Echoes of A Prophet: Gary T. Manning JR

library of new testament studies
Echoes of a
Prophet
The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and
in Literature of the Second Temple Period
Gary T. Manning Jr
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
270
Editor
Mark Goodacre
Editorial Board
John M.G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, Elizabeth A. Castelli,
Kathleen E. Corley, R. Alan Culpepper, James D.G. Dunn,
Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole,
Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Robert L.Webb
Echoes of a Prophet
The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in

Literature of the Second Temple Period
Gary T. Manning Jr
T&.T CLARK INTERNATIONAL

A Continuum imprint
L O N D O N • N E W Y O R K
Copyright 2004 T&T Clark International
A Continuum imprint
Published by T&T Clark International

an imprint of Continuum
The Tower Building, 15 East 26th Street,

11 York Road, Suite 1703,
London SE1 7NX New York, NY 10010
www. tandtclark.com
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in

any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Typeset by Tradespools, Frome, Somerset
EISBN 9780567080868
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments vii
Abbreviations ix
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND METHOD 1
1. Previous Work on Ezekiel's Influence on John 2
2. Intertextuality 3
3. Methodology 7
4. Focus of this Work 19
5. Conventions 20
6. Outline of the Book 20
Chapter 2
THE USE OF EZEKIEL IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS 22
1. History, Identity, and Eschatology of the Community 23
2. Epithets for the Community and its Enemies 59
3. Imitating Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1, 10, 17, 30, 37, 40;
Pseudo-Ezekiel) 68
4. Summary of the Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls 73
Chapter 3
THE USE OF EZEKIEL IN OTHER SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE 78
1. The Merkabah Vision (Ezekiel 1; 3.2, 14-15; 10;
Sirach 49.8; Testament of Levi 5.1; 7 Enoch 14.8-25; 39.2;
71.1-2) 79
2. Sheep and Shepherd (Ezekiel 34; 1 Enoch 89-90;
Psalm of Solomon \12\-AA) 86
3. Dry Bones (Ezekiel 37.1-11; Sirach 49.10; 4 Maccabees
18.17; Lives of the Prophets 3.12; 1 Enoch 90.4-5) 96
4. Summary of the Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple
Literature 99
Echoes of a Prophet
Chapter 4
ALLUSIONS TO EZEKIEL IN JOHN: MAJOR ALLUSIONS 100
1. Shepherds and Sheep 100
2. Vine and Branches 135
3. Summary 149
Chapter 5
ALLUSIONS TO EZEKIEL IN JOHN: MINOR ALLUSIONS 150
1. The Opened Heavens (Ezekiel 1.1; Genesis 28.12;
John 1.51) 150
2. The Dry Bones 160
Summary of John's Use of the Vision of Dry Bones 171
3. Water and the Spirit 172
4. Summary of the Use of Water as Spirit in John 194
Chapter 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 198
1. Tendencies in the Form of Allusions 199
2. Tendencies in the Method of Allusions 203
3. Messiah and Community 206
4. Tendencies in Johannine Allusions 209
Bibliography 214
Index of Scripture and Ancient Sources 225
Index of Modern Authors 238
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This book, like most worthwhile accomplishments, owes much to many

people. It is both a pleasure and an obligation to give them credit here.
This book is a slight revision of my doctoral dissertation, composed
under the direction of Marianne Meye Thompson and David Scholer.1 The
topic of the use of the Old Testament in the New has been of interest to me
for many years. Marianne Meye Thompson suggested the particular topic
of the use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John, for a Johannine Christology
seminar paper in the fall of 1999. I am grateful to her for the idea, and
especially for her encouragement and excellent advice in the course of my
research and writing. David Scholer served as the second reader for the
dissertation and gave useful suggestions and encouragement. My time at
Fuller Theological Seminary was made both productive and enjoyable by
time spent in classes or in research with these two professors, as well as
with Dr James Bradley, Dr Donald Hagner, and Dr Ralph Martin. I am
grateful to Dr James VanderKam of Notre Dame University, who
graciously read an early draft of Chapter 2. His comments provided
material direction as well as encouragement at the beginning of my
research. I also appreciated encouragement from professors at Talbot
School of Theology: Dr Clint Arnold, Dr Michael Wilkins, and many
others. I worked on revising the dissertation during my first year teaching
at International College and Graduate School in Honolulu; I am thankful
for the fellowship with staff and faculty, as well as students who helped me
clarify my views on the Gospel of John.
Writing the dissertation was also made possible through the generous
support of several foundations. I was grateful to Fuller and its donors for
providing me with the Full Fellowship; the Juliette M. Atherton
Scholarship, the Hawaii Community Scholarship Fund, and the Hawaii
Veterans Memorial Scholarship all provided generous funding as well.
My extended family was of invaluable support during my studies. There
were many times during my doctoral work that I recognized the need for
1. G. Manning, 'Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in
Literature of the Second Temple Period' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuller
Theological Seminary, 2003).
viii Echoes of a Prophet
endurance and hard work. I am grateful to my parents, Gary and Karen

Manning, for instilling those values in me from a young age, as well as for
encouraging me during my doctoral work. My parents-in-law, Joe and
Mary Ann Lawson, provided wonderful family andfinancialsupport. Two
of my brothers-in-law were especially helpful: David Lawson kept my
computer working, and Jonathan Trautner kept my car running. Our
church family at the Evangelical Free Church in Diamond Bar, California,
was a place of good fellowship and friendship. Our home church, Faith
Christian Fellowship of Honolulu, kept us in prayer and kept friendships
alive during our years away.
Most of my year of research and writing was spent working at home, so
my family was close to my work. My wife, Barbara, was unflagging in her
encouragement, and kept the house running smoothly when my writing
schedule grew heavy. My children, Josiah, Nathaniel, Daniel, Ian, and
Caleb provided (mostly) welcome interruptions to my work on a daily
basis. I appreciated their patience throughout the year.
Finally, this work is dedicated to its three subjects: God's faithful
servants Ezekiel and John, and Jesus the Messiah, for whom Ezekiel hoped
and about whom John reported.
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
AcTDan Acta Theologica Danica
AER American Ecclesiastical Review
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums
ANF Anti-Nicene Fathers
APOT R.H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament in English (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1913)
AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies
BDAG F.W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 2000).
BDB Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1907)
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
BHS Biblia hebraica Stuttgartensia
Bib Biblica
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZNW Beihefte zur ZNW
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series
CDSS G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New
York: Penguin Press, 1997)
Cone Concordia
ConNT Coniectanea neotestamentica
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
CQR Church Quarterly Review
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
DNTB C.A. Evans and S.E. Porter, Dictionary of New Testament
Background (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
Echoes of a Prophet
DSD Dead Sea Discoveries

DSS Dead Sea Scrolls
DSSCOL Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins Library
DSSSE F. Garcia Martinea and E. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls
Study Edition (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997-
1998)
DSSHAG James Charlesworth (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew,
Aramaic and Greek texts with English Translations (10 vols.;
Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994-)
ECDSS Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls
ExpTim Expository Times
HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HTCNT Herder's Theological Commentary on the New Testament
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
IDE George Arthur Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of
the Bible (4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962)
Int Interpretation
ISBE Geoffrey Bromiley (ed.), The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rev. edn,
1979-88)
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JBLMS Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JQRMS Jewish Quarterly Review Monograph Series
JR Journal of Religion
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic
and Roman Period
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series
JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement
Series
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
LCL Loeb Classical Library
NASB New American Standard Bible
NedTTs Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift
Abbreviations XI
Neot Neotestamentica
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIDNTT Colin Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology (3 vols.; Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1975)
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplements
NTS New Testament Studies
ODJR Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion
OTL Old Testament Library
OTP James Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti graece
RB Revue biblique
ResQ Restoration Quarterly
RevQ Revue de Qumran
RevScRel Revue des sciences religieuses
RSV Revised Standard Version
SBEC Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity
SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
Scr Scripture
SE Studia Evangelica I, II, III ( = TU 73 [1959], 87 [1964], 88
[1964], etc.)
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SR Studies in Religion I Sciences religieuses
STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
StudBL Studies in Biblical Literature
SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha
TDNT Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W.
Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-)
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
UBSGNT United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament
VC Vigiliae christianae
VCSup Supplements to Vigiliae christianae
VD Verbum domini
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZNW Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
Xll Echoes of a Prophet
Table of Abbreviations for Ancient Works

1 En. 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch
2 En. 2 (Slavonic) Enoch
2 Bar. 2 (Syriac) Baruch [= Apocalypse of Baruch]
3 Bar. 3 (Greek) Baruch
4 Bar. 4 Baruch
4 Ezra 4 Ezra [= 2 Esd. 3-14]
4 Mace. 4 Maccabees
Ant. Antiquities of the Jews
Agr. De agricultura
Asc. Isa. Ascension of Isaiah
Barn. Barnabas
Ep. Epistle of Barnabas
Jub. Jubilees
Liv. Proph. Lives of the Prophets
Men. Menahot
Peshikta R. Peshikta Rabbati
Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon
Sot. Sotah
Spec. Leg. De specialibus legibus
Sukk. Sukkah
T. Jud. Testament of Judah
T. Levi Testament of Levi
T. Mos. Testament of Moses
T Zeb. Testament of Zebulon
Targ. 1 Sam. Targum on 1 Samuel
Targ. Ezek. Targum on Ezekiel
Targ. Jer. Targum on Jeremiah
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND METHOD
The Gospel of John contains some of the most powerful images of Jesus
that can be found in the Gospels. Jesus is described as the good shepherd
and the true vine; the Holy Spirit flows as water and breath from him. Part
of the power of these images lies in their antiquity. Shepherd, vine, water
and breath had already served as powerful symbols in the Scriptures of
Israel. In John's quest to explain the significance of Jesus, he draws on
these images that were already familiar to his readers. While John uses
images and quotations from the full range of the Old Testament, these
particular images, as well as a few others, bear the stamp of one of Israel's
most unusual prophets, Ezekiel. Ezekiel had the disconcerting habit of
using familiar metaphors in unfamiliar ways;1 perhaps it is not surprising
to find John using Ezekiel's metaphors in new ways to describe Jesus and
his followers. In many cases, John combines metaphors from Ezekiel and
other passages from the Old Testament; sometimes, there is a hint that
Ezekiel provides for John a sort of window on the rest of the Scriptures.
When John uses images from Ezekiel, we have the opportunity to
overhear a sort of conversation between the prophet and the Evangelist.
Ezekiel speaks, and John repeats; but John's iteration is not merely an
echo. Each of Ezekiel's metaphors is re-expressed. The original purpose of
the metaphor is usually still visible in John's retelling; but in each case,
John applies Ezekiel's metaphor to Christ and his community.
John was not the first to use these images from Ezekiel; other authors in
Second Temple Judaism had also used and modified Ezekiel's metaphors.
What follows in this study is an attempt to hear these various
'conversations' with Ezekiel, and thus to understand John's application
of Ezekiel's oracles to Jesus Christ.
1. Scholars of Ezekiel typically observe his tendency to play with common metaphors. As
Durlesser points out, Ezekiel's 'allegories experimented with unconventional aspects of
conventionalized metaphors, and provided... new details, aberrant shifts, and bizarre twists.'
J.A. Durlesser, 'The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of Ezekiel' (unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1988), p. iv.
2 Echoes of a Prophet
1. Previous Work on EzekieVs Influence on John

Four monographs on John's use of the Old Testament have been published
in the last century.2 However, these deal only with explicit OT quotations,
and so are of limited value for this study, since John never quotes Ezekiel.
Numerous commentaries and articles on John have cited possible allusions
to Ezekiel in several passages in John; usually, however, Ezekiel is merely
listed as one of many OT background passages.3 Several dissertations and
monographs make significant mention of Ezekiel's influence on John.4
Other dissertations deal with Ezekiel's influence on Second Temple
literature.5
Only one dissertation, however, has been devoted to the relationship
between John and Ezekiel. William Fowler's The Influence of Ezekiel in
the Fourth Gospel: Intertextuality and Interpretation'6 provides a
comparison of John's and Ezekiel's 'theological vocabulary' (words used
by both authors fifty times or more, or used in the T am' statements).
Fowler's analysis of the main 'points of contact' between John and Ezekiel
2. E.H. Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (NovTSup, 11; Leiden: E J .
Brill, 1965); M.JJ. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual
Form (Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996); G. Reim, Das alttestamentliche
Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums (SNTSMS, 22; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1974); B.G. Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and Function
in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John (SBLDS, 133; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1992).
3. For example, Schnackenburg proposes multiple background texts for John 10: Ezek.
34.23f.; Mic. 5.1-3; Zech. 11.15-17; 13.7-9; Ps. 23.2; 1 Chron. 4.40; and Isa. 49.9f. This sort of
list suggests the exploration of a symbol rather than the examination of a parallel. R.
Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (trans. K. Smyth et al.; HTCNT; 3 vols;
New York: Herder and Herder, 1968-1982), vol. 2, pp. 293, 295.
4. B.A. Fikes, 'A Theological Analysis of The Shepherd-King Motif in Ezekiel 34'
(unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1995); J.W.
Vancil, 'The Symbolism of the Shepherd in Biblical, Intertestamental, and New Testament
Material' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dropsie University, 1975); M.W. Woods, 'The
Use of the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel: The Hermeneutical Significance for
Contemporary Biblical Interpretation' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980).
5. S. Fujita, T h e Temple Theology of the Qumran Sect and the Book of Ezekiel: Their
Relationship to Jewish Literature of the Last Two Centuries B.C.' (unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1970); R. Nurmela, 'Prophets in Dialogue:
Inner-Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1-8 and 9-14' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Abo
Akademi (Finland), 1996); C. Rowland, 'The Influence of the First Chapter of Ezekiel on
Jewish and Early Christian Literature' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge
University, 1974).
6. W.G. Fowler, 'The Influence of Ezekiel in the Fourth Gospel: Intertextuality and
Interpretation' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Golden Gate Baptist Theological
Seminary, 1995).
1. Introduction and Method 3
proves a useful resource for this study. However, this study will part with
Fowler's in a few important ways. First, Fowler's method of using the
authors' 'theological vocabulary' is not the most useful method for tracing
Ezekiel's influence. It causes Fowler to overlook or downplay passages in
John and Ezekiel that are clearly parallel yet do not use many of the words
on Fowler's list. In other cases, Fowler's method of moving from
theological vocabulary to thematic parallel produces parallels that are
unpersuasive, or that could be demonstrated to be parallels more
persuasively by attention to particular parallel passages.
Because of these differences in methodology, this study will diverge from
Fowler's in three ways. First, this study focuses more attention on John's
allusions to specific passages in Ezekiel. Second, this study attempts to
place John's use of Ezekiel within the context of Second Temple usage of
Ezekiel. Third, although this study will agree with Fowler on several of the
particular 'points of contact' between John and Ezekiel, it will disagree
with Fowler on the relative significance of these points of contact with
Ezekiel.
2. Intertextuality
The study of intertextuality begins with the assumption that a literary
work can best be understood when its indebtedness to earlier literary
works is analyzed.7 This belief is not unique to modern intertextual study;
historical-critical scholarship has long acknowledged the value of
searching for parallels between biblical texts and earlier texts (biblical or
otherwise). Twentieth-century New Testament scholarship exerted a great
deal of effort in finding parallels to NT literature. Such parallels might
demonstrate direct verbal dependence on an earlier source, or suggest the
source of theological ideas, or provide insight into the thought-world of
the NT era. This labor resulted in impressive lists of parallel passages. In
fact, because early twentieth-century scholarship was so ready to discover
parallels to earlier literature, most of the parallels discussed today have
already been noticed.
However, such 'background studies' were often hampered by a lack of
clear methodology. In some cases, it was unclear what sort of parallel
was implied, or whether the parallel indicated dependence in either
7. Paulien emphasizes this importance: 'To the extent that an interpreter misses an
author's allusion to previous literature, that interpreter will misunderstand the author's
intention.' J. Paulien, Decoding Revelation's Trumpets: Literary Allusions and the Interpreta-
tion of Revelation 8:7-12 (AUSS, 11; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1987),
p. 168, also citing J. Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), pp. 65-66.
direction between the two documents. There was a tendency to find

parallel texts that actually had very little parallel material, or were
historically very unlikely to have been available to the author. The lack
of controls on identifying parallels led to producing 'laundry lists' of
parallel passages. In other cases, scholars arbitrarily focused on one
particular parallel text. The classic example of this is Bultmann's work on
the Good Shepherd discourse. Despite his excellent observation that
John's Good Shepherd had parallels to Numbers 27, Jeremiah 23, and
Ezekiel 34, Bultmann decided that the scattered references to a shepherd
in the Mandean literature were the primary source of John's shepherd
imagery.8
An important correction to these problems came from Samuel
Sandmel in his influential article, 'Parallelomania.'9 Sandmel made a
number of sharp criticisms about the way in which many scholars
adduced parallels between the NT and other Jewish literature. Some of
his suggestions are worth examining here, because they had an important
influence on later background studies. First, Sandmel argued for closer
attention to the context of the proposed parallel: 'Detailed study is the
criterion; the detailed study ought to respect the context and not be
limited to juxtaposing mere excerpts. Two passages may sound the same
in splendid isolation from their context, but when seen in context reflect
difference rather than similarity.'10 Second, and related to the first, was
Sandmel's focus on discovering the meaning of the parallel material and
its role in its new setting. It is not enough to point out a proposed
parallel; one must also see how the author used the 'borrowed' material.11
Third, Sandmel insisted that scholars pay attention to the creativity of
the later author. Not only may some material be original to the NT
author, but further, the NT author may have purposely altered the
parallel material.12 Fourth, Sandmel pointed out that not all parallels
illustrate dependence. Some parallels arise out of the common Judaism of
the authors; some parallels occur when both authors have independently
drawn on an earlier text; and some parallels are trivial or coincidental.
Especially when the dating of the various texts is in doubt, it is
sometimes difficult to establish the direction of the dependence.13 Finally,
Sandmel argued against a polemical or biased use of parallels - e.g.,
making artificial distinctions between Jesus' sayings and similar rabbinic
8. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John (trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray, R.W.N. Hoare, and
J.K. Riches; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), pp. 364^67.
9. S. Sandmel, Tarallelomania', JBL 81 (1962), pp. 1-13.
10. Sandmel, Tarallelomania', p. 2.
sayings to the detriment of the latter.14 All of these suggestions have

corrected and refined the study of parallels to the NT.
In more recent years, the study of parallels to the NT has been
supplemented by a focus on intertextuality in literary studies. In some
ways, intertextuality is merely a new formulation of the historical-critical
study of literary parallels. The main difference has been an increased focus
on the conversation between the later work and its literary ancestors.15
Intertextual studies have sought to understand how (e.g.) a New Testament
author understood his Old Testament source and adapted material from
the older text for use in his own work. The study of intertextuality has only
begun when a possible parallel in earlier literature is discovered. From
there, the student of intertextuality seeks to learn how the later author
interacts with the source document, transforms it, and uses it to advance
the later work.
Intertextual study considers the two overlapping contexts of an allusion
or quotation. Every allusion needs to be examined as an element in both
the source document and the alluding document.16 The later author may
have used an allusive phrase to remind the readers of the entire passage
from which the phrase was drawn. The allusion may be intended to recall a
particular theme or complex of ideas in the original passage.17 Intertextual
study also pays close attention to the role of the allusion in its new
context.18 Finally, intertextual studies consider the congruence between
14. Sandmel, 'Parallelomania', pp. 10-13.

15. Hays defines intertextuality as 'the imbedding of fragments of an earlier text within a
later one.' R.B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1989), p. 14.
16. Unfortunately, there are few consistently used technical terms in the field of biblical
intertextuality. The text to which a later text alludes is called 'earlier' or 'precursor' (Hays,
Echoes, pp. 24, 30); 'source' (C. A. Evans, Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological
Background of John's Prologue (JSNTSup, 89; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp.
18-19); 'previous literature' 'prior literature' or 'background passage' (Paulien, Trumpets, pp.
168, 178, 184); 'subtext' (A.D. Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis in the Apocalypse: The
Significance of the Old Testament for the Christology of Revelation' (unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001), p. 41); or 'former text' (Fowler,
'Influence', p. 13). I use the terms 'source' and 'earlier' interchangeably, as well as 'alluding'
and 'later.'
17. Hays describes this phenomenon thus: 'Allusive echo functions to suggest to the
reader that text B should be understood in light of a broad interplay with text A,
encompassing aspects of A beyond those explicitly echoed.' Hays, Echoes, p. 20.
18. In his examination of the OT quotations in John, Freed points out that this had often
been neglected: 'Torrey and others have paid too little attention to the contexts of which the
quotations are a part and to the theological motives and stylistic methods of the writers... In
every instance [John's] quoted text appears to be adapted to its immediate context, to his
literary style, and to the whole plan of the composition of his gospel.' Freed, Old Testament
Quotations, p. 129.
these two contexts. In many cases, an allusion provides a skillful link

between two passages that have similar themes or theological aims.19
An allusion can be pictured as the narrow neck of an hourglass, allowing
meaning to flow through it from the source document to the alluding
document. The allusion itself consists of only a phrase or combination of a
few words, but it allows the reader to make further connections between
the old passage and the new. If only the allusive words are analyzed, the
allusion does not have its full impact. The allusion serves its intended
function best when the reader observes its old and new contexts, sees the
congruence between those contexts, and makes the connections only hinted
at by the allusion.
The goal of this book is to analyze the role of allusions to Ezekiel in the
Gospel of John in light of allusions to Ezekiel in other literature of the
Second Temple period. Such an approach might be called 'comparative
intertextuality.' Typically, intertextual studies seek to find the literary
background of a single work. They analyze the conversation between a
later work and its earlier literary influences. Comparative intertextuality is
an attempt to place the intertextual conversations found in a single work
within the context of similar intertextual conversations found in other
works.
In the case of this study, such an approach attempts to triangulate
John's usage of Ezekiel. A straightforward study of John's use of Ezekiel is
certainly useful; but it can be one-dimensional. Studying John's allusions
to Ezekiel alone gives no sense of what is remarkable or what is
commonplace in Second Temple literature. The observation that the good
shepherd in John 10 derives from Ezekiel 34 is certainly true. It is also
likely that John's use of Ezekiel here points to Jesus' status as God's agent
and even hints that Jesus is the 'Son of David.' These are useful
observations, but still only based on the linear relationship between John
and Ezekiel. A comparison with the use of Ezekiel 34 in 1 Enoch 89-90 and
in Psalm of Solomon 17 adds more dimensions to the intertextual
relationship. We discover how John's use of Ezekiel 34 fits roughly within
the range of what other authors did with that passage, but we also discover
a few unique emphases in John's use of Ezekiel.20
This approach is not new, but it has not been widely practiced until near
the end of the twentieth century. Several works on allusions in John or
Revelation compare the use of those allusions to the use of similar
allusions in Second Temple literature. Works by Allison, Beale, Johnson,
19. Hultberg agrees with this in his suggestion that 'Profundity of one's allusions is
signaled by the integration of the theme or structure of the subtext in the new text as well as by
the genre or general tone of the new text itself.' Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', p. 42.
20. See pp. 132-5.
Moyise, and Vogelgesang make extensive comparisons between OT

allusions found in Revelation and OT allusions found in other apocalyptic
literature or in the DSS.21 Dissertations and monograph by Daise,
Johnson, Meeks, and Vander Hoek22 pay some attention to this
comparison, while works by Hultberg, Nash, Paulien, and Winsor make
such comparisons only in passing.23
3. Methodology
The goal of this book is to analyze John's use of material from Ezekiel in
light of the use of Ezekiel in other literature of the Second Temple period.
Because of the danger of misusing parallels (discussed above), it is
important to follow a clear method in the analysis of allusions.
Many of the intertextual studies mentioned above carefully describe
their methodology for identifying and analyzing allusions, while others
allow the reader to discover the methods used. In general, the studies of
Revelation have been the most profitable in this regard, probably because
the complexity of allusions in Revelation requires the use of careful and
consistent methods. All of the methods used in this monograph are
informed by previous work on allusions and intertextuality. In some cases,
my methods have only been adopted or adapted after tracking down
numerous allusions in the DSS, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and
the New Testament. The methods used thus influence the allusions that are
21. D.C. Allison, Scriptural Allusions in the New Testament: Light from the Dead Sea
Scrolls (DSSCOL 5; North Richland Hills, Tex.: BIBAL, 2000); G.K. Beale, 'Revelation', in
D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture
(Festschrift B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 318-36; D.H.
Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob: The Role of the Jacob Narrative in the Fourth Gospel compared
to its role in the Jewish Bible and in the Writings of Early Judaism' (unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1992); S. Moyise, The Old Testament in the
Book of Revelation (JSNTSup, 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); J.M.
Vogelgesang, 'The Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation' (unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Harvard University, 1985).
22. M.A. Daise, '"Rivers of Living Water" as New Creation and New Exodus: A
Traditio-historical Vantage Point for the Exegetical Problems and Theology of John 7:37-39'
(unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000); W.A. Meeks, The
Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup, 14; Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1967); G.W. Vander Hoek, 'The Function of Psalm 82 in the Fourth Gospel and History
of the Johannine Community: A Comparative Midrash Study' (unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1988).
23. Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis'; S.B. Nash, 'Kingship and the Psalms in the Fourth
Gospel' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000);
Paulien, Trumpets', A.R. Winsor, 'A King is Bound in the Tresses: Allusions to the Song of
Songs in the Fourth Gospel' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate Theological Union,
1996).
discovered, and allusions that are discovered sometimes influence the

methods used. For example, a simplistic approach to intertextuality might
only look for passages that show extensive and precise verbal parallel. But
then, despite the strictness of the method, other clear allusions arise that do
not fit the initial criteria, and the scholar is forced to revise the criteria to
include such allusions.
a. Select Passages with Possible Allusions

