human heart are more delicate. The laws of excitation and persuasion
therefore need attract as careful study as those of heat and sound. (E. P. Thwing.)
The hardening of the heart
On a winter evening, when the frost is setting in with growing intensity, and when the
sun is now far past the meridian, and gradually sinking in the Western sky, there is a
double reason why the ground grows every moment harder and more impenetrable to
the plough. On the one hand, the frost of evening, with ever-increasing intensity, is
indurating the stiffening clods. On the other hand, the genial rays, which alone can
soften them, are every moment withdrawing and losing their enlivening power. Take
heed that it be not so with you. As long as you are unconverted, you are under a double
process of hardening. The frosts of an eternal night are settling down upon your souls;
and the Sun of Righteousness with westering wheel, is hastening to set upon you for
evermore. If, then, the plough of grace cannot force its way into your ice-bound heart
today, what likelihood is there that it will enter tomorrow? (R. McCheyne.)
Ministerial obligation not dependent on success
“I am thankful for success,” says Mr. Spurgeon, “but I feel in my heart a deeper gratitude
to God for permission to work for Him. It seems to me to be one of the highest gifts of
His grace to be permitted to take any share whatever in His grand enterprise for the
salvation of the sons of men.” It is even so; and they are blessed who realise it, for never
are they allowed to labour in vain. Indeed, not unfrequently, when all is seeming failure
and sore discouragement, great success is near. The Lord has often first to humble
before He can greatly use. It is told of an eminent man that when at one period of his
ministry he became, through discouragement, sorely tempted to abandon both sphere
and work, he had a singular dream. He thought he was working with a pickaxe on the
top of a basaltic rock. His muscular arm brought down stroke after stroke for hours, but
the rock was hardly indented. He said to himself at last, “It is useless; I will pick no
more.” Suddenly a stranger stood by his side, and said to him, “Are you to do no more
work?” “No.” “But were you not set to do this task?” “Yes.” “Why then abandon it?” “My
work is vain; I make no impression on the rock.” The stranger replied solemnly, “What is
that to you? Your duty is to pick whether the rock yields or not. Your work is in your own
hands—the result is not; work on.” He resumed his task. The first blow was given with
almost superhuman force, and the rock flew into a thousand pieces. This was only a
dream, but it so impressed him that, through grace, he was able to turn it to good
account; for when he awoke he returned to his work with fresh interest and hope, and
34

with greater tokens of his Master’s presence and power than ever before.
Unsuccessful ministry
In a newspaper we met with the following:—“There was an old turnpike man, on a quiet
country road, whose habit was to shut his gate at night and take his nap. One dark, wet
midnight I knocked at his door, calling, ‘Gate, gate!’ ‘Coming,’ said the voice of the old
man. Then I knocked again and once more the voice replied, ‘Coming.’ This went on for
some time, till at length I grew quite angry, and jumping off my horse, opened the door
and demanded why he cried ‘Coming’ for twenty minutes, and never came. ‘Who is
there?’ said the old man, in a quiet, sleepy voice, rubbing his eyes. ‘What d’ye want, sir?’
Then awakening, ‘Bless yer, sir, and ax yer pardon, I was asleep; I gets so used to hearing
‘em knock, that I answer “Coming” in my sleep, and take no more notice about it.’” Thus
may the ministry accomplish nothing because the habitual hearer remains in a deep
sleep, out of which the Spirit of God alone can awaken him. When the secret influence
from heaven ceases to speak to the heart, the best speaking to the ear avails little. (C. H.
Spurgeon.)
8 But I will make you as unyielding and hardened
as they are.
BARNES, "I have made ... thy forehead strong - I have given thee a strength
superior to theirs; a metaphor taken from horned animals.
GILL, "Behold, I have made the, face strong against their faces,.... Not that the
prophet should have the same sort of impudence and confidence they had; but that God
would "give" (n) him such a face, as it is in the Hebrew text, such spirit and courage, that
he should neither be ashamed of the words of the Lord, nor afraid to speak them to this
people; so that he should be a match for them; they should not be able to outface him, or
look him out of countenance; he should behave with an undaunted spirit, and with great
intrepidity, amidst all opposition made to him: the Lord fits his ministers for the people
he sends them to, and gives them courage and strength proportionate to the opposition
they meet with; as their day is, their strength is; and all that invincible courage,
boldness, and strength, with which they are endowed, it is all from the Lord, and a gift of
his:
and thy forehead strong against their foreheads; which is the same thing in
different words.
35

Ezekiel 3 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Ezekiel 3 commentary

Similar to Ezekiel 3 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ezekiel 3 commentary