EZEKIEL 18 Johan Lust for More Than a Century the Disputation in Chapter 18 of Ezekiel Has Been Seen As Occupyi

THE SOUR GRAPES: EZEKIEL 18

Johan Lust

For more than a century the disputation in chapter 18 of Ezekiel has been seen as occupying a central position, not only in the Book of the said prophet, but also in the Bible as a whole. It has been argued that it contains a major contribution to the doctrine of individual responsibility, perhaps the most signiﬁcant contribution to be found in the Bible. In recent years most scholars have abandoned this view.1 Disagreement still persists, however, on several important text critical and exegetical issues. Here we will address some of them, especially

1 See the major commentaries: Walter Zimmerli, Ezechiel I (BKAT 13/1; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 391–416; Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 325–47; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28; Waco, TX: Word, 1994), 263–81; Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 553–90; Karl-F. Pohlmann, Der Pro phet Hesekiel/Eze- chiel (ATD 22/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 257–76; see also the recent commentaries of Maarten Dijkstra, Ezechiël I: Een praktische bijbelverklaring (Tekst en toelichting; Kampen: Kok, 1986), 167–83; Franz Sedlmeier, Das Buch Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–24 (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 21/1; Stuttgart: KBW, 2002), 234–54; Margaret S. Odell, Ezekiel (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 217–31; see furthermore the following essays on the topic: Adrian Schenker, “Saure Trauben ohne stumpfe Zähne,” in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy (OBO 38; Éditions Universitaires Fribourg; Fribourg/Göttingen, 1981), 449–70; Vic- tor Maag, Hiob (FRLANT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), esp. 70–72, 131–37; Paul Joyce, “Ezekiel and Individual Responsibility,” in Ezekiel and His Book (ed. Johan Lust; BETL 74; Leuven: Peeters & Univ., 1983), 317–21; Nelson Kilpp, “Ein frühe Interpretation de Katastrophe von 587,” ZAW 97 (1985): 210–20; Paul Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel ( JSOTSup 51; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), esp. 35–60; Gordon H. Matties, Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse (SBLDS 126; Atlanta, G: Scholars, 1990); Karl-F. Pohlmann, Ezechielstudien (BZAW 202; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992), esp. 219–44; Henning Graf Reventlow, “Ezechiel 18,1–20: Eine prophetische Botschaft für unsere Zeit,” in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament: FS Horst Seebass (eds. Stefan Beyerle, Günter Mayer, and Hans Strauss; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 155–65; Andrew Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), esp. 177–213; Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “Proverb Performance and Transgenerational Retribution in Ezekiel 18,” in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World (Symposium Series; Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 199–223; Jurrien Mol, Collectieve en individuele verantwoordelijkheid: Een beschrijving van corporate personality naar Ezechiël 18 en 20 (Veenendaal: Universal Press, 2002); Gilbert N. Alaribe, Ezekiel 18 and the Ethics of Responsibility: A Study in Biblical Interpretations and Political Ethics (ATSAT 77; St Ottilien: EOS, 2006). 224 johan lust those concerning the meaning of the proverb put in the mouth of Eze- kiel’s opponents: “The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Ezek 18:2, nrsv), and those concerning the identity and whereabouts of these interlocutors. In this context, special attention should go to the preposition l[ in the phrase larcyAtmdaAl[ (18:2). Does it tell us that they are living ‘in (l[) the land of Israel,’ or does it indicate that their proverb deals with a situation ‘concerning (l[) the land of Israel’? With this short contribution I like to pay tribute to a most distin- guished colleague for her important and painstaking work in the field of textual criticism and translation technique, particularly, on Hebrew semi-prepositions and their renderings in the Septuagint.

First Approach

Context, Parallels, and Structure In its final edition, Ezek 18 is a complex disputation speech2 culminat- ing in an appeal for repentance. Unlike the surrounding chapters it is not a poetic composition formulated as an allegory or mashal (lvm 17:2; 19:14) or qîna (hnyq 19:1, 14). On the other hand, it quotes and rejects a mashal or proverb, and is, as such, a perfect parallel to 12:21–22. The proverb referring to the sour grapes is also quoted and coun- tered by Jeremiah (31:29–30). His treatment of the problem is more succinct. In contrast to Ezekiel he does not forbid the use of the proverb, but announces that the days are coming in which it will no longer be used. The proverb is said to be a figurative expression of the doctrine explicitly formulated in Lam 5:7: “Our ancestors sinned, they are no more, and we bear their iniquities.”3 The text of Ezek 18 is divided into two parts. In the first (vv. 1–20), Ezekiel’s opponents are quoted. They cite a proverb (v. 2) about sons suffering for their father’s misdeeds. The refutation follows in vv. 3–18. After the general proposition (vv. 3–4) that each (person or generation)

2 For the literary genre: see Adrian Graffy, A Prophet Confronts His People (AnBib 104; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1984), esp. 47–52; see also D. F. Murray, “The Rhetoric of Disputation: Re-examination of a Prophetic Genre,” in JSOT 38 (1987): 95–121. 3 Schenker, “Saure Trauben,” 457; Block, Ezekiel I, 501–3; compare Allen, Ezekiel I, 271; Zimmerli, Ezekiel I, 401–3.