The first step in 'comparative intertextuality' is to locate passages, in John
and in Second Temple literature, that are worth examining for the
possibility of Ezekiel's influence on the later work. In one sense, this is a
'pre-step' - the details of this search will not normally be described at
length in this study (nor are they described in other intertextual studies).
Nevertheless, the approach to finding possible parallels, as opposed to the
methods for demonstrating allusion or dependence, is worth a few
comments.
First, intertextual study begins with the prime criterion of availability:
an allusion is only possible if the author had access to the earlier work.24
All the arguments for dependence between two documents are pointless if
it is unlikely that the later author had access to the earlier work. The
application of this criterion is especially important when comparing
documents of disputed date, such as rabbinical material and the NT. In
this study, this criterion needs little discussion, since all the Second Temple
authors that we will study had access to Ezekiel. Access to particular text
forms of Ezekiel is debatable, but rarely matters in the particular examples
we will examine.
Once it is established that the author had access to the earlier work, then
the search for possible allusions can begin. Sections of the later work can
be broken down into key words and phrases. For example, the Good
Shepherd discourse of John 10 can be broken down into a list of significant
shepherding terms and phrases. Then possible allusions can be found by
searching for occurrences of those phrases and words, as well as for
synonyms and cognates, in the LXX. In some cases, the search needs to be
broadened by looking for the occurrence of Hebrew synonyms in the
Masoretic Text, especially where no Greek counterpart is available (for
example, there are more viticultural terms in the Hebrew of the MT than in
the Greek of the LXX). OT passages that combine several of the terms or
phrases under consideration suggest themselves as possible references for
the allusion. This approach usually leads to several OT passages with
parallels to the metaphor in the later passage. In some cases, it is clear that
24. Evans, Word and Glory, pp. 18—19; Hays, Echoes, p. 29; Hultberg, 'Messianic
Exegesis', p. 37; Paulien, Trumpets, pp. 179-80.
a passage in Ezekiel contains more of the key terms and phrases than any
other text proposed for the allusive passage. In other cases, Ezekiel does
not necessarily share more of the Johannine words and phrases, but it
seems that the two passages in Ezekiel and John use some key words in the
same way.
In other cases, discovery of parallels between a later work and Ezekiel
results from a less methodical approach - simple familiarity with both
texts, achieved by repeated reading. Finally, secondary literature often
suggests possible parallels that then require verification and analysis. The
history of interpretation provides an important check on the investigation
of allusions. If an allusion has never been noticed before, then it is less
likely to be genuine.25
b. Establish the Strength of the Allusion

The second step in comparative intertextuality is to assess the strength, or
'volume,'26 of the allusion. The main criteria for the strength of an allusion
to an earlier work are 1) the number of similar words and phrases 2) used
in similar ways 3) when compared against other possible sources. These
three criteria establish a unique verbal parallel between two passages. The
strength of the allusion can be further established by the presence of 4)
structural parallels, 5) repeated allusions to the same or nearby passages,
and 6) resonance or congruence between the original context and the new
context of the allusion. Each of these criteria will be examined in turn.
1) The more words and phrases that two documents have in common,
the clearer the allusion is.27 The allusion is clearest when the two works
share common words, but the later work may also allude to the earlier via
synonyms or cognate words. In some cases, the use of synonyms or
cognates may be due to different text traditions, or allusion to either the
Greek or Hebrew text, or faulty memory by the later author. In other
25. Hays suggests that the history of interpretation provides at best a negative criterion
for detecting allusions. Hays, Echoes, p. 31.
26. Hays, Echoes, p. 30.
27. This is a common criterion in background and intertextual studies. Chilton calls it
'dictional coherence' (B.D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenance of the
Isaiah Targum (JSOTSup, 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), p. 21); Hultberg calls it the
'criteria of correspondence' (Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp. 40-41). See also G.K. Beale,
The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham,
Md.: University Press of America, 1984), pp. 308-09; Hays, Echoes, p. 29; J.D. Huntzinger,
'The End of Exile: A Short Commentary on the Shepherd/Sheep Metaphor in Exilic and Post-
Exilic Prophetic and Synoptic Gospel Literature' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuller
Theological Seminary, 1999), pp. 152-55; S.F. Mathews, 'A Critical Evaluation of the
Allusions to the Old Testament in Apocalypse 1:1-8:5' (unpublished doctoral dissertation,
The Catholic University of America, 1987), pp. 11-12; Paulien, Trumpets, pp. 179-80;
Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 15-16.
cases, the words or syntax may have been intentionally altered for stylistic
reasons, to update older language, or to fit the language or theology of the
later context.
From a statistical point of view, phrases are far more suggestive of
allusion than are single words.28 A later work may coincidentally use three
separated words that can be found in an earlier passage, but if those three
words are found in a single phrase common to both works, the allusion
seems deliberate. Thus, a single phrase in common between two texts may
be more important than several shared words not in phrases. For example,
Ezek. 17.23-24 and Jn 15.6 both contain the words KAfpa (branch) and
SrpouvG) (wither). However, the two words are separated in Ezek. 17.23-24,
and it is not the branches that wither. Ezek. 19.12 is a closer parallel to Jn
15.6 because both combine the parallel words in a phrase (e&paveri r\
Although quantity of parallel words and phrases is important, some

allusions are clear because of their use of distinctive words. Like the text-
critical dictum, words should be 'weighed, not counted': single, distinctive
words may increase the probability of allusion more than several non-
distinctive words.29 When John uses the rare word kiifyvoau to describe
Jesus breathing the Spirit on the disciples (Jn 20.22), it seems quite likely
that he intends to recall Ezek. 37.9, 14, which uses the same word to
describe God giving his Spirit to the exiles.30
2) The proposed allusion is stronger the more that the shared vocabulary
is used in similar ways. That is, the allusion is clearer if the allusive words
and phrases have the same narrative role or theological purpose in the two
passages.31 If two passages use similar words, but those words have
28. Several authors suggest a criterion similar to this one: Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 308-
09; Hays, Echoes, p. 29. On the other hand, some authors pay too much attention to single
words to the neglect of phrases, such as Huntzinger, 'End of Exile', pp. 152-55.
29. K. Berding, Poly carp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and Theological
Relationship in Light of Poly carp's Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Literature (VCSup, 62;
Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. 29.
30. See pp. 165-66.
31. Evans suggests something similar when he asks if the parallels show a 'meaningful
relationship of language and conceptually.' (Evans, Word and Glory, pp. 18-19; cf. Chilton,
Glory of Israel, p. 21). Beale's 'aggregate of evidence' (Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 309-10) and
Hultberg's clearer 'criterion of aggregation' (Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp. 40-41) also
call for an overlap of verbal and conceptual parallel, although they do not phrase it in quite
this way. Some scholars have seen verbal parallel as a less important criterion than others
precisely because this second aspect is overlooked. For example, Paulien sees the presence of
verbal parallels as important in the detection of allusions, but notes that such parallels 'may
prove to be merely superficial or fortuitous' (Paulien, Trumpets, p. 186). But if the shared
vocabulary is linked to shared narrative role, then such superficial or accidental parallels will
be excluded.
different functions in the two passages, then the parallel is relatively weak.
For example, C.H. Dodd suggests that the use of compounds of epxo|ioa
and ixyco (with elo- and &;-) in John 10 has a parallel in Ezekiel 34.32
However, these word groups have different roles in the two passages. In
Ezekiel 34, they are used to describe God leading his flock out of exile and
into the land. In John's image of the shepherd, the words are used to
describe the entry of the shepherd into the fold, his freedom to lead the
sheep out to good pasture, and his plan to bring in other sheep. Thus, the
appointment of Joshua in Numbers 27 is the more likely background for
John's use of these words, since there the same words are used to describe
the leader's entry before the people, and his role in freely leading the
people in and out.33
3) The strength of the allusion is also established by comparison with
other possible parallel passages. If the two texts uniquely share the
proposed parallel (i.e., no other proposed parallel text has the same
material), then the allusion becomes stronger and more credible.34 For
example, Psalm 23 might be proposed as the source of John's shepherd
imagery (based on shared words and ideas); but clearly, Ezekiel 34 is the
more likely candidate, since John shares words, phrases, and ideas with
Ezekiel 34 that are not found in Psalm 23.35 If two works uniquely share a
particular phrase, it becomes quite likely that the later work is alluding to
the earlier work. Conversely, if the phrase in question can be found in a
number of earlier works, demonstrating allusion to only one of them is
difficult. For example, the phrase 'like sheep without a shepherd' in the
Synoptic tradition (Mk 6.34/Mt. 9.36) can hardly be claimed to derive only
from Ezekiel 34,36 since that phrase can be found in various forms in six
books of the OT. Therefore, whenever possible, this study will compare
32. C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1965), pp. 358-59.
33. See pp. 103-110.
34. Hultberg calls this the 'criterion of uniqueness' (Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp.
40-41). The use of this criterion is implied in Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 309-10; Paulien,
Trumpets, p. 186; and Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', p. 15. Strangely, this is neglected by Hays
in his description of methodology, although he seems to occasionally use it in passing (e.g.,
Hays, Echoes, p. 24).
35. Nielsen proposes both Psalm 23 and Isaiah 53 as background for John 10; but neither
of these have as many words or ideas in common with John 10 as Ezekiel 34. K. Nielsen, 'Old
Testament Imagery in John', in J. Nissen and S. Pedersen (eds), New Readings in John:
Literary and Theological Perspectives (JSNTSup, 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1999), pp. 66-82 (77).
36. Contra Huntzinger, who recognizes that the phrase can be found in various OT books,
yet still emphasizes Ezekiel as the primary background text for Mk 6.34. Huntzinger, 'End of
Exile', pp. 190-91,251.
proposed source passages to see which is the most likely source of the
allusion.37
In some cases, authors allude to more than one OT passage. Careful
attention to the criteria suggested here will also aid in finding these
combined allusions. As part of the exploration of the use of Ezekiel in the
Dead Sea Scrolls, Chapter 2 will explore how some authors combine
multiple allusions through the use of catchwords or common themes.
Once the strength of an allusion is established - by the presence of
similar words and phrases, used in similar ways, when compared with
other possible source texts - then other criteria can be brought to bear as
supporting evidence for the presence of the allusion.
4) Structural parallel is the similarity of order or outline in two passages.
By itself, structural parallel may not be conclusive, but if verbal
dependence has already been demonstrated, then similar structures in the
two texts can add to the evidence for the presence of the allusion.38
5) Repeated reference to the same earlier work is supporting evidence.
One allusion is evidence for another: when one allusion to Ezekiel is
detected within a text, this can be used as evidence for a nearby allusion to
Ezekiel.39 The first allusion serves as evidence that the author is familiar
with, and interested in, material from Ezekiel. This evidence becomes
stronger if successive allusions are to the same passage in the source text,
and if the allusions in the later passage occur in proximity.40 For example,
the Damascus Document makes a clear allusion to Ezekiel's 'builders of the
barrier' (CD 19.33/Ezek. 13.10). Only a few lines later, the Damascus
Document describes being 'enrolled' in the 'council of the people' -
language that sounds typical of the DSS, but is actually an allusion to
Ezek. 13.9. The fact that two allusions to the same oracle in Ezekiel can be
found in such close succession provides evidence for both allusions.
37. Strictly speaking, this 'criterion of uniqueness' only strengthens the evidence for the
allusion from the reader's perspective, not the allusion itself. In other words, if John wanted to
make sure that his readers would sense an allusion, he would add more allusive phrases. He
would be less likely to draw attention to the allusion by carefully picking out phrases that were
unique to the earlier passage.
38. I downplay the role of structural parallel here, as does Hays. Brawley (R.L. Brawley,
'An Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28-29', JBL 112 (1993), pp. 427-43
(436-37)) agrees on subordinating structure and repeated reference to straightforward verbal
parallel. Studies of intertextuality in Revelation, however, tend to put much greater weight on
structural parallel. Cf. Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 307-08; Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp.
38-39; Paulien, Trumpets, p. 185; Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', p. 16.
39. This use of evidence, termed 'the criterion of concurrence' by Hultberg, is used by a
number of authors: Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 307-08; Berding, Poly carp and Paul, p. 28; Hays,
Echoes, p. 30; Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp. 3 9 ^ 0 ; Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', p. 15.
40. Berding, Poly carp and Paul, pp. 28-29.
6) Finally, supporting evidence for the presence of allusion can be found

in the 'resonance' between two texts. Two texts can be said to resonate
when their contexts deal with similar themes and ideas.41 A proposed
allusion extending only to a short phrase may seem rather weak; but if the
surrounding contexts of the phrase in both passages touch on the same
themes and ideas, the allusion may be rather strong. For example, the
allusion to Num. 27.16-23 in Jn 10.1-9 can be established by several
parallel words and phrases related to leading and hearing. This parallel
becomes striking, however, only when the resonance between the two
passages is noticed. John 10 uses leading and listening language to defend
the legitimacy of Jesus' role as true shepherd or leader of Israel. Numbers
27 uses similar language to describe the legitimacy of Joshua's leadership
over Israel, so that 'the congregation of the Lord will not be like sheep who
have no shepherd' (Num. 27.16).42 Such resonance between passages is
quite common in genuine allusions.
A word should be added here about the relationship between 'echoes'
and 'allusions.' Although all scholars do not use these terms exactly the
same way, many treat 'echoes' as subsets of 'allusions.' An allusion is any
non-quoted reference to a previous work; an 'echo' is a fainter allusion.
Hays distinguishes the two on the basis of volume: echoes fulfill the criteria
for allusions less clearly (although he often uses the two terms
interchangeably, as do I).43 Others use intentionality as the distinguishing
factor.44 Allusions (or 'direct allusions') are intended by the author,
whereas echoes are the unconscious use of language from the earlier
work.45 Thus, direct allusions are intended to draw the reader's attention to
the source text, whereas echoes are part of the author's pattern of writing,
41. This is similar to Hultberg's 'criterion of aggregation,' which suggests that the
presence of verbal, thematic, and structural parallels increases the probability that the allusion
is genuine. Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp. 40-41; cf. Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 307-08,
327. Hays does not list resonance as a criterion for establishing allusion, but he describes the
phenomenon as 'resonant overtones' (Hays, Echoes, p. 21). In the realm of explicit quotations,
Freed points out the value of observing both the original context and the new context of an
OT citation. Freed, Old Testament Quotations, p. 129.
42. See pp. 103-104.
43. Hays, Echoes, p. 29.
44. Beale, Hultberg, and Paulien see the determination of the author's intent in the
allusion as both possible and necessary. Part of their concern is natural to the study of
Revelation: they need to distinguish between genuine allusions to OT texts and 'stock
apocalyptic language'. However, Beale recognizes that authorial intent is often slippery. Thus,
for Beale, the 'validity' of an allusion 'can be established without coming to a final decision
concerning a writer's consciousness of the reference.' Beale, Use of Daniel, pp. 307, cf. 306;
Hultberg, 'Messianic Exegesis', pp. 41-43; Paulien, Trumpets, pp. 172-73, 175.
45. Hollander makes a more subtle distinction: 'echo is a metaphor of, and for, alluding,
and does not depend on conscious allusion.' Hollander, The Figure of Echo, pp. 65-66.
unconsciously absorbed from the source texts.46 This is clearly a valid

distinction: all writers can attest the fact that other works influence their
diction even when no allusion is intended. However, in most cases, it seems
difficult for the modern interpreter to read the mind of the author and
discern between intended allusions and unintended echoes. Furthermore,
in most cases, it may not be necessary to determine whether the allusion
was intended or not. If an allusion is sufficiently strong, readers may be
reminded of the source whether the author made a conscious allusion or
not. In our attempt to understand John's use of the OT, even unconscious
echoes may be of value. Of course, very strong allusions are quite likely
intentional. Conversely, very weak allusions may only give us a hint about
common phrases of the first century, or the allusions may exist only in the
interpreter's mind. These very weak allusions should probably be excluded
from consideration. In general, it seems better to discuss the strength of the
allusion itself, rather than the author's intention.47
c. Determine the Use of the Allusion

Intertextual study has only begun once the presence of an allusion is
established. As C.A. Evans put it, 'Is the parallel meaningful? Although
this sometimes may be forgotten, this is the real reason for searching for
backgrounds and sources of biblical passages.'48 Since intertextuality is
concerned with the conversation between a work and its sources,
intertextual analysis must move to an examination of the meaning of the
allusion. The first step in this examination is to discern the role of the
allusion in its new context; to answer the question, 'How does the allusion
advance the narrative or theology of the passage?'49 In order to understand
John's allusion to Jeremiah's 'true vine' (Jer. 2.21) in Jn 15.1, we need to
46. Paulien further discusses the unconscious aspect of echoes. Paulien, Trumpets, pp.
172-73, 175.
47. Here I have tipped my hand somewhat, revealing my hermeneutical approach. Clearly
the author had intentions, and it is often possible to make some observations about those
intentions. However, this study primarily focuses on meaning as resident in the text itself,
without denying the importance of the meaning resident in the author or in the community of
readers. For further discussion of the intersection of intertextuality and the locus of meaning,
see Hays, Echoes, pp. 27-28.
48. Evans, Word and Glory, pp. 19-20; cf. Sandmel, 'Parallelomania', 5.
49. Some scholars, such as Hays (31-32, 34-35) and Vogelgesang (15-16), have used this
'usefulness' as a criterion for determining the strength of a proposed parallel. That is, a
parallel is more likely to be genuine if discerning its presence illumines the passage. There is
some value to this; in general, a hypothesis in any field of knowledge is more credible the more
explanatory power it has. However, as Hultberg points out, 'usefulness' as a criterion 'relies
too much on the ingenuity (or lack thereof) of the exegete...' He sees it, at best, as a negative
criterion - a proposed allusion that has no explanatory value may not be genuine. Hultberg,
'Messianic Exegesis', p. 39.
observe how the 'true vine' allusion advances the discourse of John 15. In
John 15, the 'true vine' suggests that Jesus is the only source of life, in
contrast to any other possible vines; the allusion to the failure of Israel as
God's vine in Jeremiah 2 suggests that Israel is one such false vine.
Second, we can begin to understand the significance of the allusion by
observing any modifications that were made to the original wording or
image.50 For example, Ps. Sol. 17.28, 41 describes the just re-allocation of
land under the coming messianic king, using language drawn from Ezek.
45.8; 47.13, 21-22. However, Ezekiel's expectation is that resident aliens
will be adopted into the tribes of Israel, while Psalm of Solomon 17 expects
that there will no longer be any aliens in Israel. Observing this modification
aids in understanding the emphases and theology of Psalms of Solomon
17.51
Analyzing the modification or use of the allusion is possible only when
the two contexts are carefully analyzed. In each case in this study, we will
examine the meaning and role of the allusive phrase both in its original
context and in its new allusive setting. A change in the role or meaning of
the allusive material can indicate anything from a new application of the
source text, to a mild redirection or reinterpretation of the source text, to a
sharp disagreement with the source text. Allusions thus allow us to see the
author's indirect or unstated interpretation of the earlier work. In general,
most of the allusions in Second Temple literature examined in this study
show only subtle variations from their original sense.52 What is startling
about many of these allusions in Second Temple literature is not their
interpretation of the original texts, but their implicit claims that the
Scriptures to which they allude were now being fulfilled in a particular
person or in a particular community.
d. Compare to other use of Ezekiel in Literature of the Second Temple

Period
Many works of the Second Temple period allude to passages in Ezekiel. In
some cases, it is valuable to compare the usage of the same passage in
50. Hays suggests that 'The twofold task of a criticism attuned to such echoes, then, is (a)
to call attention to them so that others might be enabled to hear; and (b) to give an account of
the distortions and new figuration that they generate.' Hays, Echoes, p. 21. Schuchard does
something similar with OT quotations in John, although he does not address allusions. His
work argues that all of the modifications to John's OT citations are intentional. Schuchard,
Scripture within Scripture, pp. 151-52, 154.
51. See pp. 94-95.
52. This observation is now becoming commonplace as various scholars pursue
intertextual studies. For example, Beale notes that 'Repeatedly the various authors have
been shown to exhibit a strong tendency to respect the meaning of the O.T. contexts from
which they draw allusions.' Beale, Use of Daniel, p. 327; see also Moyise, The Old Testament in
the Book of Revelation, pp. 139-42.
Ezekiel in various works. For example, Ezekiel's images of vine and tree
(Ezekiel 15, 17, 19) seem to have influenced John 15 as well as the
agricultural imagery of the Hodayot. A comparison between the use of
Ezekiel in John 15 and the Hodayot allows a glimpse of a 'history of
interpretation' of Ezekiel, so to speak. Different elements of each allusion
can be compared: their roles in their respective works, the distinctive
modifications to the original images, and the implied understanding of
Ezekiel in the two later works.
In some cases, it is also useful to compare the modes of usage. Although
ancient writers rarely describe their methods of interpretation, it is often
possible to discern what methods were used, and how writers appealed to
Scripture. Certainly, the ancient authors did not neatly divide their
interpretations into clear types, but often their mode of interpretation can
be placed into a spectrum that ranges from prophecy-fulfillment to
typological to sapiential.
Wherever the interpretation falls in the spectrum, later writers expected
the works of Scripture to have relevance for their own time. In some cases,
they saw the details of Scripture as prophecies to be fulfilled. In most of
these cases, Second Temple authors interpreted the oracles of the writing
prophets as events that would later be fulfilled. Not all prophecies were
assigned to the future: in some cases, prophecies were seen as having
already been fulfilled in history, or as being fulfilled in the events of the
author's time.
In other cases, especially in the DSS, a sort of typological interpretation
can be observed. The term 'typology' needs some explanation, since it has
been used to mean anything from a precise method of interpretation to a
broad description of any connection between the OT and the NT.53 Not all
typology is the same: some focuses more on the later event (the antitype),
some more on the events in Scripture (the type); some seems more
allegorical, some more historical. There remains debate over the
distinction between typology and allegory, over the significance of
typology, and over the hermeneutical validity of typological interpreta-
tion.54 Despite those issues, various shades of typological interpretation
53. K.J. Woollcombe, 'The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology', in
G.W.H. Lampe and K J . Woollcombe (eds), Essays on Typology (SBT, 22; London: SCM
Press, 1957), pp. 39-75 (39).
54. Hays questions whether typology should be considered a method of interpretation,
since 'Typology forges imaginative correlations of events' that require a particular
understanding of the antitypical events (Hays, Echoes, p. 161). This is certainly valid;
nevertheless, typology is a repeatable mode of interpretation that can be shared by a
community that agrees on the status of the types and the antitypes as divine interventions.
Thus, Christians who believe that the same God worked both in the Passover and in the Cross
could independently observe the typological connections between the two.
can indeed be found in literature of the Second Temple period. Here I will
define typology as interpretation that makes theological, correspondent
connections between entities in Scripture and later entities.55 These entities
may be persons, historical events, or institutions. The typological
connections are theological in that they are logically based on the
continuity of God's action and character. The interpreter, believing that
God acts in a consistent fashion, expects to see correlation between God's
past work in the Scriptures and God's present work.56 The typological
connections are correspondent in that they expect some sort of repetition or
recapitulation of the entity in Scripture.57 This recapitulation is not
necessarily historical, although typology usually focuses on historical
entities. Instead, the interpreters of Scripture expected God to act again
with his people in a fashion that was consistent with his character and his
covenants. The interpreter expected that his comparison of the two entities
would add meaning to the antitypical event (in Scripture), the typological
'fulfillment,' or both.58
Finally, in some cases, the Scriptures were interpreted sapientially. That
is, the Scriptures provided timeless principles that could be used to guide
contemporary life, or to assign people or events to categories derived from
Scripture. While OT wisdom and law naturally lent itself to this sort of
55. Compare Woollcombe's definition of typology: ' . . . the establishment of historical

connexions between certain events, persons or things in the Old Testament and similar events,
persons or things in the New Testament.' Woollcombe and Lampe use this 'historical
connexion' as the primary way to distinguish between typology and allegory. G.W.H. Lampe,
'The Reasonableness of Typology', in G.W.H. Lampe and K.J. Woollcombe (eds), Essays on
Typology (SBT, 22; London: SCM Press, 1957), pp. 9-38 (31); Woollcombe, 'Typology', p. 39;
cf. I.H. Marshall, 'An Assessment of Recent Developments', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M.
Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Festschrift B. Lindars; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 1-21 (10). J. Barr rightly points out that the use of
history is a limited criterion for identifying typology, since some clear typology draws on non-
historical types (e.g., law, wisdom) or uses types in an ahistorical fashion. (J. Barr, Old and
New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), pp.
108-14). My definition is thus fundamentally theological, typology is a way of connecting
God's action in the past (in the Scriptures) with his later action (usually in events
contemporary to the author).
56. Ellis comments, 'Typological exegesis assumes a divine sovereignty over history, an
assumption that admittedly not everyone is prepared to accept.' E. Earle Ellis, foreword to L.
Goppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New (trans. D.H.
Madvig; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), p. xv.
57. Lampe comments, 'That the great events of Israel's past exhibited a certain pattern of
God's acts had indeed already been appreciated by some of the Old Testament writers
themselves. The prophets from time to time look forward in the future to a repetition or
recapitulation of the rhythm of divine action evident in the history of the past.' Lampe,
'Typology', 26.
58. Marshall, 'Assessment', 10.
interpretation, it could also be applied to narrative. Past events were seen

as providing positive or negative examples for moral or wise behavior.
When two works allude to the same passage, their reason for alluding to
the passage can also be compared. There seem to be three general reasons
why a later passage might allude to Ezekiel. A study of allusions to the rest
of the OT would probably discern other purposes for allusions; these are
merely the purposes I have observed in the use of allusions to Ezekiel. The
first is to describe or draw attention to a 'messianic' figure. By 'messianic,'
I accept P.M. Joyce's broad definition of that which 'vests future hopes in a
royal figure.'59 Passages in 1 Enoch, Psalm of Solomon 17, and John all use
allusions to Ezekiel to advance a messianic hope. Second, some works have
a community-centered purpose in alluding to Ezekiel. Such works use the
images in Ezekiel to explain or defend the identity of a particular
community. Most of the DSS use Ezekiel for this purpose, and some of the
allusions in John reflect community-centered concerns.60 Third, some
Second Temple authors used allusions to Ezekiel to show continuity
between the later writing and the OT prophetic tradition - in essence, to
bolster the authority of the later document. Of course, almost any
reference to Scripture is likely to have as part of its motivation an appeal to
authority; but in some cases, it appears that an allusion to Ezekiel has been
used primarily to build the authority of the later document. Some allusions
to Ezekiel's vision of the chariot seem to have this purpose.
Finally, comparison of the various uses of Ezekiel in later works can
lead to observations about the view of Scripture held by the later writers.
The mere presence of an allusion says little about an author's view of the
earlier work, since there are many possible reasons for the presence of an
allusion. Some allusions in the DSS are even designed to condemn the way
Scripture is used by outsiders. However, most allusions to Ezekiel in
Second Temple literature reveal that Ezekiel's words were regarded as
permanently authoritative and relevant. The words of the prophet
provided a prophecy that would later be fulfilled, or a picture of God's
action that would later be repeated, or an authoritative view of life that
should be followed in the present. In this sense, the later authors used the
Scriptures as the validating authority behind a comprehensive vision of
past, present, and future.
59. P.M. Joyce, 'King and Messiah in Ezekiel', in J. Day, (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel
and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup, 270;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 323-27 (326).
60. Hays sees something like these first two purposes in his 'christocentric' and
'ecclesiocentric' hermeneutics. He sees the use of the OT in the Gospels, and especially in
John, as christocentric, and the use of the OT in Paul as primarily ecclesiocentric. Hays,
Echoes, pp. xiii, 86.
These four steps for analyzing the presence and purpose of allusions are
only an ideal. For various reasons, each analysis of an allusion will omit
some of the steps. Only some of the criteria for establishing the strength of
the allusion will apply to any single allusion. In some cases, there is not
enough data to ask some of the comparative questions. In many cases, the
details of the first step (finding possible allusions) are too tedious to
describe at length. The last step, comparison to Second Temple literature,
will be reserved primarily for Chapters 4 and 5.
It should also be clear that the various steps are not always distinct.
Some of the steps involved in selecting possible allusions are also part of
establishing the strength of the allusion. Observing resonance between two
passages is part of establishing the strength of the allusion, but it also
serves in determining the role of the allusion in the later passage, and it
contributes to our understanding of the author's view of Ezekiel.
Comparative analysis of the use of Ezekiel is the final step, but can also
be a part of the third step, analyzing the use of an allusion within a text.
4. Focus of this Work

Even with a topic as apparently narrow as the use of Ezekiel in the Gospel
of John, some topics and data must be excluded. First, although a good
case could be made for examining the use of Ezekiel in second-century
literature, this study is limited to examining the use of Ezekiel in literature
up through AD 70. The impact of Ezekiel on later OT prophets, on other
NT writings, on the targumim, and on rabbinic literature is occasionally
mentioned, but not carefully examined.
Second, a few topics must be eliminated or saved for later research.
Although the topic of 'Son of Man' in Ezekiel and in John occasionally
arises in this book, a full study of that topic would require a separate
monograph. The breadth and depth of the secondary literature on the Son
of Man indicates that such a study would be too large to be relegated to a
subset of this monograph. Furthermore, since 'Son of Man' can be found
in all the Gospels, Ezekiel's Son of Man (arguably) should be studied as
part of the historical problem of Jesus' self-understanding rather than as a
literary background for the use of Son of Man in John.
Although the focus of this study is on the use of Ezekiel in John, it is
often necessary to analyze allusions to other OT or Second Temple
literature. It would be myopic, for example, to analyze the role of Ezekiel
15 in John 15 without noticing John's strong allusion to Jeremiah 2.
Background and intertextual studies have often overemphasized one
background text at the expense of others; analyzing the role of other
passages can prevent such an overly narrow focus.
Finally, it is quite likely that there are some broad theological

connections between John and Ezekiel that do not reveal themselves in
any single parallel. This study does not in general deal with such
connections, since my methodology deals only with recognizable parallels
between passages.61
5. Conventions
Throughout this work I refer to the Fourth Gospel and its author as
'John', without entering into the debate over authorship. That debate is
important to our understanding of the Gospel of John, but it does not
affect the study of John's allusions to the Old Testament. Likewise, debate
continues over John's representation of the historical Jesus. This book
cannot enter into that debate at any length, although Jesus' use of imagery
from Ezekiel could be used as a connecting point to the Synoptic view of
Jesus. Thus, I will use terminology such as 'John's use of Ezekiel' without
implying any conclusions about the relationship between dominical
sayings and John's accounts.
Translations of the New Testament, LXX, and other Greek literature
are my own, although in most cases the translations are similar to the
Revised Standard Version or the New American Standard. Translations of
the MT primarily follow the Revised Standard Version or the New
American Standard, but I occasionally diverge from those translations,
especially when it allows a clearer demonstration of verbal parallel. For
Second Temple literature, the translations are derived from the various
critical editions, although again I occasionally change the wording to show
verbal parallels more clearly.
6. Outline of the Book

Chapter 2 analyzes the use of Ezekiel in the DSS. Perhaps because most of
the Scrolls were the product of one community, it is possible to discern
some consistent patterns in the use of Ezekiel in the DSS. Chapter 3
analyzes the use of Ezekiel found in other non-canonical literature of the
Second Temple era (often called the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha).
These works are not the product of a single community, but some trends in
the usage of Ezekiel can be observed. Chapter 4 analyzes John's strongest
and most extended allusions to Ezekiel: the Good Shepherd (Jn 10.1-30)
and True Vine (Jn 15.1-10) metaphors. Chapter 5 deals with allusions that
are weaker (and in some cases, more difficult to prove): the 'opened
61. Some of these broad connections are addressed in Fowler, 'Influence', chs 2-4.
heavens' of Jn 1.51; the resurrection imagery of John 5; the breathing out

of the Spirit in Jn 20.22; and the use of water symbolism for the Spirit
throughout John (including the 153 fishes of Jn 21.11). Finally, Chapter 6
attempts to synthesize an understanding of John's use of Ezekiel in light of
the use of Ezekiel in other literature of the Second Temple period. This
leads to some observations on the use of the Old Testament in John and in
other works of the Second Temple period.
Chapter 2
THE USE OF EZEKIEL IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
This chapter will attempt to analyze how various works in the Dead Sea
Scrolls used Ezekiel.1 The Dead Sea Scrolls contain extensive quotations
from and allusions to Ezekiel; an analysis of these quotations and allusions
will allow us to observe the relative strictness or freedom of quotation, the
trends in appropriation, the reasons for which various authors appro-
priated Ezekiel, the methods of interpretation, and the way that Ezekiel
influenced the thought of later authors. This analysis, together with an
analysis of allusions to Ezekiel in other literature of the Second Temple
period (Chapter 3), will provide a useful background against which to
analyze John's appropriation of Ezekiel.
Allusions, of course, are only possible if the later author had access to
the earlier texts. We can be fairly confident that members of the Qumran
Community knew and studied Ezekiel carefully, not only because of the
many quotations, but also because of the presence of copies of Ezekiel in
the Qumran library. Fragments of six Ezekiel scrolls have been discovered
in the Judean Desert (1Q9, 3Q1, 4Q73, 4Q74, 4Q75, and 11Q4), as well as
one scroll at Masada (MasId).2
The uses of Ezekiel discussed in this chapter should be assumed to be
allusions rather than quotations, unless specifically stated otherwise.
Quotations from Ezekiel are only accompanied by introduction formulae
(e.g., 'as it says in Ezekiel the prophet') where specifically mentioned (in
CD 3.21-4.6; 19.11-13; 4Q174 1.16-17).
The allusions to Ezekiel in the literature of Qumran will be organized
thematically. That is, rather than examining every allusion to Ezekiel in the
order of occurrence in either the DSS or Ezekiel, I will group the allusions
to Ezekiel by the way in which they are used in the DSS.3 In Section 1, I
examine how some of the authors at Qumran used Ezekiel to describe the
1. I am indebted to James VanderKam, who kindly looked over a draft of this chapter and
made valuable suggestions.
2. The fragments of Ezekiel cover portions of chs 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 16, 23, 31-37, and 41.
These fragments are catalogued in DSSSE.
3. To see the allusions organized in order of their occurrence in the Qumran literature, see
the chart on pp. 76-77.
2. The Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls 23
history, identity, and eschatology of the Community.4 Section 2 shows how

Ezekiel was a source for titles and epithets for the Community and its
opponents. Section 3 discusses Pseudo-Ezekiel, which is in a class by itself.
1. History, Identity, and Eschatology of the Community

a. Righteous Exiles (Ezekiel 11.15; 203-5; 20.18; 39.23; Amos 5.26-27;
Damascus Document 1.3-4; 3.16-17; 7.14-15; War Scroll 1.2-3;
FlorilegiumJ
The use of Scripture in the DSS helps us understand the Community's
particular version of Israel's history, and thus of its future. My analysis of the
use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests that their understanding of the
Exile is especially important. In the Babylonian conquests of the sixth
century BC, many residents of Jerusalem had been carried off into exile
before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. The author of the Damascus
Document and other authors at Qumran used Ezekiel and other Scripture to
show that these early exiles were being protected from the destruction, not
punished. They were the righteous; those who remained and tolerated
corrupt Jerusalemite society were the sinners who would suffer God's wrath.
God had removed his presence from the corrupt Temple in Jerusalem, and
resided with the righteous exiles until the destruction and restoration of
Jerusalem and its Temple. Only those who died during Nebuchadnezzar's
siege were under God's punishment. The righteous exiles who returned and
set up the new Temple were God's agents of restoration. A new priesthood
was then established from among the exiles. Unfortunately, with the
returning exiles came deceivers, and so the new Temple became as corrupt as
the old.
An examination of the use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests
that the Community's view of Israel's history was also its view of its own
present and future. The current Temple had become corrupt, and so
Jerusalem was again under judgment. God had already withdrawn his
presence from the Temple and had removed his righteous exiles to protect
them from the current corruption and the coming destruction. The
Community was the group of righteous exiles at 'Damascus'. God had
removed his presence from the Temple, and would soon destroy all of
Jerusalem. The Gentile nations would rise up against Israel, but God
would miraculously deliver Israel through his Messiah(s) and through his
faithful exiles at Qumran. The Temple would then be rebuilt, with the
priests of Qumran as the new priesthood. But this time, there would be no
4. Ideally, this section should be divided up into three subsections of history, identity, and
eschatology. However, the passages in the DSS that we will examine do not neatly divide up
these themes.
deceivers in the return from exile; all those who had rejected the teaching
of the Community would be destroyed along with the Gentiles.5
Qumran's understanding of itself as righteous exiles can be seen in the
use of OT scripture. Material from Ezekiel is often used in the DSS to
illustrate this self-understanding, but I will begin by demonstrating it from
a passage in Amos.
The Damascus Document is so called because the Community is
described as being in Damascus (CD 6.5, 19; 7.14-19; 8.21; 19.34;
20.12). This may be a metaphorical reference to the Community at
Qumran, it may refer to an actual branch of the Qumran sect at Damascus,
or it may refer to a period in the sect's history when it (or its founder)
resided in Damascus. Whichever is the case, it is clear that the Damascus
Document draws on Amos 5.26-27, a passage about the exile of the
Northern Kingdom, to describe the founding of the Community. If
'Damascus' was only a cipher for the Qumran Community, then it is likely
that the Damascus Document derived that cipher from this passage.
Amos 5.26-27a And you brought

your king's booth7 and the kywn of
CD 7.14—156 And I will expel your images,8 the star of your gods
(TP*?am) your king's booth and the which you made for yourselves.
kywn of your images from my tent Therefore, I will expel (vrbam) you
(^nwa) to Damascus... beyond (nxbnD) Damascus.
7.18 ... and the 'star'
5. Brooke's study of the commentaries among the DSS suggests a similar view: Isa. 5.5b-
6a is altered in 4QpIsa 6 1.1-2 in such a way that it 'implies a reading of Isaiah 5 in which the
vineyard is already destroyed but the final judgment is yet to come... As with the tendency in
the other commentaries the effect of this alteration is to portray the community as standing
between an initial destruction and a future judgment' (G. Brooke, 'The Biblical Texts in the
Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?' in C.A. Evans and W.F.
Stinespring (eds), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis (Festschrift H. Brownlee; Homage, 10;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), p. 90). Anderson, representing another view, suggests that the
Community 'understood themselves to be atoning for the sins of the exile and bringing that
sad chapter in Israel's history to a close' (G.A. Anderson, 'The Status of the Torah Before
Sinai: The Retelling of the Bible in the Damascus Covenant and the Book of Jubilees', DSD 1
(1994), pp. 1-29 (11-12)). This may well be an accurate observation about the view of some of
the DSS. However, my observations of the use of Ezekiel suggest a slight modification to that
view. They did not believe that the exile had never ended; instead, they believed that a new
exile had begun because of the failure of those who returned from exile.
6. The Hebrew text of the Dead Sea Scrolls in this paper is taken from DSS HAG when the
text is available (volumes 1, 2, 4A, and 4B at this writing). In other cases, the Hebrew text of
DSSSE, or of the various critical editions is consulted. Translations primarily follow those of
DSSHAG, DSSSE, or CDSS.
7. Or 'Your king, Sikkuth.'
8. Or 'Kywn, your images.'
The original sense of Amos 5.26-27 is clear: God would punish the idolatry
of Israel (the northern kingdom) by exiling them beyond Damascus.
Significantly, nba in the hifil (translated 'expel' above) always refers to exile in
the OT. The author made a few creative changes that essentially reversed the
meaning of the text and helped it apply more precisely to the situation at
Qumran. The verb 'expel' was moved to the beginning to make it clear that
the king's booth, the kywn, and the star (left out of the initial citation, but
mentioned in the interpretation, CD 7.18-20), rather than just the bearers of
those items, were moved to Damascus. This change in emphasis is part of the
Damascus Document's interpretational strategy. Using some unusual
connections with other Scriptures (Amos 9.11, Num. 24.17), the author
manages to interpret the 'king's booth' as the Torah, the 'kywn of the images'
as the Prophets, and the 'star' as the 'interpreter of the Torah,' presumably
the Righteous Teacher (CD 7.15-18). Finally, the author of the Damascus
Document reads Amos' 'beyond' (rtKbnft) as 'from my tent' (^nKE) allowing
him to insert the idea, so important in some of the Scrolls, that God had
abandoned the Temple. This collection of changes allowed Amos 5.26-27 to
be read as a prophecy that God would remove the Scriptures, and their only
faithful interpreter, from the Temple and settle them in exile in Damascus.
This exile was not a punishment: the Damascus Document emphasizes the
'escape' of the exiles at the beginning and end of its interpretation of Amos
5.26-27. 'But those who heldfirmly(to the covenant) escaped to the land of
the north... These escaped at the time of the first visitation. But the
backsliders were handed over to the sword' (CD 7.14-15, 21).
The line between typology and fulfilled prophecy is not clear in this
passage. The author of the Damascus Document sees Amos 5.26-27 as a
reference to a historical situation ('these escaped at the time of the first
visitation'), suggesting that his application of the passage to the
Community was typological. A past event (the Exile) served as a model
for a later event (the founding of the Community). The elaborate re-
interpretation of the elements of Amos 5.26-27, however, seem more like
an attempt to see a fulfillment of prophecy. In either case, the Damascus
Document uses Amos 5.26-27 to suggest that the Community consists of
exiles spared from the coming destruction of Israel.9
9. M. Abegg suggests that the Qumran Community believed that the Exile had not ended
yet; the founding of the Community represented the first steps towards the end of exile.
Abegg's survey of the DSS is broad enough and careful enough that his conclusion probably
fairly represents the view of the exile common to many of the authors of the DSS. (M. Abegg,
'Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls', in J.M. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and
Christian Conceptions (JSJ, 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 111-25.) However, the Damascus
Document's unusual interpretation of exile in Amos 5.26-27 suggests that even within
Qumran, there were a variety of ways of describing the exile.
A few allusions to Ezekiel in the Damascus Document also suggest that

Qumran saw itself in a new Exile. The Admonition10 of the Damascus
Document begins with an account of the pre-history and founding of the
Community (CD 1.3-2.1). Although numerous allusions to Scripture are
used, the first allusion is to the summary of the exile and destruction found
in Ezekiel's Gog oracle.
Ezek. 39.23 And the nations will

know that the house of Israel went
CD 1.3-4 For in their treachery into exile for their iniquity because
(obinoa) in leaving him,11 he hid his they acted treacherously (ibyft)
face from Israel (^to&PQ vas Tnon) against me, and I hid my face from
them (DHB *3B nno*o); so I gave
them into the hand of their
and from his sanctuary and gave adversaries, and all of them fell by
them up to the sword (sin*? oam) the sword ( m m V?En)
The image of God hiding his face from his people occurs in other passages
in the OT (Deut. 31.17-18; 32.20; Isa. 54.8; 59.2; Jer. 33.5), but only here in
Ezekiel is the image combined with treachery and judgment by the sword.
Further, there is some resonance between the two texts: both passages
address the judgment of God's people and his gracious deliverance of a
remnant (CD 1.3-5; Ezek. 39.21-29). Even the Damascus Document's
theme of God's 'dispute with all flesh' and 'judgment against all who scoff
at him' is similar in some respects to the judgment of the nations in
Ezekiel's Gog oracle (CD 1.2; Ezekiel 38-39).
However, the Damascus Document makes some significant changes to
the text from Ezekiel. The first change is abbreviation. Some of this
abbreviation is important: the Damascus Document omitted the phrase 'for
the house of Israel went into exile for their iniquity.' It was important to
omit this phrase, because the author of the Damascus Document saw his
own Community as the exiles. The exile was not a punishment, but
preservation. Those who were left behind were punished; those who were
exiled were the righteous. Further, 'house of Israel' seems to have negative,
or at least ambivalent, connotations in the Admonition of the Damascus
Document. That is, the phrase is consistently used to describe fallen Israel
in the Admonition. When the Admonition cites or alludes to an OT passage
10. The section title used in DSSHAG, vol. 2, p. 5.

11. DSSHAG (vol. 2, p. 13 fn) notes that the beginning, 'For their treachery in leaving
him' (irrnTB IIOK o^snna) is an allusion to Lev. 26.40, 'For in their treachery in being traitorous
to me' (^"bvn "KDK DbjJfcn). The author of the Damascus Document may be connecting Lev.
26.40 to Ezek. 39.23 through the use of the phrase (common to both) ^"ibina, which he does
not actually quote.
that uses the phrase 'house of Israel,' it only includes that phrase if it can
be applied to apostate Israel. If the author is applying the passage to the
Community, then the phrase 'house of Israel' is omitted from the citation
or allusion. On at least four occasions in the Admonition (CD 1.3^/Ezek.
39.23; CD 3.16-17/Ezek. 11.15; CD 19.33/Jer. 31.31; CD 19.35/Ezek.
13.9), quotations or strong allusions to OT passages omit the phrase 'house
of Israel.'12 When the 'house of Israel' or even 'Israel' does occur in the
Admonition of the Damascus Document, it is usually in a negative sense.
Only when the Rules section begins, and 'Israel' describes the Damascus
Community, does the term acquire any positive sense.13
CD 1.3-4 also notably modifies Ezek. 39.23 by the addition of 'and from
his sanctuary,' italicized above. The idea of God abandoning his Jerusalem
sanctuary is important to Ezekiel (cf. Ezek. 5.11; 10; 11.16), but it is not
found anywhere in the quoted verse or in the Gog oracle. The author of the
Damascus Document introduces the phrase here because God's abandon-
ment of the Temple is important to the rest of the Damascus Document
(and to some other Scrolls). The Damascus Document appropriately treats
the account of the Exile in Ezekiel 39 as history rather than prophecy, but
it views God's prior abandonment of the Temple as a paradigm, or a type,
of the present abandonment. In the Community's eyes, God had also
abandoned the Second Temple, and its destruction was imminent. Just as
God left Solomon's Temple and then destroyed it, so he had now left
Zerubbabel's Temple and would soon destroy it.
The Damascus Document continues its history of the Community by
dating its founding to 390 years after the fall of Jerusalem (CD 1.5-6). The
editors of DSSHAG are inclined to accept this as 'approximately
accurate'14 (giving a date of the founding of the Qumran Community in
the early second century BC), but the significance of this date for our study
is its source in Ezekiel. The prophet Ezekiel was instructed by God to 'bear
the iniquity of Israel' one day for every year of Israel's iniquity, 390 days
(Ezek. 4.4-5). In Ezekiel, this time span probably was intended to
approximate the number of years from the dedication of Solomon's
Temple (975/4 BC) to its destruction in 587 BC.15 Ezekiel was thus atoning
for the sins of Israel as seen specifically in the Temple. If the author of the
Damascus Document knew of this interpretation of Ezekiel, then he was
applying it to the Second Temple: just as Solomon's Temple had been the
12. See pp. 28, 63, 64.

13. The tendency can also be observed in 1QM 2.4/Ezek. 45.17 (see p. 41); 1QH 14.10,
21.6-7/Ezek. 36.22 (see p. 49).
14. DSSHAG, vol. 2, p. 13 fn.
15. For an analysis of the chronology issues in Ezek. 4.4-6, see W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A
Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (trans. J.D. Martin and R.E. Clements;
Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979, 1983), vol. 1, pp. 165-67.
center of Israel's sin for 390 years before the fall of Jerusalem, so also the
Second Temple was the center of Israel's sin for 390 years after the fall of
Jerusalem until the Righteous Teacher arose.
If this is how the Damascus Document uses the number from Ezekiel, it
seems that we have evidence of a typological interpretation. The
disobedience under Solomon's temple was a type of the disobedience
under Zerubbabel's temple. And just as the disobedience in Solomon's
Temple led to God's abandoning it, so the disobedience in Zerubbabel's
temple had led to God's leaving it. Nothing in the passage suggests that the
author of the Damascus Document saw the 390 years as a prophecy to be
fulfilled. The author of the Damascus Document instead saw the 390 years
as a repeat of the earlier sin under the first Temple. Thus, they had
returned to the time of Ezekiel - they were in a new Exile.
The history of the Community is resumed in CD 3.12. In describing the
arrogance of those who reject the Community, the author uses a phrase,
Tor it is ours,' that is rather cryptic unless the allusion to Ezekiel is
observed.
Ezek. 11.15 Son of man, your

brothers, your brothers, your
CD 3.16-17 But those who scorn fellow exiles, and the whole house
them will not live. Rather, they of Israel, all of them, are those to
wallowed in human sin and the whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem
ways of impurity and said have said (r)»K), 'Go far from
Tor it is ours.' YHWH; this land has been given to
(KTI rb «o n&*n)16 us (KTI Mb) as a possession.'
Although the proposed allusion is rather brief, the key phrase KTT Mb is
found nowhere else in the OT. The fact that references to Ezekiel can be
found in the nearby context (a quotation in CD 3.21-4.1 and an allusion in
CD 1.3-4) also makes this allusion more likely.17
If CD 3.18 is intended to recall Ezek. 11.15, it is a very appropriate fit.
The oracle in Ezekiel 11 is a response to the residents of Jerusalem who
have not been exiled. They arrogantly claim that the pre-destruction exiles
are under God's judgment and that those who remained deserve to inherit
16. Vermes translates it 'This is our (way).' CDSS, p. 129.

17. The quotation and allusion are discussed above, p. 26, and below, p. 38. Interestingly,
there are only a few lines, and no clear OT allusions, between the allusion to Ezekiel in CD
3.18 and the quote from Ezekiel in CD 3.21. The allusion is used to describe the arrogant
outsiders and their judgment; the quotation is used to describe the Community and its
blessings.
the Land. The oracle sharply rebukes such arrogance: not only is God
himself a sanctuary (pifti) for the exiles (Ezek. 11.16), but God will also
restore the exiles to the Land, and only the exiles will inherit the Land
(Ezek. 11.17). The returning exiles will receive the promise of the new spirit
and the heart offlesh(Ezek. 11.19-20);18 those who remained in Jerusalem,
who 'practiced abominations,' will be judged by God (Ezek. 11.21).
Finally, to make it clear for his listeners that God's wrath is on the
inhabitants of Jerusalem rather than on the exiles, Ezekiel reveals the final
vision of the departure of the cherubim (Ezek. 11.22-23). The wheeled
cherubim, bearing the presence and glory of the Lord, leave Jerusalem and
head into the mountain east of Jerusalem. Significantly, God then
transports Ezekiel 'in a vision by the Spirit of God' to the exiles (Ezek.
11.24-25). According to Ezekiel, the glory of God is no longer in
Jerusalem, but in the mountain, and God sends his prophet to the exiles,
not to those in Jerusalem.19
This passage is such a close fit to the Community's self-perception that it
is hardly surprising that the Damascus Document uses it here to condemn
the scoffers. The Second Temple residents of Jerusalem saw themselves as
the possessors of God's sanctuary, and they rejected the Community with
an attitude that the DSS identify as arrogance (cf. CD 8.3; 20.11). The
Community members saw themselves in the position of Ezekiel's exiles:
God's sanctuary was with them, not in Jerusalem; the wrath of God was
on Jerusalem, not on them, the righteous exiles. They saw the same future
for themselves as for Ezekiel's exiles: they would one day be God's agents
for cleansing Israel, they would inherit the Land, and see God destroy the
corrupt inhabitants of Jerusalem. God's promise of the new spirit was
already being fulfilled in these exiles by the Dead Sea, and it seems likely
that they were expecting the new heart of flesh, as 1QH 18.21 hints.20
Perhaps the residents of Qumran were even impressed by Ezekiel's claim
that God was now dwelling east of Jerusalem (Ezek. 11.23), as they were.
Although the immediate context of CD 3.18 does not raise all of these
themes, it does describe the arrogance of those who reject God's
commands (CD 3.17), and suggests the idea of God's presence in the
Community rather than the Temple (e.g., he 'built them a sure house in
Israel,' CD 3.19).
The War Scroll adds to the picture of Qumran as righteous exiles.21 In
the final battle, the 'Sons of Light' will fight against 'the army of Belial,'
18. See below, p. 50.

19. Ezek. 33.23-29 returns to a similar theme. The survivors of the sack of Jerusalem, in
hiding in the wilderness, again confidently claim their inheritance of the Land. Ezekiel
responds that even those survivors will die because of their 'abominations.'
20. See discussion below, p. 50.
21. For the War Scroll (1QM), I use the text in DSSHAG, vol 2.
consisting of the historic enemies of Israel and the 'violators of the

covenant' (1QM 1.1-2). The 'Sons of Light' begin the War as returning
exiles, as the War Scroll makes clear in its allusion to Ezek. 20.35.22
1QM 1.2-3 The sons of Levi, the

sons of Judah, and the sons of
Benjamin, the exiles of the
wilderness, shall wage war against
them [... ]23 according to all their
troops, when the exiles, the Sons of Ezek. 20.35 and I will bring you
Light, return from the wilderness of into the wilderness of the peoples
the peoples (D"»yn -man) to (own -imrbK), and there I will
encamp in the wilderness of enter into judgment with you face
Jerusalem. to face.
The allusion consists of only two words, but that phrase can be found
nowhere else in the OT. The context of Ezek. 20.35 also suggests that it was
the source of the phrase. The passage in Ezek. 20.33-39, a promise to repeat
the miraculous deliverance of the Exodus, could easily be interpreted as
prophecy about the Qumran Community. The people of Israel will be taken
out from the foreign lands where they are scattered (Ezek. 20.34), but 'they
will not enter the soil of Israel' (Ezek. 20.38). Instead, much like the
wilderness generation, God will 'bring them into the wilderness of the
peoples' (Ezek. 20.35). Significantly, there in the wilderness, God will bring
them 'into the bond of the covenant' (man mooa Tixam) and will 'purge
[them] from rebels' (Ezek. 20.37-38).
It is reasonable to suggest that the author of the War Scroll saw in Ezek.
20.33-39 a prophecy fulfilled in the founding of the Community. There had
not been a 'wilderness experience' for the returning exiles during the
restoration under Zerubbabel and Ezra. Since Ezekiel's prophecy had not
previously been fulfilled, they reasoned, it was now being fulfilled in the
Community. They had entered into the Covenant in the wilderness (note
the standard Qumran phrase m a *ra), and were now awaiting the end.
When the time of thefinalwar came, the 'exiles in the wilderness' would be
summoned from 'the wilderness of the peoples' to do battle in the
wilderness around Jerusalem (1QM 1.2-3).
22. Y. Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness
(trans. B.R.C. Rabin; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962).
23. Bracketed ellipses, as in the critical literature, indicate unrestorable text. In some
cases, I have omitted such indications where the state of the text is not necessary to my
argument. Unbracketed ellipses indicate my own abbreviation of the text.
Florilegium (4Q174) also uses Ezekiel 20 to describe the Community as

righteous exiles in the wilderness, although it will take some effort to
demonstrate its allusion to Ezekiel 20. 4Q174 1.14-17 contains a sectarian
interpretation of Psalm 1. Not surprisingly, the 'blessed man' of Psalm 1 is
interpreted to refer to those who join the Community, and the 'wicked
man' refers to those outside the Community (4Q174 1.15-16). To prove
this interpretation, and to elaborate on the meaning of 'the counsel of the
wicked,' Florilegium gives citations from Isa. 8.11 and Ezekiel, both with
introductory formulae referring to 'the book of Isaiah the prophet' and
'the book of Ezekiel the prophet.'24
Isa. 8.11, which Florilegium applies to 'the last days' (4Q174 1.15), is
likely cited because it contains two words common to Psalm 1 in the phrase
'walk in the way' Cyna rchri). The oracle found in Isa. 8.11-15 calls for
Isaiah not to walk in the way of 'this people,' but rather to 'fear YHWH'
(Isa. 8.11-13). If Isaiah obeyed, then God 'will be a sanctuary; but a rock
of striking and a stone of stumbling to the two houses of Israel; and a snare
and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem' (Isa. 8.14). Thus the author of
Florilegium suggests that the blessed man of Psalm 1 is someone who joins
the Community; and this Community is God's sanctuary, set in opposition
to the 'inhabitants of Jerusalem.'
Florilegium continues its explanation of Psalm 1 with a citation from
Ezekiel.
And this refers to those about whom it is written in the book of Ezekiel,
the prophet, that '[...] their idols.' (HErrî]1^] [...] h) This refers to
the sons of Zadok and to men of their council, who pursue
righteousness, who have come after them to the Council of the
Community. (4Q174 1.16-17)
The problem comes with identifying what passage in Ezekiel is cited in the
missing section. Vermes first suggested that it is an abbreviated quote from
Ezek. 44.10, 'The Levites ([D"1]^) [strayed far from me, following] their
idols (DH^lS:).'25 Presumably Vermes chose this passage because of its
connection to the sons of Zadok and its suggestion of a new priesthood
(Ezek. 44.15). But since the quoted material was negative, Vermes was
forced to translate Florilegium's interpretation in a negative, and unlikely
24. For a thorough discussion of Florilegium, see G. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran:

4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup, 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985); A. Steudel,
Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMidrEschatab ) : materielle
Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditionsgeschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174
("Florilegium") und 4Q177 ("Catena A") reprasentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden
(STDJ, 13; Leiden: Brill, 1994).
25. CDSS, p. 494.
sense: 'They are the sons of Zadok who seek their own counsel and follow
their own inclination apart from the Council of the Community.'
Other editors, presuming that the initial word in the quote is 'not' ([Kji1?),
have proposed as the source Ezek. 37.23, 'that they should no longer defile
themselves with their idols' (amb^ra THJ 1KECD"1 K*n).26 This allows a
reasonable translation of the pesher of line 17 (above), and the words fit
the gap in the manuscript. However, it is more difficult to see what
connection the author of Florilegium saw between Ezek. 37.23 and the
other passages (Psalm 1; Isaiah 8).
Another passage, Ezek. 20.18, has not yet been suggested as the source
of the quote. 'And I said to their children in the wilderness, "Do not walk
("obrrbtf) in the statutes of your fathers, or keep their ordinances, or defile
yourselves with their idols" (iKQOn"^ Dmâm).' This passage has the
disadvantage of using the negative particle SK instead of X*h, and not
having the same word order as the quoted material in Florilegium. This is
not a significant problem; as we have seen, the DSS often make mild
changes to quoted material, especially when the wording is influenced by
similar passages. But Ezek. 20.18 has three significant advantages over the
other proposed passages. First, like Ps. 1.1 and Isa. 8.11, Ezek. 20.18 uses
'walk' terminology to describe separation: Ps. 1.1 ("jTm .. ."|Sn «*?); Isa.
8.11 (-[-m ro*?n); and Ezek. 20.18 OoSn MTTOK y i r a ) . It seems likely that
the author of Florilegium connected the three passages around this
common admonitory usage of "jbn. The other proposed passages (Ezek.
37.23; 44.10) do not offer as clear a connection to Psalm 1 and Isaiah 8.
Second, Ezek. 20.18 advances the interpretation of Psalm 1 and of
Florilegium as a whole. Ezek. 20.18 is a call to separate from the corrupt
ways of 'the fathers.' That is the point of the interpretation of Psalm 1 -
not to walk in the ways of the wicked (Ps. 1.1) or in the ways of 'this
people' (Isa. 8.11). Using Ezek. 20.18 is also consistent with one of the
arguments of 4Q174, that the Community is separate from apostate Israel.
Ezek. 44.10 is consistent with that argument, but does not fit well with the
interpretation of Psalm 1, and also requires an awkward and unlikely
translation. Ezek. 37.23 is not as effective in advancing the argument of
Florilegium. Despite the occasional exegetical back flips that Florilegium
demonstrates, it presents a coherent line of thought. The reconstruction of
the quote should take the coherence of the passage into consideration.
Finally, of the three proposed sources, Ezek. 20.18 is the verse most
susceptible to a sectarian interpretation. God speaks to his 'children in the
26. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context, pp. 116-18;
DSSSE, p. 355; Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Ezchatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde, pp. 25, 31—
32, 47; M. Wise, M. Abegg, and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996). DSSSE reconstructs the text from Ezek. 37.23, but
accidentally preserves the earlier reference to Ezek. 44.10.
wilderness' and commands them not to 'walk in the statutes of their

fathers' but to 'walk in my statutes' and 'sanctify my Sabbaths' (Ezek.
20.18-20). As we have seen above, some DSS authors could use the
wilderness language of Ezekiel 20 as a reference to the Community (1QM
1.2-3; Ezek. 20.35). The combination of elements - wilderness, separation,
idolatry of the fathers, correct statutes, and correct Sabbath observance -
fit well into the particular emphases of the Qumran Community.
Thus, although the current editions do not suggest Ezek. 20.18 as the
source of the damaged quote in 4Q174 1.16, it offers some advantages that
the other proposed sources do not have. Ezek. 20.18 offers a reasonable
connection to Psalm 1 and Isaiah 8 through the use of *]Sn; it advances the
argument of the interpretation of Psalm 1 and 4Q174 better than the other
proposed sources; it is more susceptible to a sectarian interpretation; and it
makes use of a passage known to be used in other DSS. If Ezek. 20.18 is
the source of 4Q174 1.16, then the quote is used to suggest that the
'righteous man' is the one who separates from the rest of Israel and joins
the 'exiles in the wilderness' to be refined by God.27
The several pieces of evidence above, from the Damascus Document, the
War Scroll, and Florilegium, suggest that the Qumran Community saw
itself in a recapitulation of the Exile, with the members of the Community
as righteous exiles. CD 7.14-15 is used to suggest that the exile of the
Torah scroll and its interpreter to 'Damascus' had been prefigured in the
exile of Amos 5.26-27. CD 1.5-6 used an allusion to the '390 years' of
Ezek. 4.4-5 to suggest that they were in a new exile because of the
corruption of the Temple. CD 3.16-17 used an allusion to Ezek. 11.15 to
invoke the hostility between the righteous exiles and the self-righteous
inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to predict the coming resurgence of the
exiles. 1QM 1.2-3 described the Community as the 'exiles of the
wilderness,' and used language from Ezek. 20.35 to describe God's
presence in the wilderness Community. The wilderness language of Ezekiel
20 was also used in Florilegium to describe the separation from corrupt
Israel and purification in the wilderness. Florilegium also used Isaiah 8 to
imply God's sanctuary among the exiles.28
27. For a good defense of Ezek. 37.23 as the quoted verse, see Brooke, Exegesis at
Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context, pp. 116-18.
28. This understanding of the Exile in the Damascus Document diverges somewhat from
Abegg's understanding of the 'Qumran theology of exile.' According to Abegg, the 14 DSS
documents that he surveys all describe the Exile as still in effect until God restored the
Community into the land and 'established them in their rightful place' (Abegg, 'Exile and the
Dead Sea Scrolls', pp. 115, 125). Thus, exile is punishment. My hypothesis, however, does not
necessarily disagree with Abegg's. My study is based on a close study of only a few documents
that allude to the Exile in Ezekiel and Amos, while Abegg's study deals with a wider variety of
texts dealing with exile. Further, a number of my observations are based on a close
In some cases, the authors of the DSS seem to use a sort of typological
interpretation of Scripture, where the past exile was a picture of the present
exile, and the past visitation was a picture of the coming visitation. In other
cases, the Scriptures were seen as prophecies that were fulfilled in the
founding and history of the Community, or would be fulfilled in its future.
The tendency towards typological or prophecy-fulfillment interpretation
was not arbitrary. In passages judged to have already seen fulfillment in
the history of Israel, the authors of the DSS were likely to use typological
interpretation, seeing the previous events as pictures of the later events. In
passages that were not seen as already fulfilled in Israel's history,
Qumranite writers were more likely to see some sign of a prophecy
fulfilled in the life of the Community.
b. Gog (Ezekiel 38.13, 22, 23; 39.7, 21; Isaiah 63.12; War Scroll 11.14-17)
From the perspective of the Qumran Community, some of Ezekiel's
oracles referred to the original Exile and destruction, some oracles
prefigured or predicted the rise of the Community, and other oracles
referred to the end of the age. Those oracles that had a historical referent
either were used as models of the new Exile and coming destruction, or
gave categories by which Qumran and its opponents could be evaluated.
But many of the later oracles of Ezekiel (esp. Ezekiel 36ff.) had incomplete
fulfillment or remained unfulfilled in the return from Exile. Those oracles,
according to Qumran writers, predicted the final age, an age in which the
'poor' of the Community would provide the new priesthood of God's
restored Temple.
The War Scroll (1QM) contains a few allusions to Ezekiel's Gog oracle29
in its description of God's coming intervention in the final war. Some of
the lines of the text are damaged beyond restoration, but it is still possible
to trace the source of the material to Ezekiel 38-39.
1QM 11.15-17 ... the nations, that Ezek. 39.21 all the nations will see
[... ] may know [... ]
you will execute the judgments My judgment which I have executed
intertextual comparison of the context of the quoted material with the context of the quote or
allusion; while Abegg mainly analyzes passages that include language of exile or restoration.
With such different questions and methodology, different answers are not surprising.
29. I use the term 'Gog oracle' (Ezekiel 38-39) as a convenient title for the passage
describing Gog's attack on Israel and his subsequent destruction. Some Ezekiel scholars see
this passage as a redaction of various sources, but of course, Second Temple authors would
have studied OT books without thinking of any possible source or redaction theories. For
various ways of dividing the passage, see L.C. Allen, Ezekiel (WBC, 28-29; Dallas: Word
Books, 1990, 1994), vol. 2, pp. 202-03; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, pp. 96-302.
s
rtDrnra) against Gog BB!DO"nK) (against Gog,
38.1-3, 14; 39.1)
and all his assembly assembled 38.13 Have you assembled your
(n^npan iSnp)... assembly (~\hnp rbnpn) to
plunder... ?
for you will do battle against them 38.22 I will rain on him and on
from the heavens... his troops and the many peoples
that are with him, torrential
rains, hailstones, fire and
brimstone.
Scattered as they are, the verbal parallels are not as impressive as some
others we have looked at. However, a number of other items make it clear
that Ezekiel's Gog oracle is the source of the prophecy in the War Scroll.
Most importantly, only Ezekiel in all the OT has a role for Gog in the Day
of the Lord. All other references to Gog in the OT are geographic
references with no prophetic sense or symbolism. Further, the fate of Gog
in Ezekiel and in the War Scroll is the same. In the War Scroll, Gog
(associated with the Kittim, or the Romans) is destroyed by God when
Gog attacks Israel. The fate of Gog is discussed at greater length in Ezekiel
38-39, but it is the same: destruction by God. In the War Scroll, there is a
messianic presence: 'your servant David' is invoked, as well as the 'Star
from Jacob,' the 'Scepter from Israel' and 'your anointed ones' (1QM
11.1-7). Ezekiel's Gog oracle mentions no messianic figure, but it is clear
that the peaceful condition of Israel before Gog attacks (Ezek. 38.8) is a
result of the restoration of 'David my servant . . . their prince forever'
(Ezek. 37.25).
The author of the War Scroll also combines similar texts from Ezekiel
and Isaiah to describe the purpose of God's destruction of Israel's
enemies:
1QM 11.14 Isa. 63.12 Who divided the waters

to make for yourself an everlasting before them to make for himself an
name (nbii? arc rob everlasting name (oVm nv ib rouS)
Ezek. 39.7
And I will make my name known in
the midst of my people Israel...
through the people (Din) ty nv -pro)
The War Scroll seems to combine the two texts around their common
elements (God's name, God's people). The combination is appropriate:
both Isaiah 63 and Ezekiel 39 celebrate God's deliverance of Israel.
Isaiah recounts both God's wrath against Egypt during the Exodus and
his coming wrath against the nations (Isa. 63.1-6, 7-14), while Ezekiel
addresses only God's coming destruction of Gog. Both OT passages
express a concern for God's glory in his deliverance of his people (Isa.
63.12, 14; Ezek. 38.16, 23; 39.7, 21-22, 28) - an appropriate theme for
the War Scroll to introduce in this praise to God for the coming
deliverance (1QM 10.1-12.18). Both passages also describe God's
pouring out of his Holy Spirit on his people (Isa. 63.10, 11; Ezek.
39.29). The combination of the texts further provides a transition from
the new Exodus imagery (1QM 11.9-10) to the Gog imagery (1QM
11.15-18).
The War Scroll continues to describe God's purposes in destroying Gog,
now with allusions to Ezekiel alone.30
1QM 11.15 to show yourself great Ezek. 38.23 And I will show myself
and holy (ttnpnnbi i mnn t n) great and holy Cwznpnm "rfnanm),
in the eyes of the remnant of the and make myself known in the eyes
nations (Dîan mm wb), of many nations (D-m D-na wb),
that ... may know (runb) [... ]31 and they will know (urn) that I am
YHWH.
The War Scroll has slightly abbreviated the material from Ezekiel and
changed syntax to fit its own context. Another alteration is more
significant: Ezekiel's oracle against Gog describes God's glory being
revealed to 'many nations' while the War Scroll limits God's glory to 'the
remnant of the nations.' It seems likely that the War Scroll has substituted
a phrase from a nearby oracle in Ezekiel: 'Then the nations that will
remain (T\H& "iw Dân) around you will know that I, YHWH, have
rebuilt...' (Ezek. 36.36). This is the only passage in the OT that ascribes
'remnant' (mm) status to the foreign nations, so it is the most likely source
for 'the remnant of the nations' in 1QM 11.15.32 The fact that there are
strong verbal and conceptual parallels between Ezek. 36.36 and 38.23, and
between the oracles of Ezekiel 36 and 38, makes the substitution a
reasonable one. The substitution may have been accidental, but if it was
intentional, the motive is clear. For the War Scroll, the primary role of the
30. The first half of the line is missing, so we cannot be sure if there were further allusions
to Isaiah or Ezekiel (or anything else) between the two allusions discussed.
31. Neither the subject nor the object of the 'knowing' can be determined, because the last
few words of this line and the first half of the next line are obliterated.
32. Josh. 23.4, 7, 12 also describe the nations that remain, but this is a description of the
captured peoples within Israel after the conquest.
Gentiles is to be destroyed at the end (1QM 1.1-6; 11.8-9; 12.11; 15.2, 13;
16.1, etc.). Ezekiel's 'many nations' may have sounded uncomfortably like
a sign of blessing on the Gentiles, while the 'remnant of the nations' from
another of Ezekiel's oracles was more conducive to the War Scroll's
description of judgment on the nations.33
The uses of Ezekiel's Gog oracle (and related material in Ezekiel 36) are
in a sense unremarkable. Ezek. 39.23 is a summary of Israel's offenses
against God and God's subsequent judgment in the Exile; the Damascus
Document used it to refer to the same events. The author of the Damascus
Document made minor modifications to the wording of Ezek. 39.23 so that
it would not conflict with the Damascus Document's picture of the
Community as righteous exiles. The Gog oracle of Ezekiel 38-39 describes
a final battle against Israel's enemies on the 'Day of the Lord'; the War
Scroll also uses it to refer to the eschatological battle. In both cases, minor
modifications or abbreviations were made to the text to make the role of
the Qumran Community in those events clearer.
c. The New Priesthood and New Temple (Ezekiel 40-48; Damascus

Document 3.21-4.6; War Scroll 23-4; New Jerusalem,)
Ezekiel's final set of oracles, about the restored Temple, priesthood, and
Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4CM8), are alluded to in three separate documents at
Qumran - the Damascus Document, New Jerusalem, and the War Scroll.
Although the main point of Ezekiel's closing chapters seems to be the
restoration of the Temple, the Damascus Document and the War Scroll
focus primarily on the restored priesthood. New Jerusalem describes the
restored Temple, but there are some hints that it has a strong interest in the
new priesthood.
CD 3.21-4.6 is an interpretation of Ezek. 44.15. Here the reference to
Ezekiel is certain, since an introductory formula is used: 'As God swore to
them through the hand of Ezekiel, the prophet, saying...' Note the slight
changes to the text of Ezekiel made by the author of the Damascus
Document:
CD 3.21-4.2 The priests and the Ezek. 44.15 But the Levitical
Levites and the Sons of Zadok priests, the sons of Zadok
33. The final line of the Gog judgment, 1QM 11.18, is mostly unreadable, with only
7\&7\vb remaining. Yadin's attempt at reconstruction sees it as an allusion to Ezek. 7.11.
However, most commentaries give up Ezek. 7.11 as untranslatable (Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p.
101; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 197), so this is not terribly helpful. If 1QM 11.18 is a
reference to Ezek. 7.11, it may have been attracted to that verse by the word ]inn, also used in
the phrase ana pnn (Ezek. 39.11, 15, 16).
(pns âi Q-ibm), who kept the (pyn m o-i^n o^nam), who kept
watch of my sanctuary when the the watch of my sanctuary when the
children of Israel strayed from me, children of Israel strayed from me,
they will approach me to minister
they shall to me and they will stand before me
present to me fat and blood. to present to me fat and blood.
The elimination of a few of the verbs near the end of the verse does not
significantly alter the meaning; the Damascus Document has a reasonable
abbreviation of the Ezekiel passage. In typical fashion, one of these
eliminated verbs (*iojn, 'they will stand') appears in the interpretation a few
lines later (D'HOUn, 'who stand,' CD 4.4; D1DTO 'their standing,' CD 4.5).34
One important alteration is actually the smallest: the addition of 1 before
'Levites' and 'Sons of Zadok.' In the MT, the lack of the two occurrences
of T puts the latter two titles in apposition to the first; that is, the sons of
Zadok and the Levites are the priests (the LXX suggests the same
apposition).35 But the Damascus Document has to make them into separate
groups in order for its interpretation (in the following lines) to work. The
priests are 'the penitents of Israel who departed from the land of Judah';
the Levites are 'those who accompany them'; and the sons of Zadok are
the 'chosen ones of Israel, those called by name, who stand in the end of
days' (CD 4 . 2 ^ ) .
There is an interesting resonance between the contexts of Ezekiel 44
and CD 3.21^4.2. This section of the Damascus Document contrasts the
'first ones' who abandoned God's covenant with the faithful who
founded the Community (CD 3.10-20). The 'first ones' failed to keep
God's laws, and thus were 'given up to the sword' (CD 3.10-11). The last
time that the Damascus Document used this phrase was in a quote from
Ezek. 39.23 (CD 1.4) describing the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, with
the citation of Ezek. 44.15, the Damascus Document connects the past
destruction with the coming judgment. The faithful of the Community
will receive eternal life and glory (CD 3.20), and will be the new
priesthood 'in the end of days' (CD 4.4), while the faithless will be
destroyed (CD 3.17).
The passage in Ezekiel from which CD 3.2Iff. quotes has a similar
theme. Two groups (both from the time when 'all Israel went astray') are
contrasted: the 'Levites who went far from me' OtejJD iprn "KDK D'nbn,
Ezek. 44.10) and the 'Levites . . . who kept the watch of my sanctuary'
34. DSSHAG, vol. 2, p. 19 fn.

35. This equation of priests and Levites is debated; for a full discussion, see Zimmerli,
Ezekiel, vol. 2, pp. 456-57.
mawrnK now -|»a . . . iri^n, Ezek. 44.15).36 The first group is under
judgment for defiling God's Temple: they allowed foreigners to serve in the
Temple (Ezek. 44.7-8) and sacrificed to idols (44.10, 12, 13). These Levites
must 'bear the guilt of their iniquity' (Ezek. 44.10, 12): they will be taken
from the priestly service and assigned menial duties in the Temple (Ezek.
44.11, 13-14).37 The second group was faithful; thus they are given the
titles withheld from the first: 'Priests' and 'Sons of Zadok' (cf. Ezek. 40.46).
More importantly, they receive the right to perform the priestly duties of
ministering to God, entering his sanctuary, approaching his table (Ezek.
44.15-16), and following the priestly purification rules (Ezek. 44.17-27).
Other elements in Ezekiel 44 resonate with CD 3.2Iff. The Damascus
Document, using 'eternal life' and 'last days,' is explicitly eschatological.
Although Ezekiel's measurements of the Temple and the land are in some
ways mundane and less 'eschatological', it is clear that the restoration
results from God's presence in the Temple and the miraculous river from
the Temple (Ezek. 47.1-12).38 This description of the Temple river could
easily be interpreted (and was so interpreted) as belonging to the final age.
Ezekiel may have primarily intended the image to be a metaphorical
description of the restoration of the Land as a result of the restoration of
the Temple (note the exquisite placing of the river image between the
descriptions of restored Temple and restored boundaries of the Land), but
his description certainly lends itself to an eschatological interpretation.
Any who interpreted the passage eschatologically would naturally connect
the Temple river passage with its surrounding texts, and assign the new
Temple and renewed boundaries to the end.
As with some other Qumran uses of the OT, the author of the Damascus
Document shows a remarkable sensitivity to the context of his quotation.
The passage in Ezekiel 44 continues by citing the requirements of the new
priesthood - requirements that, if not identical to the Community rules,
place emphasis on the same themes. For example, Ezekiel's Levites are
given careful instructions on clothing (Ezek. 44.17-20; CD 11.3-4),
marriage (Ezek. 44.22, notably with a command not to marry widows or
divorcees, cf. CD 4.20-21); feast and Sabbath laws (Ezek. 44.24; CD
10.17ff); and ritual purity (Ezek. 44.25-27; CD 12.11-23). In language
36. Zimmerli sees the discussion of these two groups as primarily being related to two
classes: the Jerusalem priests and the country priests; thus he sees this whole passage as
incompatible with Ezekiel's message of personal accountability (Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, pp.
454-58). However, Zimmerli fails to note the relative clauses that distinguish the two groups
on the basis of deeds, not geography: ipm lEK vs. nnw 1WK (Ezek. 44.10, 15).
37. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 455.
38. In personal correspondence, James VanderKam suggests that the expectation of a
cleansing river from the Temple may have been one reason that the Community was founded
on the shores of the Dead Sea just north of the river mouth.
similar to that in Community Rule and the Damascus Document, Ezekiel's

Levites are to settle their own disputes through the application of God's
ordinances (Ezek. 44.24). Members of the Community may have also seen
a similarity between their property laws (CD 13.14-15; 1QS 1.12) and the
priestly requirements of Ezek. 44.28: 'They shall have no inheritance; I am
their inheritance: and you shall give them no possession in Israel; I am
their possession.'39
The War Scroll (1QM) also uses an allusion to Ezekiel as part of its hope
for future service in the Temple. Drawing on the Temple role given to the
prince in Ezekiel 44—45, the War Scroll describes the role of the whole
army of Qumran in Temple ritual.
1QM 2.3-4 The chiefs ("ton) of the Ezek. 44.3 As for the prince
tribes and the fathers of the he shall sit in it
congregation behind them are to
take up their station
steadily in the gates of the [the gate of the sanctuary
sanctuary (ttrtpBH nrtfa); their («npon w ) , 44.1] as prince to eat
chiefs... with their numbered men bread before YHWH.
shall take up their stations for their Ezek. 45.17 [The prince will provide
festivals (D7THI7O1?), for their firsts of the sacrifices] at the feasts (com),
the months40 on the firsts of the months
(Drptfnnb) and Sabbaths (DnBnrai), and on the Sabbaths
(mrntfn), and for all the days of the (rnrattm), at all the appointed feasts
year (natfn w)... CHjnirtea) of the house of Israel.
The phrase 'gate of the sanctuary' (ttnpon TO) is only used in Ezek. 44.1,
11 in the OT. And although the combination of festivals, new moons, and
Sabbaths is common in the OT, only in Ezekiel is that order followed,
although the War Scroll uses festivals (nun) instead of feasts (an), perhaps
because ivn elsewhere in the War Scroll refers to 'stations.'41 This is
admittedly a weaker allusion than some others; it is not clear that the
author intended to invoke the memory or authority of Ezekiel. It is clear
that the War Scroll here emphasizes the role of its non-priestly members in
39. The property rules at Qumran were not necessarily motivated by the Levitical land
ownership laws or by their mention here in Ezek. 44.28; rather, Qumranites may have found
support for their property rules in Ezek. 44.
40. Most translations render this as 'new moons.' However, J. VanderKam, in personal
correspondence, suggests the translation 'firsts of the months,' since Qumran did not follow a
lunar calendar.
41. Other passages use the order Sabbaths, new moons, festivals (1 Chron. 23.31; 2 Chron.
2.3; 8.13; 31.3; Neh. 10.34). Jub. 44.1 uses the same order. Yadin suggests a link between this
order and the Jubilees-based calendar. Yadin, War Scroll, pp. 205-06, 264.
the Temple more than is precedented in levitical law. The precedent for
kingly service can be found in the historical narratives of the OT (cf. 1 Kgs
8.63-64; 1 Chron. 16.2), but only in Ezekiel's 'New Temple' oracles do we
see a particular gate or station assigned to the prince by law. The author
of the War Scroll expanded on this to include a Temple station for all of
the leaders and men of the army. The expansion is consistent with the
Qumran eschatological hope for a future role in the restored Temple in
Jerusalem.42
Another work at Qumran, New Jerusalem (2Q24^27; 4Q554; 5Q13-15)
also expands on the final chapters of Ezekiel. This document describes the
measurements of sections of the restored city of Jerusalem in a fashion
similar to the measurements of Ezekiel 40-48.43
New Jerusalem is in Aramaic, so verbal parallels to Ezekiel cannot be
precisely established. However, some phrases in New Jerusalem are at least
synonymous with phrases in Ezekiel 40. The narrator of New Jerusalem,
like Ezekiel, is led into the city (2Q24 1.1; Ezek. 40.1); and the angelic
surveyor shows the prophet what he is measuring throughout both texts.
The parallels to Ezekiel are mainly conceptual: the thorough measurement
of doors, lintels, towers, pillars, and chambers is strongly reminiscent of
Ezekiel's measurements of the Temple. The longest preserved sections of
New Jerusalem describe the 'housing complexes' of Jerusalem (5Q15 fr. 1-
2), but short fragments also survive describing the Temple (2Q24 fr. 3, 8;
cf. Ezekiel 40-41; esp. 41.22) and the priestly duties (2Q24 fr. 4; cf. Ezek.
45.13-25). The only noticeable difference is one of perspective: New
Jerusalem moves from outside the city towards the Temple, while Ezekiel
starts at the Temple.44
It is not hard to see the motivation behind the writing of New Jerusalem.
The oracle in Ezekiel is chiefly concerned with the new Temple, with its
measurements, laws, and rituals (Ezekiel 40-46). Only briefly are the living
spaces of Jerusalem described (Ezek. 45.1-6; 48.8-22). Ezekiel's Jerusalem
is divided into portions: An allotment of 25,000 by 10,000 cubits is set
aside for the Temple grounds and priestly use, another of the same size for
the Levites, a smaller allotment for 'all Israel,' and a larger allotment for
the prince. The buildings on this land are not described at all by Ezekiel.
Further, Ezekiel's description of the priestly duties is hardly comprehen-
sive. Clearly the author of New Jerusalem wanted tofillin the details of the
42. 1QM 3.11; 7.4 make it clear that this refers to a Temple in Jerusalem, not merely to the
congregation of Qumran. Yadin, War Scroll, p. 264.
43. For careful description and diagrams of the layout of New Jerusalem and Temple, see
M. Chyutin, 'The New Jerusalem: Ideal City', DSD 1 (1994), pp. 71-97 , esp. 94-96. Chyutin
also defends his view that the dimensions of the New Jerusalem have mystical significance.
44. A number of these observations were also made by Vogelgesang in his comparison of
the New Jerusalem in Revelation and in the DSS. Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 151-55.
priests' duties and living spaces, since the hope of the Community was that
they would dwell in the restored city.45 Just as Ezekiel's Temple
measurements had the rhetorical effect of concretizing the hopes of the
Exiles, New Jerusalem's housing measurements concretized the hopes of
the Qumran Community. For Ezekiel and his audience, hope was vested in
a restored Temple and Land, but the specific duties and housing of the new
priesthood were of lesser import. In contrast, both the housing and duties
of the priests were very important to the audience of New Jerusalem,
because of their belief that the restored priesthood would come from their
ranks.
It is a striking fact that two separate works at Qumran - probably
written a century apart46 - use the same passage from Ezekiel. The
Damascus Document (CD 3.21ff) describes these hopes most explicitly: the
Community consisted of the 'Priests and Levites and sons of Zadok' of
Ezekiel 44, who would one day supplant the current priesthood in the new
Temple.47 New Jerusalem begins from Ezekiel's vision of a restored Temple
and 'fills in' the gaps to describe the housing and duties of the new
priesthood in the New Jerusalem. Such congruity suggests that there was a
continuous interpretational tradition at Qumran about Ezekiel 40-48. The
Community saw those chapters as prophecy that would be fulfilled in and
through them. The Community interpreted some other passages of
Scripture, including parts of Ezekiel, in a typological fashion. Any events
that they deemed to have already occurred were treated typologically, as
models for what was to come. But since there was not yet a Temple of
Ezekiel's specifications (both physical and ritual), and especially since there
was not yet a priesthood that fit Ezekiel's high calling, the Community
interpreted Ezekiel 40-48 in a prophecy-fulfillment scheme.
d. The Heavenly Temple (Ezekiel 1,10, 43; Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,)
The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q400-07, 11Q17, Maslk), like New
Jerusalem and Florilegium, is concerned with the true Temple. Unlike those
works, however, Songs is primarily interested in the heavenly Temple.
Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is a series of thirteen Sabbath liturgical
45. Vogelgesang suggests that 'the transfer of temple descriptions to the city (contrast the
purpose of Revelation 21-22) has the purpose of extending cultic holiness and purity to the
city.' Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', p. 155.
46. Vermes places the Damascus Document in about 100 BC, partly because of lack of any
reference to the Kittim; and he assigns 5Q15 to the end of the first century BC. CDSS, pp.
125-26, 568.
47. The typical reconstruction of the eschatology of the Damascus Document suggests that
only the priests at Qumran, not all the Qumranites, would become the new priesthood.
However, the Damascus Document's explanation of Ezek. 44.15 suggests that the author saw
even some non-priestly members of Qumran joining the new priesthood.
songs for the first quarter of the year.48 It is not certain that the Songs were
composed at Qumran; they contain few of the typically sectarian themes.
Its reliance on the Jubilees calendar suggests, if not composition at
Qumran, at least the reason for its adoption at Qumran.49 The songs
describe various aspects of the heavenly Temple, throne room, angelic
beings, and heavenly priesthood. The fragmentary sections perhaps
describe various levels of heaven and eschatological events in heaven.50
The entire set of songs is important in the study of merkabah mysticism,
but this study will discuss the merkabah tradition only insofar as it
involves the use of Ezekiel in this work.51 Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice
uses Ezekiel in two important ways. First, the structure of Songs 9-13
seems to follow Ezekiel 40-48; and second, Song 12 (4Q405 20.5-14) is
directly dependent on the throne visions of Ezekiel 1,10, and 43.
C. Newsom first observed that the structure of Songs 9-13 is dependent
on Ezekiel 40-48.52 Like the description of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48,
Songs moves from a description of the outer temple and its chambers (Song
9) to the inner chamber (Song 10-11), and there God's throne-chariot is
found (Song 12). Song 13 then describes the praise of the angelic beings.
Song 12 has the most parallels to Ezekiel. Although the language of Song
12 is primarily derived from the throne visions of Ezekiel 1 and 10,
Newsom correctly suggests that the merkabah is placed here in the Songs
because Ezekiel 43 places the throne-vision after the description of the
restored Temple. Ezekiel 1 does not clearly connect the throne vision with
the Temple; Ezekiel 10 depicts God on his throne leaving the Temple
before its destruction; but only Ezekiel 43 shows God's throne entering
and residing within the new Temple. Since Song 12 pictures the throne-
48. The critical edition of Songs is found in C. Newsom, 'Shirot Olat Hashabbat', in J.C.
VanderKam and M. Brady (eds), Qumran Cave 4 (DJD, 11; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998),
pp. 173-401. However, many of Newsom's comments on the Merkabah elements in Song 12
are found in her earlier edition, C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition
(HSM, 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), from which I primarily quote. Davila also provides
a useful translation and commentary. J.R. Davila, Liturgical Works (ECDSS; Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans, 2000).
49. Newsom, citing the large number of manuscripts found and the Qumran priestly
emphasis, is almost certain of its composition at Qumran. (Newsom, Songs, pp. 61-62).
Davila is less persuaded by this evidence. Davila, Liturgical Works, p. 83.
50. See introductory material in Davila, Liturgical Works, pp. 83-96; Newsom, Songs, pp.
8-9, 14-15.
51. For a discussion of the role of 4Q405 in merkabah mysticism, see Davila, Liturgical
Works, pp. 83-84, 90-93; I. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU, 14;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980), p. vii; D J . Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot (TSAJ, 16; Tubingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1988), pp. 52-53; J.J. Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John (JSNTSup, 158; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 51-54, 92-94.
52. The following material on the structure of Songs 9-12 is derived from the explanation
in Newsom, Songs, pp. 51-58.
chariot in the heavenly Temple as the final stage of the vision, it seems
likely that the image is related to Ezek. 43.1-5, with details drawn from
Ezekiel's other throne visions.
Song 12 is directly dependent on Ezekiel 1 and 10 for much of its
language, but it alters the material to suit its own emphases, as will be seen
in the table below.
Allusions to Ezekiel 1, 10 in 4Q405 20.7-12 (Song 12)
4Q405 20.7 The cherubim prostrate Ezek. 1.24 I heard the sound of the
themselves before Him and bless. wings... like the voice of God
As they rise, a whispered divine Almighty
voice (DTnSx noai bip) 8 is heard, when he speaks...
and there is a roar of praise. When 1.24 like a sound of tumult

they raise their wings, (Dms3D DTD) 10.16 when the cherubim raise their
there is a whispered divine voice. wings (ED1?
The cherubim bless the image of the 1.26 And above the firmament
throne-chariot (K02 m a n ) above p bmm) over their heads there
the firmament, was the likeness of a throne
(irp-6 bvtm) 9 and they praise the
majesty of the luminous firmament 1.22 a firmament, shining like
beneath His seat of glory. crystal...
When the wheels move 1.19 And when the living creatures
(D^BIKH naâi) angels of holiness move (rvnnn robai), the wheels
come and go (K2T moved with them
1.13-14 . . . out of the fire came

(KST) lightning, and the living
creatures darted back and forth
(awn Ki:n).53
From between 10 his glorious 10.6 Take fire from between the
wheels (âba yam) there is as it were wheels (SabaS rnra& BK), from
a fiery vision (&»*) of most holy between the cherubim.
spirits.
53. Songs may have read Ki:n (running) (going forth). Newsom, Songs, p. 55.
Dan. 7.10 A stream of fire

About them, the appearance of issued... 5 4
rivulets of fire (»K •bum n n a ) in the Ezek. 1.4 . . . in the midst of the fire
likeness of gleaming brass (tt?Kn "lira), as it were gleaming
rmra), brass
and a work of 11 radiance (nai3) in 1.28 Like the appearance of the

many-colored glory, marvelous rainbow... so was the appearance
pigments, clearly mingled. of the surrounding brightness
(ran), (cf. 1.4)
1.20 Wherever the spirit would go,

The spirits of the living 'gods' they went . . . for the spirit of the
S mrrn) living creatures (mnn mi) was in
the wheels.
move continuously ( with 1.13 like . . . torches moving

the glory of the marvelous continuously (robnnft) between the
chariot(s). living creatures.
12 There is a sound of blessing in 1.24 when they move (aroâ) a

the tumult of their movement sound of tumult (nbnn Sip) like the
(nrob para), and they praise the sound of an army camp
Holy One on their way of return. (mm b
When they ascend, they ascend 10.17 When they (the cherubim)
(IOBVP Danro) marvelously and stand still, they (the wheels) stand
when they settle, they stand still. still (TTOJP DTQM) and when they
(the cherubim) ascend, they (the
wheels) ascend (mrv o a r m ) with
them.
The number of verbal parallels and synonyms makes it clear that Song 12
is dependent on Ezekiel's throne visions, despite occasional alterations to
the details.56 Some of the alterations seem to be designed to accommodate
the angelology of Qumran. For example, the wheeled 'living creatures' in
Ezekiel are apparently synonymous with the cherubim (Ezek. 1.15; 10.9,
54. Cf. 1 En. 14.18 (see below, p. 82) for 'streams of fire' in the merkabah.
55. Newsom, Songs, p. 56.
56. As Halperin points out, most of the works in the merkabah tradition alter Ezekiel's
vision in minor or major details. Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, p. 71.
22). Song 12, perhaps taking its cue from Ezek. 1.20, makes the 'living
creatures' into 'the spirits of the living "gods'", and distinguishes them
from the cherubim, the 'angels of holiness,' and the 'most holy spirits'
(4Q405 20.8, 9, 11). Ezekiel's angelic beings bear God's glorious presence,
but are not depicted worshiping God. The Qumran angelology, perhaps
influenced by Isaiah 6 and 1 Enoch 14, describes the angelic beings
worshiping God (4Q405 20.7-9, 12). The placing of Ezekiel's vision into a
liturgical context was part of the reason for making worship the chief
function of the angelic beings in Song 12. Perhaps the need to accommodate
Ezekiel's vision to the Qumran angelology also motivates some of the other
minor changes - the reversal of wheels and angels/living creatures in 4Q405
20.9 and the moving of the chariot above the firmament (4Q405 20.8-9).
The most important modifications to Ezekiel's throne-vision are related
to the Sabbath Songs' liturgical and merkabah purposes. Unlike some later
merkabah literature, the Sabbath Songs describe heavenly visions without
hinting at a means of obtaining those visions. The nature of their
participation in the heavenly worship is also unclear; was their recitation of
the Songs connected with a visionary experience, or was it merely a
recitation of the heavenly worship? However, it is clear that Ezekiel's
language is appropriated as part of a liturgical experience centered on the
heavenly Temple and the throne-room of God.57 The use of the word
'merkabah' (a term not used in Ezekiel's visions) suggests that Song 12 is
part of the merkabah tradition, even if mystical participation is not
evident. The appropriation of Ezekiel's vision for liturgical or merkabah
purposes necessarily entails changing the purpose of Ezekiel's vision.
The throne-vision of Ezekiel is an important narrative element that
unites the entire prophetic work and is an essential part of expressing its
theological emphasis. The initial throne-vision in Ezekiel 1 is a means of
transferring God's presence and glory out of the Temple, its traditional
seat. The stunning vision of the living throne bearing God's presence is not
in the Temple in Ezekiel's first vision. The visions come from heaven to
Ezekiel while he is in Babylon (Ezek. 1.1-3), and the visions of God's
presence are outdoors (Ezek. 1.4; 3.23). The emphasis on the constantly
moving living creatures and their wheels points to God's ability to reside
anywhere. The central point of Ezekiel 1 is that God's presence is far more
majestic than anything the Temple could hold; and that God's presence is
by no means bound to the Temple.
In Ezekiel 10, this image is advanced. God's majestic throne begins in
the Temple, but leaves; and the fire beneath the throne is the means for the
destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. Appropriately, this image comes
57. Newsom describes the Songs as 'a quasi-mystical liturgy designed to evoke a sense of
being present in the heavenly temple.' Newsom, Songs, p. 59.
after several chapters describing the sin of Jerusalem and the defilement of
the Temple. Ezekiel 10 thus sets God's true presence in opposition to
Solomon's Temple. God's presence can only return to his Temple at the
end of Ezekiel, after the judgment and restoration of Israel are complete.
But this new Temple is built according to heavenly standards and it is
served by a purified priesthood in a new age. There, Ezekiel sees a vision of
the same majestic throne entering into the holy place and residing forever
(Ezek. 43.1-7). The glory of God that could not remain in his defiled
Temple, among his defiled people, can now rest contentedly in a new
Temple, among his renewed people.
Merkabah visions in other literature often appropriate Ezekiel's imagery
without fully grasping Ezekiel's theological implications. Typically, the
emphasis of merkabah literature is on visionary ascent to heaven to gain
access to secret knowledge. This ascent may be put into the experience of
great heroes of the faith, as in the Pseudepigrapha (e.g., 1 Enoch 14; 40; 61;
71; 2 Enoch 20; 21; Ascension of Isaiah 6, etc.); or it may be prescribed for
the contemporary mystic, as in the Hekhalot literature. In either case, such
literature neglects Ezekiel's use of the throne-vision to demonstrate God's
majestic presence outside the corrupt Temple and his return after Israel's
restoration.
However, the merkabah vision in Song 12 seems to preserve more of
Ezekiel's understanding of the vision than other merkabah literature. Like
other merkabah literature (but not Ezekiel), Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice
transfers the throne-vision to a heavenly throne-room or temple. However,
unlike most apocalyptic literature, Songs does not emphasize the revelation
of secret knowledge, despite its occasional dependence otherwise on
apocalyptic literature like 1 Enoch. There is no sense that any visionary,
whether ancient or contemporary, has ascended to heaven for a meeting
with God to learn secrets. Perhaps the view of the angelic worship could be
regarded as the revelation of secrets, but the typical language of revelation
is not used in the surviving fragments.
Second, an evaluation of the likely significance of the Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrifice within Qumran eschatology suggests a fundamental
agreement with Ezekiel. Qumran's liturgy of the heavenly Temple is set in
opposition to the liturgy of the Jerusalem Temple.58 The Community
cannot honor the idea of God's presence in Jerusalem, so this liturgy
focuses on his presence in the heavenly Temple. In other Qumran literature
referring to the ideal Temple or God's presence (such as the Damascus
Document, the War Scroll, New Jerusalem, see above) the authors of the
DSS saw God residing in the Community, but not in the Second Temple.
However, this was not a permanent state of affairs; their ultimate hope was
58. Newsom, Songs, p. 62.

closely aligned with Ezekiel's: God would dwell one day in a restored
Temple in Jerusalem.
At first glance, the heavenly Temple of the Songs is inconsistent with the
eschatological Temple of the other Qumran literature. However, the use of
the Songs at Qumran suggests that they saw no such inconsistency. Their
ability to reconcile the two may be based on the existence of both
perspectives in the OT and in its traditional interpretation (i.e., the
Tabernacle was built from a heavenly model, Ezekiel's Temple may have
been based on a heavenly model, but the prophets expected a restored
Temple in Jerusalem). Furthermore, Qumran eschatology provided a
ready harmonization for the heavenly Temple and the eschatological
Temple in the various writings of Qumran. The Community viewed itself
in a temporary situation before the destruction of Jerusalem and the dawn
of the new age. The Songs allowed a Temple-based worship in the
intermediate time before the restored Temple was built. Perhaps, as
Newsom suggests, the Sabbath liturgy was the way in which God's
presence in the Community was actualized. If the Community was God's
Temple, it was because the recitation of the Songs allowed the Community
to experience the heavenly Temple by sharing priestly duties with the
angels.59
The liturgical nature of Sabbath Songs makes it difficult to classify
precisely the use of Ezekiel. Sabbath Songs does not describe events, so
fulfilled prophecy and typology are clearly the wrong categories. The usage
is not, strictly speaking, sapiential, although the images of the heavenly
throne room are timeless. Sabbath Songs is liturgical, and it has a liturgical
use of Scripture. That is, Sabbath Songs uses images from Scripture to
engage the Community in worship. There is little interpretation of
Scripture; rather, Scripture is used to elicit images that exalt God and
his dwelling places.
e. Restoration and the 'Heart of Flesh' (Ezekiel 36.22-27; Hodayot 14.10;

21.10-13; Community Rule 3.5-9)
Ezekiel's oracle of the 'new heart' (Ezek. 36.22-32), prophesying
restoration and purification, was the source of inspiration for language
in both Hodayot and Community Rule. The first set of allusions in Hodayot
are not very impressive, but they set the stage for understanding the view
of the heart of flesh at Qumran. In three of the psalms contained in
Hodayot, language from Ezek. 36.22 is used to describe God's motives in
restoring his people.
59. Newsom, Songs, pp. 62-63.

1QH 14.10 For your own sake Ezek. 36.22 It is not for your sake
(raajjabi) you have done it (pwvh vb), House of Israel, that I
(nrrraj;), to make the law and truth am going to act (nw), but for Co)
great... my holy name.
12.38 It is not for man (DI*6

[...] that you did it (nrnmj) [...],
forC3)[...]
21.6-7 And I know that you, my
God, have done (nrrw) these things
for yourself (n^b)... to establish
everything for your glory.
These three lines from Hodayot are part of similar hymns. Hodayot 12 is a
more personal hymn of praise for God's mercy towards the author; he
thanks God for 'atoning iniquity' and acknowledges that God's reasons
for forgiving are not for human advancement only. In Hodayot 14, the
author thanks God not only for his own personal deliverance from 'the
counsel of violence' (1QH 14.5), but also for God's work in cleansing all
the members of the Community, and especially for his future plans for the
Community (1QH 14.7-8, 14-19, discussed above). The author is
convinced that God has used and will use the Community for his own
ends, 'to make the law and truth great.' Finally, Hodayot 21 praises God
for his mercy in purifying and revealing himself to a weak and sinful
human (1QH 20.32-21.18). The language used to ascribe God's motives to
the advancement of his own glory parallels the language in Ezek. 36.22.
Although the parallels are not as striking as some others, the phrase 'for
your sake' (roara^) combined with 'do' (TiW) cannot be found elsewhere
in the OT. The fact that the three passages in Hodayot, like Ezek. 36.22,
discuss God's motives in mercifully delivering his people from their own
sin, also makes the parallel seem intentional.
If they are intentional, the allusions to Ezekiel 36 are significant. The
action that God promises for his own glory is the restoration from exile
and the cleansing of his people (Ezek. 36.24-29), which are essentially the
same actions for which the author of Hodayot is thankful (1QH 12.34-37;
14.3-9, 14-17). Hodayot (not surprisingly) transfers God's promises of
restoration and cleansing from Israel to the Community, and hints that a
new restoration from exile is now underway in the Community. If the view
of this new restoration is in keeping with other material we have looked at
(especially in the Damascus Document), then Hodayot also has a
typological view of Ezekiel's Exile. The Community is in a new Exile,
one that will end with a new visitation on Jerusalem and a new
restoration.
Hodayot 21 contains a further allusion to Ezekiel 36. This allusion

further establishes the likelihood that the above references to God's
motives in Ezekiel 36 are genuine allusions, but it also adds to our
understanding of the use of Scripture in Hodayot.
1QH 21.10-11 I am a creature [of Ezek. 36.26 I will give you a new
clay ... an ear of du]st and heart of heart and put a new spirit within
stone (pKH zbi). you; and I will remove the heart of
21.12-13 You have inscribed stone (pKH 2b) from your flesh and
forever60 what is to happen in the give you a heart of flesh.61
heart of [stone] ([p^n] aba).
The phrase 'heart of stone' is found nowhere else in the OT. The double
use of the phrase so soon after the allusion to Ezek. 36.22 (in 1QH 21.6),
makes it likely that the reference to the restoration oracle in Ezek. 36.22ff
is intentional.
The precise use of the wording contributes to our understanding of the
eschatology of Hodayot. In some sense, the author believed that the
promised restoration and purification was already beginning in the
Community, as is clear from his thankfulness for God's accomplished
purification (1QH 12.38; 14.10; 21.6). However, Hodayot is still awaiting
the final purification. The author notably omits any reference to the heart
of flesh. Despite his status as the Instructor who knows God (1QH 20.11),
and the primary means of the Community's health (1QH 16.22-24), the
author has not yet received the 'heart of flesh.' This omission suggests that
Hodayot awaits the transformation from 'heart of stone' to 'heart of flesh'
in the coming age.
This 'realized eschatology' (i.e., some purification accomplished in the
present, but thefinalpurification to be accomplished in thefinalage) mirrors
the ideas found in the Community Rule. There, the new initiate's purification
by water is described in language reminiscent of Ezek. 36.25-27.
60. The phrase 'inscribed forever . . . in the heart' probably echoes Eccl. 3.11, 'he has set
eternity in their heart,' again demonstrating the tendency to combine similar texts.
61. Cf. the same phrases in Ezek. 11.19. This passage is also used in CD 3.16-17 (see
above, p. 28) to describe God's promise to judge the inhabitants of Jerusalem and inhabit the
land with the exiles. There, it is only these returned exiles who receive the 'new spirit' and the
'heart of flesh.'
1QS 3.7-9 It is by the Holy Spirit of Ezek. 36.25, 27 Then I will sprinkle
the Community in his (God's) truth clean water on you
that he can be cleansed (-intF) from (DmntD 0*0 Tip*)D), and you will be
all his iniquities (imam; bvn) . . . It clean (ornntDi); I will cleanse you
is by humbling his soul . . . that his from all your filthiness
flesh can be cleansed ("intt"), by (MTDKQtt bsn) and from all your
sprinkling with waters of idols. 27 And I will put my Spirit
purification (ma '•ran rnrnb), and by within you and cause you to walk in
sanctifying himself with waters of my statutes, and you will be careful
purity forr s oa wnpnnbi).62 to observe my ordinances.
The initiation of new members into the Community is described in

language from Ezekiel 36, suggesting that the Community saw the
promised restoration already in process. But as in Hodayot, ultimate
purification yet remained:
At the appointed time for judgment ... He will purify him by the Holy
Spirit from all ungodly acts and sprinkle upon him the Spirit of Truth
like waters of purification, (to purify him) from all the abominations of
falsehood and from being polluted by a spirit of impurity ... (1QS 4.20,
21-22)
Members of the Community looked forward to a completion of the
purification begun in their initial and daily baptisms. Both the initiation
and completion of that purification are described using language from
Ezek. 36.25-27.
The fact that both Community Rule and Hodayot used the same passage
from Ezekiel to describe present and future purification and restoration is
significant. It reinforces the view that the Community saw itself in a new
Exile that mirrored the first Exile and would end in a new restoration. The
similar usage of Ezekiel is evidence for a continuous interpretational
tradition at Qumran about the restoration oracle in Ezek. 36.22ff.63 The
authors of both Community Rule and Hodayot saw Ezekiel's restoration
oracle as a prophecy that was now being fulfilled in the life of the
Community, but awaited completion at the end of the age.
62. The phrase ma T33 ('waters of purification') is the typical term used for 'holy water'
(Num. 19.9, 13, 20, 21; 31.23).
63. The Damascus Document is usually dated to about 100 BC or earlier. Individual
Hodayot are difficult to date; the collection probably dates to the first century BC. CDSS, pp.
125-26, 244.
f. Showers of Blessing (Ezekiel 34.25-26; Benediction 7)

A benediction found in the Benediction (11Q14) contains a brief allusion to
Ezekiel 34.
11Q14 7 May he . . . open for you Ezek. 34.26 And I will cause
his good treasure which is in heaven showers to come down in their
to bring down on your land season; they will be showers of
showers of blessing (TO-Q TO»a), blessing (ro-Q t|o©a).
dew, rain, early rain and
late rain in His/its time, and to give 34.25 And I will make a covenant of
you the produce . . . 8 and wild peace with them and eliminate wild
beasts shall withdraw from your beasts from the land
land ( p a n run mm). ( p x m p nirrmn) so that they may
live securely in the wilderness . . .
The Benediction is mainly a repetition of the covenant blessings found in

Deut. 11.14. Ezek. 34.25-26 also echoes those covenant blessings. The
Benediction reveals its knowledge of both passages by combining elements
from Deuteronomy (early and late rain, corn, wine and oil) with elements
from Ezekiel 34 (showers of blessing, absence of wild beasts). Both of those
phrases are unique to Ezekiel. There is nothing very startling about the use
of Ezekiel here; it merely reveals that the Community longed for the
blessings of the Covenant and saw the prophecy in Ezekiel 34 as part of
God's promise for his people. The combination of the two texts may also
suggest Qumran's eschatological view of the covenant. The blessings of
Deuteronomy 11 are not limited to the final age, but the similar blessings in
Ezekiel 34 come with the renewed throne of David (Ezek. 34.24) and the
'plantation of renown' (Ezek. 34.29) that God will one day provide. The
Benediction clearly asks God to bring his covenant blessings, but also hints
at asking God to bring his eschatological blessings.
g. The Everlasting Plantation (Ezekiel 31, 17, 19, 21, 31; Hodayot 14.14-
18; 16.5-20)
Metaphors involving a plant, plantation, or trees are common at Qumran,
and especially in the Hodayot. They are among the most difficult sections
to analyze at Qumran, because the images and wording are often drawn
from a variety of plant metaphors in the OT. In many cases, phrases from
different OT passages are conflated in a way that is difficult to untangle. In
some cases, particular agricultural metaphors are drawn from OT
passages, but the original metaphorical role of those phrases is altered
or even reversed. In other cases, the basic metaphor is drawn from one
passage, but some of the terminology from other passages. The goal of this
study is to determine the extent to which plant imagery from Ezekiel is

included, and the manner in which it is interpreted.
1QH 14.14-18 is part of a hymn thanking God for establishing the
Community. The speaker also praises God for his future plans for his
people. The primary image is drawn from the oracle against Egypt (and
Assyria) in Ezekiel 31, but some words and phrases are drawn from other
parts of Ezekiel, Genesis, Psalms, and Isaiah.64 The author of Hodayot
describes God's blessed people as an enormous tree that extends its roots
down to the primordial deep, and its branches up to the sky. Its source of
power is 'the rivers of Eden' that water it; its branches provide shade for
the whole world. All of these elements can be found in the oracle against
Egypt and Assyria in Ezekiel 31. The chart below illustrates some of the
allusions, and demonstrates that the metaphor is derived primarily from
Ezekiel 31. The Hebrew is omitted here for simplicity; parallel English
words represent parallel Hebrew words.
OT Allusions in Hodayot 14 (1QH 14.14—17)
Hodayot 14 Ezekiel 31 Other OT Other OT
Their root 15 will Isa. 27.6 Jacob will

sprout take root, Israel will
blossom and sprout
like a flower of the Isa. 40.6 All flesh is Ps. 103.15 like a
field forever, grass, and all its flower of the field, so
loveliness is like the he flourishes.
flower of the field
to make a shoot Ezek. 31.4 the waters

grow made it grow
in branches of the Isa. 60.21 they will

everlasting planta- possess the land
tion forever, the branch
of my planting.
So that it covers all Ezek. 31.6 And all Ezek. 17.23 And Ps. 80.10 The
the world with its great nations lived birds . . . will nest in mountains were
shade, under its shade. the shade of its covered with its
branches. shade
64. The same image can be found in Dan. 4.8-9 (S. Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from
Qumran (AcTDan, 2; Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget, 1960), p. 115), but the Daniel passage is
much briefer, and exact parallels are more difficult to establish because Daniel 4 is in Aramaic.
and its crown 16 Ezek. 31.3, 10, 14 its Ezek. 19.11 its height Ezek. 17.22 I will
65 7
(reaches) up to the " ~° among
crown J was — — - was raised above the take a sprig from the
skies the clouds 66 clouds crown of the
cedar . . . and I will
plant it on a high
and lofty mountain.
and its roots down to Ezek. 31.4 The Ps. 80.9 It took deep
the abyss. waters made it grow, root and filled the
the abyss made it land
high.
All the streams of Ezek. 31.7 For its Gen. 2.9-10 God Ps. 80.11 it sent out
Eden will water its roots extended to made every tree its branches to the
branches and they many waters 31.16 grow . . . a river sea, and its shoots to
will be seas without all the well-watered flowed out of Eden the river.
limits; trees of Eden to water the
garden...
17 and its forest will Isa. 27.6 Jacob shall

be over the whole take root, Israel shall
world, endless, blossom and sprout,
and fill the whole
world with fruit.
and as deep as Sheol Ezek. 31.15 when it

its roots. goes down to Sheol
There are a number of indications that the author of Hodayot did not feel
bound by the passage that so influenced his language. First, Hodayot does
not follow the same order as Ezekiel 31. Rather, it is a fresh reworking of
the same metaphor, with its primary wording drawn from the passages
listed above. At first, it seems surprising that 1QH 14.14-17 should use
Ezekiel 31 so heavily. The author of Hodayot had to transform Ezekiel's
oracle of woe against pagan Egypt into a hymn of blessing on God's
people. Hodayot omits any part of the oracle that described judgment on
the tree.67 The author even takes phrases connected with the destruction of
the great Egypt-tree and reverses their meaning to fit his own metaphor.
65. Ezekiel 31 uses rnns for 'crown'; Ezekiel 17, like Hodayot, uses *]3I7.
66. ray may be translated as 'interwoven foliage' or 'clouds' (BDB, p. 721). The word
shows up in both Ezek. 19.11 and 31.3, 10,14; BDB suggests that it should be translated as the
former in Ezekiel 19 and as the latter in Ezekiel 31. The LXX reverses that, translating it as kv
(ieoo) oteXexwv (in the middle of trunks) in Ezek. 19.11 and dc, \ieoov ve$eX&v (in the middle of
the clouds) in Ezek. 31.3, 10, 14.
67. The same could be said about his use of Psalm 80. There, the psalmist moves from a
description of the mighty vine, Israel, to its current state of abandonment.
Thus, Ezekiel's description of Egypt being cast into Sheol becomes, in

Hodayot, the mighty roots going down to Sheol to tap into the abyssal
waters. In Ezekiel, 'all the well-watered trees of Eden' are comforted at the
destruction of the Egypt-tree; in Hodayot 14, the waters of Eden irrigate
the mighty tree.
However strange this usage at first seems, the thought of Hodayofs
author can perhaps be traced. His elaborate agricultural metaphor was
constructed with elements from various OT agricultural metaphors, but
he was not overly concerned with the broad meaning of those source
metaphors. In Ezekiel 31, the branches, fruit, and height of the tree are
pictures of the majesty and prosperity of Egypt before its destruction.
Hodayot preserves the positive meaning of the agricultural elements, but
transfers the images to Qumran and omits the judgment. Hodayofs
other source passages (Psalm 80; Isaiah 27, 40, 60; Ezekiel 17, 19) all
use agricultural imagery to describe the majesty and prosperity of Israel
or its rulers. That majesty was destroyed (Psalm 80; Ezekiel 17, 19), like
the beauty of Eden (Genesis 2), but would one day be restored (Isaiah
27, 40, 60). Hodayot appropriates the imagery, but transfers it from
broader Israel to God's true assembly at Qumran. This transformation
of images fits the goal and theology of the author. The glory of the
pagan nations was fleeting and would be destroyed. Israel's majesty had
also faded, so Isaiah's prophecies would be fulfilled in the true Israel,
Qumran.
Hodayot resumes the image of the Community as a tree in 1QH 16.4—
21, with even more complexity. All of the passages above are used, as
well as agricultural images from Genesis 3; Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 11;
Psalm 1; Isaiah 5, 10; Jeremiah 2, 17, 48; Ezekiel 15, 21, 26; Hosea 10;
and Zephaniah 2. The various allusions are woven together in a manner
that is difficult to trace precisely. However, it seems clear that the
guiding image is that of Psalm 1 and Jeremiah 17: the blessed and cursed
trees. Every part of this basic image is elaborated on by the use of
agricultural imagery from other passages. For example, the 'streams of
water' of Ps. 1.3 are connected (via allusive language) with Isaiah's
pouring out of the Spirit, the rivers of Eden, the Temple river of Ezekiel,
the waters of life, and the deluge. The blessed tree of Psalm 1 is
connected with the tree of life, the cedars of Ezekiel and Psalm 80, the
Branch of David, and Isaiah's trees of blessing. Birds and beasts live
under the tree and off the tree, in language that alludes to Psalm 80,
Ezekiel 17 and 31. The cursed tree is not only cut off from its water
supply, as in Psalm 1; it also withers and burns (in language taken from
a variety of OT sources) and is destroyed by the waters of the flood and
the Red Sea. The following chart shows only the phrases and ideas that
parallel Ezekiel's imagery.
Allusions to Ezekiel in Hodayot 16
1QH 16.5 in a garden watered by Ezek. 31.3—4 a cedar... of great

channels [... ] a plantation of height... The waters nourished it,
cypresses and elms, together with the deep made it grow tall, making
cedars, for your glory. its rivers flow round its plantation,
sending forth its streams to all the
trees of the forest.
16.5-6 Trees of life in the secret 31.14 all the trees by the water
source, hidden among all the trees 47.12 And by the river... will grow
at the water all trees for food. Their leaves will
not wither... their leaves are for
healing.
16.7 Their roots extend to the gully, 47.12 They will bear fruit every
and its trunk opens to the living month because their water flows
waters from the sanctuary
16.8-9 On the shoots of its leaves all 31.13 On its ruin all the birds of
the animals of the wood will feed, heaven will dwell. And all the
its trunk will be pasture for all who animals of the field will be on its
cross the path, and its leaves for all branches. 17.23 all winged birds will
winged birds. dwell under it
16.16 But Thou, O my God, hast Jer. 17.13 they have forsaken
put into my m o u t h . . . rain for all YHWH, the fount of living waters.
[those who thirst] and a fount of Ezek. 47.9 everything will live
living waters which shall not fail... where the river goes
16.17 but they [the waters] will 47.8 these waters... go towards the
become a torrent overflowing into sea (note increasing water from
[... ] of water and into the seas, 47.1-7)
without end
16.18-20 They will swell suddenly 21.3 (MT) a fire... shall consume
from secret hiding-places, [... ] they every green tree and every dry tree
will become waters of [judgment?] 17.24 I dry up the green tree and
for every tree, green and dry, a make the dry tree flourish
marsh for every animal. [... ] like 19.12 [the vine] dried up; the fire
lead in powerful waters [... ] of fire consumed it.
and dry up.
16.21 By my hand you have opened 47.3-5 . . . he measured [the river] a

their spring... turning in thousand cubits... again he
accordance with the proper measured a thousand, and it was a
measurement... river I could not ford...
The role of Ezekiel in Hodayot 16 is much the same as in Hodayot 14.

That is, the author of Hodayot draws individual elements from Ezekiel's
metaphor, but not the overall meaning of that metaphor. The main
thrust of the allegory in Hodayot 16 is that the Community is the blessed
tree of Psalm 1/Jeremiah 17; all the other agricultural imagery from
other passages of Scripture is brought in to elaborate on elements in the
Psalm 1 image: the blessed tree and its reward; the cursed tree and its
punishment. In many cases, those elements are brought in with little
apparent consideration for their original context. In other cases, the
introduction of the other elements is quite deliberate. Psalm 1 is a
wisdom psalm about the wise man and the wicked man, but Hodayot
transforms that wisdom image by associating the blessed tree with
eschatological metaphors: the Branch of David from Isaiah, the
replanted cedar of Ezekiel 17, and the trees by the Temple river of
Ezekiel 47. The continued dominance of elements from Ezekiel 31 again
illustrates the use of agricultural elements to portray majesty and
blessing, although those elements are transferred from pagan Egypt to
the Community.
The particular fashion in which multiple OT allusions have been woven
together is quite complicated in Hodayot 16, but it is possible to discern the
author's goal in using Scripture. In a sense, he writes a 'midrashic' psalm.
That is, he weaves together a variety of Scriptures, united by their common
use of agricultural imagery, into a hymn of praise for God's work - past,
present, and future - in the Qumran Community. In the process, he deals
with questions that beset the Community: How is it that God's true people
have so little influence? Why is it that other people in Israel have the
appearance of righteousness? How can this small, isolated group be the
means for bringing in the new messianic age? The author's answers to these
questions are both sapiential and eschatological. Passages such as Psalm 1
and Jeremiah 17 contribute the contrast between the wise of the
community and the wicked outside. The tree and vine images from Ezekiel
and Isaiah, many containing promises of a future restoration, introduce
eschatological elements into the allegory of Hodayot 16. Other passages
(such as Exod. 15.10; Deut. 11.14; Ezekiel 19, 21; Hos. 10.1-2, and Zeph.
2.9) are used to describe the coming eschatological judgment on the wicked
trees. It is interesting to note that this is the same type of interpretation
that occurs in Florilegium.6* Florilegium explains Psalm 1 using Isa. 8.11

and Ezek. 20.18, and in the process converts the wisdom of Psalm 1 into
eschatology.
The author of Hodayot 16 does not present himself as mere observer. He
claims to be the sole conduit of the living water, the means of blessing on
the Community and judgment on outsiders (1QH 16.16-24, cf. 1QH
18.12ff). God is the ultimate source, but he has decided to use the author of
Hodayot 16 as his sole mediator. The only difference between the trees of
the Community and the other trees is that the trees of the Community have
put down roots to the living waters - water that comes from the mouth of
the author and travels through canals dug by the author. The speaker is
thus claiming to be God's authoritative prophet and interpreter of
Scripture. This role is not described using messianic language, but the
exclusive nature of the claims is remarkably similar to claims made by
Jesus in the Gospel of John.69 Such exclusive claims strongly suggest that
Hodayot 16 was written by the Righteous Teacher, not just one of the
many teachers at Qumran. Alternatively, it was written by a later author,
but intended to sound as if it came from the mouth of the Righteous
Teacher.
As discussed above, Hodayot 14 and 16 begin with sapiential texts, but
relate those texts to eschatological expectations for the Community. In
some cases, these Hodayot imply a typological interpretation of OT
passages. For example, the future judgment of outsiders is described with
terms drawn from earlier accounts of judgment by water - the flood and
the destruction of the Egyptians at the Red Sea. Thus, the future judgment
will repeat the earlier judgment. In most other cases, the Hodayot interpret
OT passages as prophecies that are beginning to be fulfilled. The author of
Hodayot saw, in the humble situation of the Community, the root from
which the Branch of David would arise, the sapling from which Ezekiel's
cedar would grow, and the hidden forest that would become the trees of
life by the Temple river. Perhaps he saw Ezekiel's 'plantation of renown'
(Ezek. 34.29) springing up, still shorter in stature than the other trees, but
one day to surpass them all because of their exclusive access to the living
waters (1QH 16.5-7). The Qumran view that they were in a temporary,
intermediate time before the eschaton is also apparent: the plantation has
been planted, but it has not grown up to cover the world. For now, they
appear small and inconsequential, but their eventual dominance is assured.
From the viewpoint of New Testament studies, it is especially interesting to
note the intrusion of the future eschatology into the author's present:
although the fullness of the glory of the Plantation was yet to come, its
68. See p. 3.
69. See pp. 180-85.
roots were already set, and it was already being watered in the Community
in the wilderness.
2. Epithets for the Community and its Enemies

The Qumran view o f salvation history,' discussed above, allowed members
of the Community to categorize people and beliefs of their age in terms
generated from their history and eschatology. If they were in a new Exile,
awaiting a second 'visitation' on Jerusalem, then they could use Ezekiel's
epithets and judgment against their enemies, and claim Ezekiel's titles and
blessings for themselves. They were the residents of 'Damascus,' the
righteous exiles, or they were those who 'sigh and groan' over the
condition of Jerusalem. In the coming age, the restored Zadokite
priesthood would come from their ranks. The outsiders were the false
prophets of Jerusalem, the 'builders of the barrier' and the 'whitewashers.'
They would be refused any role in the future Temple.
a. Those who Sigh and Groan (Ezekiel 9.4; Zechariah 13.7; Damascus
Document 19.7-13)
The Damascus Document's MS B70 contains two allusions to Ezekiel, both
designed to bring out the difference between the righteous and the wicked.
MS A contrasts the destruction of the wicked in Jerusalem with the
deliverance of the exiles by comparing Isa. 7.17 with Amos 5.26-27
(discussed above). MS B makes the same contrast between the destruction
of the wicked and the salvation of the righteous using Zech. 13.7 and Ezek.
9.4.
In CD 19.7-11, Zech. 13.7 is used to describe both the righteous and the
wicked:
... when that happens of which it is written by Zechariah the prophet,
'Awake, O sword, upon my shepherd and upon the man (who is) close
to me - God says - strike the shepherd so the sheep will be scattered and
I will turn my hand to the little ones.' But those who guard it (the
precepts) are the poor of the sheep. These will escape at the time of the
visitation. But those who remain will be handed over to the sword, when
the Messiah of Aaron and Israel comes.
Although Zechariah's 'turn my hand to the little ones' seems to describe
the destruction of the 'little ones,' The Damascus Document interprets it as
70. Manuscript B contains two columns, 19 and 20. Column 19 is a mildly different
recension of columns 7-8 in the main manuscript (A). Column 20 diverges somewhat from
MS A, but seems to have the same point. Both A and B are manuscripts found in the Cairo
Genizah (tenth and eleventh centuries respectively), but only MS A has been clearly verified
by Qumran fragments. DSSHAG, vol. 2, pp. 5-6.
protection. This interpretation is not too surprising; Zech. 13.8-9

describes the remnant who survive, who will be 'refined' and will be
'my people.' But of course the Damascus Document interprets the
deliverance of the remnant as a reference to the Community - 'the poor'
is a common term for the members of the Community. The author of the
Damascus Document interprets Zech. 13.7 as a prophecy that will be
fulfilled at the end. When the Messiah(s) come, 'those who despise' will be
punished (CD 19.5-6), and the keepers of the precepts will be delivered
(CD 19.9-10).
This deliverance of the righteous from among the wicked is further
developed in CD 19.11-13 by a quote from Ezek. 9.4. The author of the
Damascus Document likely connected Zech. 13.7 with Ezek. 9.4 through
the common use of the word 'sword' and the shared emphasis on the
deliverance of a righteous remnant. '(And this will be) as it happened at the
time of the first visitation; as it is said through Ezekiel, "To make a mark
upon the foreheads of those who sigh and groan." But those who remained
were turned over to the avenging sword of the covenant's vengeance.'71 The
line from Ezekiel describes how some are to be spared from the destruction
of Jerusalem. After showing Ezekiel four visions of idolatrous 'abomina-
tions' committed in the Temple (Ezek. 8.1-18), God calls for the angelic
'punishers of the city' to approach the altar for instructions (Ezek. 9.1-2).
The glory of God prepares to leave the Temple, apparently in preparation
for the punishment (Ezek. 9.3), but first God gives instructions so that the
innocent will not be destroyed. He appoints a man dressed in white to go
through the city, marking the foreheads of 'those who sigh and groan over
all the abominations.' All others, starting with the elders in the Temple,
will be destroyed by the punishers (Ezek. 9.4-7). There is a stark contrast
in these visions between the elders of Israel, confident in their idolatrous
worship, and those who mourn at the idolatry in the Temple (Ezek. 8.12;
9.4).
To a member of the Community, the parallel to their own situation was
clear. As it was with the first visitation, so it would be with the last. They
were the ones who sighed and groaned over the spiritual state of the
Temple; they would be spared at the coming visitation. The priesthood and
all who supported the Temple were confident in their 'abominations' (for
so Qumran viewed the Temple calendar and the defiled high priesthood);
they would be the first to be destroyed.
Interestingly, while the author of the Damascus Document interpreted
Zech. 13.7 as prophecy to be fulfilled, he interpreted Ezekiel 9 in a
typological sense: '(this will be) as it happened at the time of the first
71. The final phrase, 'the avenging sword of the covenant's vengeance' is taken from Lev.
26.25 (maTapa napa ann). CD 19.13 only differs in the spelling of napa.
visitation.' It is possible that the author of MS B made an essentially

historical distinction between the exilic Ezekiel and the post-exilic
Zechariah. That is, he interpreted Ezekiel 9 as referring to Nebuchadnez-
zar's destruction in 587. As a historical passage, the Damascus Document
could only use it as a model or type of the coming visitation. Since
Zechariah was written after the return from exile, his prophecy of
destruction was yet to be fulfilled. CD 19.7-14 makes the most sense if this
hypothesis is correct. If the author of the Damascus Document had the
same perspective on both Ezekiel and Zechariah, he would most likely
have interpreted both texts as prophecies to be fulfilled in the future of the
Community. His distinction between the 'first visitation' and the coming
visitation makes it likely that he interpreted this section of Ezekiel in a
typological sense, and Zechariah in a prophecy-fulfillment sense.
b. Builders of the Wall (Ezekiel 13.9-16; 22.17-26; Damascus Document

4.17-18; 6.17; 19.30-35; 20.3-4; Sapiential Work 1.1, 4-5)
In their conflict with Jerusalem's religious establishment, the Community
often made use of two of Ezekiel's polemical oracles against false prophets,
Ezekiel 13 and 22. Ezekiel 13 is an extensive indictment of the false
prophets, centering on a key metaphor, 'those who build a wall and
whitewash it' (Ezek. 13.10). Ezekiel 22 contains a broader indictment of
'the bloody city,' beginning with a condemnation of the people of
Jerusalem and continuing with denunciations of the prophets, priests, and
princes of the city; then repeating indictments against the prophets and
people. The false prophets hold a significant position in the diatribe, and
the 'whitewasher' metaphor from Ezekiel 13 is briefly repeated. Ezekiel 13
and 22 are linked by the 'whitewasher' metaphor and by the polemical
tone. These two chapters of Ezekiel are alluded to five times in the
Damascus Document (sometimes in succession), and once in Sapiential
Work.
In one of the accounts of the history and future of the Community (CD
4.5-21), the Damascus Document describes the evil of its own time using
allusions to Isaiah and Ezekiel. The author of the Damascus Document sees
in his own time the fulfillment of Isaiah's prediction, 'Belial will run
unbridled amidst Israel' (Isa. 24.17). This evil in Israel, itemized in CD
4.17-18, is the result of the deception by a group, 'the builders of the wall'
and their leader, the is (CD 4.19).72 The phrase 'builders of the wall' ("rn
p i n ) alludes to the oracle against false prophets in Ezekiel 13.
Ezek. 13.10 warns of God's judgments against false prophets 'because
they have deceived my people, saying "Peace!" and there is no peace; and
72. This term is left untranslated in DSSHAG (vol. 2, p. 19), but Vermes translates it as
'Precept,' probably because is is so translated when it occurs (as a derisive phrase) in Isa.
when someone builds a wall ( p i nan), behold, they [the prophets]

whitewash it.' Although the allusion extends to only two words, the fact
that p r is an OT hapax legomena (meaning a 'thin or party-wall'73) makes
the Damascus Document's allusion to Ezekiel certain. The fact that the
Damascus Document makes another allusion to Ezekiel in the near context
(Ezek. 44.15, alluded to in CD 3.21-4) only strengthens the argument.74
Ezekiel's metaphor, part of a larger indictment against false prophets in
Israel (Ezek. 13.1-23), pictures a thin wall that is disguised by whitewash
to look as if it were a thick wall.75 God condemns their dishonesty and
promises to bring down a flood that will wipe away the wall, the
whitewash, and the whitewashers (Ezek. 13.13-16). In Ezekiel, the
metaphor is primarily about the whitewashers, not the builders. CD
4.17-18 instead uses the phrase 'builders of the wall,' probably in mockery
of the Pharisaic goal to 'build a wall around Torah.'76 It seems likely that
'builders of the barrier' was a stock epithet for the Pharisees at Qumran
even before the writing of the Damascus Document, since the term is used
there without explanation.77
The prophets who predicted peace for Israel during Ezekiel's time had
given a false sense of security, one that would be totally dashed by the
coming cataclysm. The Qumran Community could see the same events
happening in their own founding experiences - the religious leadership of
Jerusalem rejected the Righteous Teacher's prophecy and thus revealed
themselves as false prophets. From the Community's perspective, the false
confidence and false teaching of the Temple-based leadership invited a
comparison to Ezekiel's whitewashers.
The author of the Damascus Document returns to this metaphor twice in
CD 8.12-18 (and in its parallel material in MS B, 19.24-31). This time, the
Damascus Document makes a more complete allusion to Ezek. 13.10,
labeling these deceived teachers 'builders of the barrier and whitewash-
daubers' (CD 8.12). As in the earlier description, this group fails to
understand or accept the correct interpretation of the Law (their specific
failings are catalogued in CD 8.1—9//19.16—23). They in turn are deceived
by the same leader, this time called 'one who weighs the wind' and 'the
28.13 (CDSS, p. 130). The 12 seems to be the same deceiver described in CD 1.14 as 'the man
of mockery' Cpxbn «TK), taken from Isa. 28.14; and the one who 'sprinkled' (^ttn). Most
associate him with some early Pharisee leader.
73. BDB, p i , p. 300.
74. See above, p. 38.
75. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 295.
76. J. VanderKam, personal correspondence.
77. 'Wall-building' apparently became so associated with this negative evaluation of the
Pharisees that Hosea's description of YHWH building a wall (Hos. 2.8) was omitted in
4QpHos a . Brooke, 'Qumran Commentaries', p. 91.
Spouter of the Lie' (CD 8.13). The second use of'builder of the barrier' in
this section is even more polemical than before: 'And [God] loved those
who came after them; for theirs is the covenant with the fathers. And God
hates and despises the 'builders of the barrier' (pnn ^"o) and his anger was
kindled against them and against all who follow after them' (CD 19.30-32,
cf. 8.18-19). 'Those who came after them' is a reference to the Damascus
Community (CD 19.29). The anger against the builders is not connected in
the text of the Damascus Document to any particular historical event. The
author invokes God's judgment against 'anyone who despises God's
ordinances' and especially those who turn away from the 'new covenant in
the land of Damascus' and back to the false teachers of Jerusalem (CD
19.32-34).
The judgment on these backsliders is elaborated in CD 19.33-20.27. The
author of the Damascus Document begins his description of the backsliders
with two allusions to Jeremiah.
CD 19.33 Thus all the men who Jer. 31.31 I will make a new
entered the new covenant in the covenant with the house of
land of Damascus78 Israel...
and returned and betrayed and Jer. 17.13 Those who turn away
CHTOI) on earth will be written
down, because they have forsaken
departed ("mci) from the well of the fountain of living water
living w a t e r (crTin wn i K a o ) . . . (D^mro mpn), Y H W H .
This allusion to Jeremiah is worth noting because the writing metaphor in

Jeremiah leads the author of the Damascus Document to a passage in
Ezekiel that uses a similar image. In typical catchword fashion, the phrase
'will be written down' from Jeremiah is not quoted in CD 19.33 so that the
author can use the similar phrase in his allusion to Ezekiel. The allusion to
Jer. 17.13 is also consistent with Qumran's view of itself as the Temple in
exile: those who have 'forsaken the fountain of living waters' are those who
have turned away from 'the place of our sanctuary' (Jer. 17.12).
The Damascus Document next describes the judgment against the
backsliders by alluding to another part of the same oracle against false
prophets in Ezekiel 13 - just one verse before Ezekiel's whitewasher
metaphor begins. Clearly the author of the Damascus Document has kept
his 'wall-builder' epithet firmly in mind, since he returns to the same
passage in Ezekiel so soon after his earlier allusion.
78. Note how the author substitutes 'in the land of Damascus' for Jeremiah's 'with the
house of Israel.'
CD 19.35 (they) will not be Ezek. 13.9 They will not be in the
accounted among the council of the council of my people
people (DB moa); and when (the ("ay Tica), and in the writing
latter) are written (Dnrom), they (nrom) of the house of Israel, they
will not be written ("DrO"1 mb) will not be written (lartr vb\ nor
will they enter the land of Israel...
(10) ... and when someone builds a
wall...
The phrase 'in the council of the people' (Di? Tioa) is found nowhere in
the Scriptures except Ezekiel. 13, making the source of the allusion
fairly certain.79 The Damascus Document has made a few changes to the
text of Ezekiel, converting the simpler 'they will not be' (VTP'Kb) to
'they will not be accounted' ("owir \fib). In Ezekiel, 'the council of my
people' is set parallel to 'the house of Israel,' making the two
equivalent. The author's omission of the phrase is further evidence
that he was hesitant to apply the term 'House of Israel' to the
Community (see above, [1 fn 12]).
A few lines after the reference to the 'builder of the barrier' and his
judgment, the Damascus Document returns to another 'whitewashed
passage from Ezekiel. The author of the Damascus Document describes the
backslider from the Community thus: 'He is the man "who is melted in the
midst of a furnace." When his works become apparent, he shall be expelled
from the congregation as one whose lot did not fall among those taught by
God' (CD 20.3-4). The phrase quoted from Ezekiel, 'who is melted in the
midst of a furnace,' is part of an oracle pronouncing judgment on
Jerusalem (Ezek. 22.17-22). The residents of Jerusalem are described as
'dross' that will be melted in the furnace, Jerusalem. While the metaphor is
one of purification, the focus is on the destruction of the impure dross (as
is also the focus in CD 20.3-4).80 The impurities are described in Ezek.
22.23-31 - greedy prophets who take from the poor, priests who defile
God's holy things, princes who use violence to acquire wealth. Ezekiel
further describes these prophets with a brief return to his whitewashing
metaphor: 'And her prophets have smeared whitewash for them, seeing
79. Tio is occasionally used to refer to the Community, although not elsewhere in the
Damascus Document. 1QS 2.24 ('an eternal assembly'); 8.5 ('a most holy assembly'); 9.3 ('a
foundation of the Holy Spirit'). The righteous and wicked assemblies are compared in 1QS
11.7-10. Cf. 1QS 4.1 (the hated assembly).
80. Ezekiel's metaphor is itself an intentional alteration of earlier refining metaphors.
Refining had been used to refer to Israel's deliverance from Egypt, with Israel as the refined
metal. Ezekiel alters the metaphor so that Israel is now the dross. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p.
464.
false visions and divining lies for them, saying, "Thus says the Lord
YHWH," when YHWH has not spoken' (Ezek. 22.28).81
There is an interesting pattern in the usage of Ezekiel in this section of
the Damascus Document. The author of the Damascus Document begins by
twice alluding to the oracle against false prophets in Ezekiel 13. First, he
uses an epithet against false prophets from Ezek. 13.10 (CD 19.24, 31),
then a judgment against them from Ezek. 13.9 (CD 19.35). He continues
with an allusion to another oracle against false prophets, Ezekiel 22, and
one with several verbal parallels to Ezekiel 13 (including the important
whitewasher metaphor). Here, he uses an epithet and a judgment from
Ezek. 22.20-22 (CD 20.3-4).
The Damascus Document's allusions to three phrases from two related
oracles in Ezekiel suggest both great familiarity with Ezekiel and a
tendency to combine texts. Perhaps the author of the Damascus
Document began with his 'wall-builder/whitewasher' epithet from Ezekiel
13; then appropriately drew the judgment against the 'wall-builders'
from the same oracle. Then, connecting the oracle in Ezekiel 13 with the
oracle in Ezekiel 22 by means of their common whitewasher metaphor,
the Damascus Document used the dross and its judgment from Ezekiel
22. Of course, Ezekiel 13 and 22 are not related only by the whitewasher
metaphor; both also condemn false prophets, although the latter oracle
broadens the scope to include priests and princes. However the two texts
were connected in the author's mind, it is clear that his use of Ezekiel
continues in the same vein: texts from Ezekiel are used to promote the
position of the Community over against the religious establishment in
Jerusalem.82
Another allusion to the same oracle in Ezekiel 22 can be found in CD
6.17. CD 6.2-11 recounts the founding of the Community at Damascus.
This description of the Community moves into a reminder of how the
'priests' of the Community are to be different from the corrupt priests
of the Temple. Among the requirements is a close parallel to Ezek.
22.26.
81. Ezekiel 22 contains abbreviations or modifications of other elements from Ezekiel 13:
prophets who do not restore the walls of Jerusalem, and oppression of the poor, in addition to
the whitewash metaphor and the accusation of false prophecy.
82. This is much like the combination of texts in 4Q174 for polemical purposes; see
pp. 31-32.
CD 6.17-19 . . . and to distinguish Ezek. 22.26 Her priests... have not

(bnnnbi) between the impure and distinguished (I'rian) between the
the pure (Tinttb KBttn ya) and to holy and the profane (Sr6 imp-pa),
make known (JPTin*?')) (the and they have not made known
difference) between the holy and the (iiPTin) (the difference) between the
profane (^yrb ttrnpn fa), and to impure and the pure
observe the Sabbath day in exact (TintD*? xatsrr'pa); and they hide
detail, and the appointed times... their eyes from my Sabbaths, and I
am profaned among them.
Ezekiel draws on similar wording from Lev. 10.10, but the Damascus
Document follows Ezekiel, with some influence from the Leviticus passage.
From Ezekiel, the Damascus Document used the verbs bna (hifil, to
distinguish) and UT (hifil, to make known), the mention of the Sabbath,
and the word order.83 The twin phrases 'between clean and unclean' and
'between impure and pure' can be found both in Lev. 10.10 and in Ezek.
22.26, but the Damascus Document more closely follows the wording of
those phrases in Ezekiel, where Ezekiel mildly diverges from Leviticus
(Leviticus uses the double "pa construction; Ezekiel uses a single pa). The
Damascus Document may have been influenced by Lev. 10.10 in some other
ways: the Damascus Document follows the positive formulation of
Leviticus, and like Leviticus uses the infinitive construct forms of the
verbs (instead of the perfect forms used in Ezekiel). On the whole,
however, CD 6.17 has more in common with Ezek. 22.26. In addition to
the verbal similarities, the two contexts are similar. Both passages address
prophets, princes and priests (CD 6.1, 6, 11-21; Ezek. 22.23-28); both
express a concern for the acquisition of 'wicked wealth' (CD 6.15-17;
Ezek. 22.25, 27, 29); and both express the common concern for orphans
and widows84 (CD 6.16-17; Ezek. 22.7, 25, 27). All of these elements are
lacking from Lev. 10.10.
Ezekiel's whitewash metaphor is used in another of the DSS, A
Sapiential Work (4Q424). Unfortunately, this piece is fragmentary, so it is
difficult to analyze the context. The first legible line begins:'... with a wine
press [... ] outside, and decides to build it and covers its wall with plaster,
he also [...] and it collapses due to the rain' (4Q424 1.2). The image
follows that of Ezek. 13.10-16, although the wording is not identical.
Sapiential Work uses Ezekiel's words for building (ma) and whitewashing,
(nitt and ban). The word for wall is not the y n from the beginning of
83. The Damascus Document's reversal of phrases ('holy and profane' switched with 'pure
and impure') appears to be a minor aberration; Lev. 10.10; Ezek. 22.26; and Ezek. 44.23 all
start with 'holy and profane.'
84. The particular wording about orphans and widows in CD 6.16—17 seems to be drawn
from Isa. 10.2.
Ezekiel's metaphor, but the Tp from the rest of the metaphor (Ezek. 13.12,
14, 15). While both passages speak about rain as the agent of destruction,
Sapiential Work uses a one-word synonym Q1T (downpour) for Ezekiel's
rpiw nm (flooding rain). This makes 4Q424 1.3 the most complete allusion
to the whitewasher metaphor at Qumran, since it includes five elements
(build, cover, whitewash, wall, and rain), where the other passages contain
only two or three (build and/or whitewash, and wall).
The original sense of 'false prophet' in Ezekiel's metaphor is somewhat
muted in Sapiential Work. Here, the whitewasher is one of a series of
people against whom the listener is warned. The exact warning associated
with the whitewasher has been lost, but the next warning is against trying
to learn precepts 'in the company of hypocrites,' suggesting that the
'whitewasher' was to be avoided in any sort of teaching setting. Vermes
suggests that 'the main theme of this poetic composition is to instruct the
just man how to ensure the progress of wisdom by not entrusting its
propagation to the unworthy.'85 However, the admonition may be
broader, since Sapiential Work also contains warnings against people
who have little to do with the propagation of wisdom: the sleepy man, the
grumbler, the stingy man, and others. The other parties warned against in
Sapiential Work are all generic rather than specifically historical,
suggesting that 'whitewasher' and 'builder of the wall' had become
metaphors for anyone who was deceived, and were no longer limited to
the particular group of 'false prophets' who were led astray by the
Spouter of Lies. The fact that Sapiential Work was probably written after
the composition of the Damascus Document makes this hypothesis
reasonable. Perhaps the 'whitewasher' epithet, originally a stock phrase
at Qumran to describe the group who supported the 'Spouter,' later came
to refer to any person who followed the wrong teaching. The typological
term from the Damascus Document could now be used as a sapiential
term.
Sapiential Work may contain a second, weaker allusion to the Ezekiel
13/22 complex in the following line:
4Q424 1.4-5 And with someone Ezek. 22.20 As they gather silver
who totters you should not enter a and bronze and iron and lead and
crucible, for he will melt like lead tin into the crucible to blow fire on
and will not resist before the fire. it in order to melt it, so I will gather
you...
4Q424 1.4-5 contains three words in common with Ezek. 22.20: crucible
), melt ("jna), and lead (may). None of these words is very common in
85. CDSS, p. 414.

the OT;86 no two of them can be found in any other passage in the OT
besides Ezek. 22.20. Even so, the parallel is not very strong. It would
probably not be worth noting if we did not already have an allusion to
Ezekiel 13 in the previous line, and if we did not have evidence that the
Damascus Document uses Ezekiel 13 and 22 to polemicize against false
prophets. If 4Q424 1.4—5 is an allusion to Ezek. 22.20, it is further evidence
of Qumran's linking of Ezekiel 13 and 22 as stock texts to be used against
false teachers. Like CD 20.3-4, it uses Ezek. 22.17-20 to describe the
coming destruction of the unworthy. Here, it is used to advocate
separation from those unworthy to avoid being caught in their judgment.
Unlike the usage in Ezekiel or in the Damascus Document, Sapiential Work
uses the refiner's metaphor in a sapiential sense; it connects the 'wall-
builders' with the generic unworthy, and gives little detail about the specific
group of 'wall-builders' in Jerusalem, the Pharisees.
The DSS do not interpret Ezekiel 13 or 22 in a prophecy-fulfillment
scheme. There is no language suggesting that the 'builders of the
barrier' was a prediction fulfilled in the time of Ezekiel or in the time of
the Qumran Community. Instead, the interpretation seems to have
moved from typological to sapiential. The Damascus Document's
typological interpretation is suggested in the phrasing of CD 8.18-19:
'And by his hate for the 'builders of the barrier,' his anger was kindled.
And thus is his judgment against anyone who despises God's
ordinances...' (cf. CD 19.31-32). That is, God's anger against the
false prophets of Ezekiel's time was a model of his anger against the
new false prophets who opposed the Community. The author of the
Damascus Document was using the epithets in Ezekiel 13 and 22 to
describe the first opponents of the Community, with apparent
recognition that those epithets had an original historical referent during
the Exile. The usage in Sapiential Work is more sapiential; there is no
reference to the specific applications of the epithet against either
historical group of 'false prophets.' The Damascus Document introduced
epithets (and their corresponding judgments) from Ezekiel 13/22;
Sapiential Work used those epithets in a generic fashion to give
instruction on types of people to avoid.
3. Imitating Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1, 10, 17, 30, 37, 40; Pseudo-Ezekielj

Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385-391) needs to be treated separately from other
Qumran allusions to Ezekiel. First, it is not entirely clear that Pseudo-
Ezekiel was composed at Qumran. There is nothing in the six readable
86. TO: ten times in OT, three times in Ezekiel 22; "jna: 19 times in OT, four times in
Ezekiel 22; msi?: five times in OT, three in Ezekiel 22.
fragments that is exclusively characteristic of Qumran.87 There is one

mention of 'giving them the covenant' (4Q385 1.1), which may indicate
Qumran's interest in the document, but none of the other typical
vocabulary and emphases of Qumran. Pseudo-Ezekiel" s description of
'many in Israel who love your name and walk on the paths of justice'
(4Q385 1.2-3) argues against composition at Qumran; few of the Dead Sea
Scrolls have such a positive statement about Israel without limiting it to
the Community or eschatological Israel.88
But the main reason that Pseudo-Ezekiel needs to be treated
independently is that it does not, strictly speaking, contain allusions to
or citations of Ezekiel. We cannot speak of Pseudo-EzekiePs 'usage' of
Ezekiel in the same way as we can speak of (e.g.) the Damascus Documenfs
usage of Ezekiel. Pseudo-Ezekiel is a work intended to use Ezekiel's
authority to advance its own message. As such, it is better to describe
Pseudo-Ezekiel as imitating and adding to Ezekiel, not alluding to or
quoting from Ezekiel. In this respect, it is something like a Targum,
although it takes more freedom with the text. Furthermore, observations
about Pseudo-Ezekiel must be cautious and tentative; Pseudo-Ezekiel may
have been a sizable document, but only fragments survive.
Fragment 1 of 4Q385 contains material from the oracle against the
nations in Ezek. 30.2-19. The seven damaged lines contain direct verbal
parallels to four phrases in Ezek. 30.3-5 describing God's judgment on the
pagan nations of Put, Egypt, Kush, and Arabia. The author apparently
composed other elements from stock language of judgment. Little can be
observed about the author's modification of the text; perhaps the omission
of Ezekiel's 'Wail, alas for the day!' from the beginning of the oracle (Ezek.
30.2) changes the tone from lament to exultation over the destruction of
Israel's enemies. Perhaps 4Q385c was originally attached to fragment 1; it
also contains woes against Kush, Egypt, and Libya, although the
remaining portion is primarily a quotation of Nah. 3.8-10.89
Another fragment of Pseudo-Ezekiel, 4Q386 3.1-3, describes the exile to
Babylon, and possibly the later judgment against Babylon. Nothing can be
traced to Ezekiel; one phrase 'Babylon is like a cup in YHWH's hand' is
from Jer. 51.7.
The beginning of fragment 2 is missing; the legible text begins, '[And
they will know] that I am YHWH, who redeems my people, giving them
the covenant.' It is impossible to connect this with any single passage in
Ezekiel. The author used Ezekiel's stock phrase 'they will know that I am
87. CDSS, p. 571.

88. See above, p. 27.
89. DSSSE, p. 775.
YHWH,' as Ezekiel does, to conclude a section (as the following blank

space in 4Q385 indicates).
Fragment 3 contains an abbreviated account of the 'dry bones' oracle of
Ezekiel 37; however, it is given a different setting. Ezekiel contests that
there are many in Israel who are righteous, and asks how God intends to
reward them. God answers, 'I will make the children of Israel see and they
will know that I am YHWH,' in a fashion similar to Ezekiel. Then, after a
blank space in the text, Pseudo-Ezekiel gives an account of Ezekiel's dry
bones vision - abbreviated, but using the same wording (4Q385 2.5-8;
Ezek. 37.1-10). In response to the vision, Ezekiel asks God, 'When will
these things happen?' God's answer is only partially preserved, 'a tree will
bend over and straighten up.'
The way in which Pseudo-Ezekiel edits the dry bones vision gives insight
into the way some readers of the Second Temple era understood Ezekiel
37. The dry bones vision is given in response to a question about rewards
for the individual pious - a question not very characteristic of Ezekiel, but
comfortable within later Judaism.90 Ezekiel's God delivers despite the sin
of his people, not because of their piety. Ezekiel does describe rewards, but
not in connection with the dry bones vision, and never in such terms.
Second, it is clear that Pseudo-Ezekiel sees Ezekiel 37 as only about the
eschatological resurrection, a point made clear by the response of the
resurrected: 'they will bless YHWH of hosts who raised them' (4Q385 2.8).
That the vision is interpreted eschatologically is also clear from Ezekiel's
repeated question, 'YHWH, when will these things come to pass?' (4Q385
2.3, 9). The idea of resurrected hope and return from exile in Ezekiel's dry
bones oracle (Ezek. 37.11-14) is lacking from Pseudo-EzekieFs retelling of
the vision. The eschatological interpretation is continued in Pseudo-
Ezekiel: God answers Ezekiel's questions about the time of the resurrection
with the cryptic phrase 'a tree will bend and stand up' (4Q385 2.10).91
References to other signs of the impending resurrection, if they existed,
were destroyed with the rest of fragment 2. But the elements that survive
contain a hint of the apocalyptic: eschatological interpretation of Scripture
and hidden signs.
Fragment 3 contains further 'apocalyptic' elements, none of which are
derived from Ezekiel. Apparently in response to Ezekiel's request, YHWH
responds, 'See, I measure time and shorten the days and the years [... ] a
90. 'The Vision of the Dry Bones develops a biblical vision and links it to the recompense
of the righteous... [it] belong[s] to the sphere of eschatological final processes.' D. Dimant,
l
4Q386 ii-iii - A Prophecy on Hellenistic Kingdoms?' RevQ 18, no. 72 (1998), pp. 514—30
(522).
91. On this term, see G. Brooke, 'Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts', in
J.T. Barrera and L.V. Montaner (eds), The Madrid Qumran Congress (STDJ, 1; Leiden: Brill,
1992), pp. 317-37 (322).
little, as you said...' Although it is difficult to be sure of the sense, it seems

that God agrees to shorten the time until the resurrection, or until some
other eschatological event.
Material from 4Q386 2.1-11 should probably be placed either shortly
before or after the material in 4Q385, fragment 3 (above). The material in
4Q386 2.1-11 is reasonably well preserved, but contains little that is
directly drawn from Ezekiel. It contains a conversation between Ezekiel
and YHWH. As in fragment 2, Ezekiel asks about the timing of God's
promises: 'When will you assemble them?', apparently in reference to the
restoration from exile. God responds in apocalyptic fashion with a series of
cryptic signs. 'A son of Belial will plot to oppress my people... a
multitude will be defiled... and the wicked man I will kill in Memphis but
my children I will bring forth from Memphis, and their remnant I shall
return.' (4Q386 2.3-6). The details of a specific leader and specific
restoration from Egypt suggest a prophecy written after the fact, as is
typical in apocalyptic literature. The connection with the eschaton
heightens the similarity to apocalyptic literature. However, the particular
details of the 'prophesied' historical events cannot be established with
certainty; they likely refer to political turmoil in Egypt and an otherwise
unknown return of Jews in the second century BC.92
Fragment 4 of 4Q385 is an abbreviation of the throne-visions of Ezek.
1.4-28; 10.1-3, with several direct parallels to the language of Ezekiel. The
only notable addition to Ezekiel's language is that 4Q385 3.5-6 identifies it
as 'the vision that Ezekiel saw [... ] the gleam of the chariot (nasiQ).'
Ezekiel never uses 'chariot' to describe the throne vision; its use in Pseudo-
Ezekiel suggests that Ezekiel's vision had already acquired at least some
technical terminology. There are several other small changes that 4Q385
makes to Ezekiel's vision: the four living creatures each have a different
face, rather than four faces for each (4Q385 4.9; Ezek. 1.10); the wheels are
attached, not one within another (4Q385 4.11; Ezek. 1.16); and there are
further living creatures in the coals between the living creatures (4Q385
4.12).93 These alterations have some significance in the history of merkabah
interpretation, but are not as important for the study of the interpretation
of Ezekiel.94
92. Several historical situations have been proposed that fit some of the details of Pseudo-
Ezekiel. For a survey, see D. Dimant, who suggests that the 'son of Belial' is Antiochus IV and
that the 'wicked man' is Cleon, a governor of Memphis installed by Antiochus IV. Dimant,
l
4Q386 ii-iii', pp. 520-28; cf. D. Dimant, Qumran Cave 4 XXI: Parabiblical Texts Part 4:
Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD, 30; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001).
93. Cf. 4Q405 20.10, discussed above, pp. 45-46.
94. For more on 4Q385 in the history of merkabah mysticism, see Halperin, Faces of the
Chariot, pp. 52-54; Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, pp. 93-96.
Fragment 10 is too brief to be certain of its meaning, let alone its

modification of Ezekiel. The phrase 'hanging from a tree, and the birds [of
heaven]' (4Q385 10.3-4) is likely derived from Ezek. 31.1-6 or 17.22-24.
Both passages use a cedar tree and birds metaphorically. 1QH 14.15
combines phrases from both tree passages, suggesting that something
similar may be happening here. The word 'hanging' Cnbn) is worth
commenting on. It does not occur in either of Ezekiel's cedar metaphors,
but a similar word, b*bn\ (lofty), appears at the end of Ezek. 17.22. The
LXX translator, perhaps unsure of its meaning (it only occurs here in the
OT), read it as ibm and translated KCCL Kp€|iaoa) ('and I will hang').95 The
occurrence of ^br\ applied to the tree metaphor in 4Q385 is indirect
evidence that others in the pre-Masoretic era may have read hbn as nSn.96
A number of scattered lines in the remaining fragments can be read,97
and even some material possibly derived from Ezekiel, but little can be said
of their meaning or context without speculating fruitlessly. They do allow
us to determine that Pseudo-Ezekiel was an extensive document, and that it
was a combination of material from the OT and the author's own
composition. Fragment 65 apparently begins a description of the
measurements of the New Jerusalem in imitation of Ezekiel 40-47 (cf.
New Jerusalem above).
Pseudo-Ezekiel in some ways is a summary or abbreviation of passages
from Ezekiel that the author regarded as important. Certainly the author's
surviving choices - the throne vision, the dry bones, the tree, and the New
Jerusalem - are some of Ezekiel's more compelling images. Many of the
phrases in 4Q385 fragments 1, 2, and 4 are directly dependent on the
phrasing in Ezekiel. The author has also taken pains to use some of
Ezekiel's standard phrases: 'son of man' (4Q385 1.1; 2.5; 12.4; 4Q386
2.2);98 'prophesy and say' (4Q385 1.2; 2.5); 'they will know that I am
YHWH' (4Q385 2.4; 4Q386 2.1); 'land of Israel' (*?m«r rmx, 4Q386 2.2)99;
and 'the river Chebar' (4Q391 fr. 65).
However, the author of Pseudo-Ezekiel also composed much of the work
himself. Some of it has no parallel anywhere in the OT (e.g., 4Q385 fr. 3),
while other sections are drawn from stock prophetic language (e.g.,
portions of 4Q385 fr. 1). It seems likely that the author was more familiar
with Isaiah than with Ezekiel. In his attempt to use 'biblical language,' he
uses several phrases common to Isaiah but lacking from Ezekiel. First,
95. Alternatively, his Hebrew text may have been defective here - for perhaps the same
reason.
96. This issue will be resumed in Chapter 4; see pp. 144-45.
97. 4Q385 fragment 12; 4Q391 fragments 1, 2, 9, 10, 25, 36, 55, 62, and 65.
98. Although note that this phrase is sometimes used in a fashion atypical of Ezekiel, as in
4Q386 2.2. Dimant, '4Q386 ii-iii', p. 514.
99. Dimant, '4Q386 ii-iii', p. 514.
4Q385 2.1 describes God as 'YHWH who redeems' (*»un mm), a title
never used in Ezekiel, but characteristic of Isaiah (the verb b*o occurs 24
times there, twelve as a title for God (Isa. 41.14; 43.14, etc.)). Second, the
title 'YHWH of Hosts' (mans mm), used in 4Q385 2.8; 12.3, is never used
by Ezekiel, but is commonly used by most other prophets (Isaiah: 51 times;
Jeremiah: 70; minor prophets: 78). Third, 4Q385 3.7 gives God's
pronouncement, 'For the mouth of YHWH has spoken these words'
Cm mm), typical of Isaiah (Isa. 1.20; 40.5, 58.14; also Mic. 4.4). Ezekiel's
oracles from the Lord are normally established by the phrase 'I, YHWH,
have spoken' Omm mm, Ezek. 5.13; 6.10, etc.). Fourth, in his description
of fallen Babylon, the author of Pseudo-Ezekiel uses the phrase 'a dwelling
place for demons' and other language strongly reminiscent of Isa. 13.21.
Probably the most important modification that the author of Pseudo-
Ezekiel has made to the material it derives from Ezekiel is the subtle
inclusion of apocalyptic themes. Ezekiel contains in itself some of the seeds
that grew into the later apocalyptic tradition, but it lacks many of the
typical apocalyptic features, such as pseudepigraphy, esoteric interpreta-
tion of Scripture, elaborate eschatological imagery and cryptic timelines.
The author of Pseudo-Ezekiel re-makes Ezekiel, introducing some of those
apocalyptic elements. Thus the coming reward of the faithful is important
(4Q385 2.2-3), as is the timing of the last days (4Q385 2.3, 9; 3.3-6; esp.
4Q386 2.1-11). The images from Ezekiel are important to Pseudo-Ezekiel,
but not their original meanings: the dry bones vision is stripped of its
original interpretation, and there is no evidence that the throne vision is
placed within its original setting of judgment on Israel and the removal of
God's glory from the Temple.
4. Summary of the Use of Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls

The first striking observation about the use of Ezekiel at Qumran is the
sheer number of strong allusions and quotations. There are more allusions
to Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls than in all the rest of Second Temple
literature. In the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, allusions to Ezekiel are
much rarer and weaker. In many cases, allusions in the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha are only conceptual, or limited to a few words from
Ezekiel.100 Qumran literature also draws more widely on passages in
Ezekiel than other Second Temple literature does. The material surveyed
above suggests that Qumran literature alluded to material in 23 of the
chapters in Ezekiel (see the chart below). Most of the allusions proposed in
other Second Temple literature come from the throne-visions of Ezekiel 1
100. See the following chapter on 'The Use of Ezekiel in Other Second Temple Literature.'
and 10, the oracle about shepherds in Ezekiel 34, and the vision of the dry
bones in Ezekiel 37.
The strength of Qumran's allusions to Ezekiel is also striking. In the
majority of the allusions to Ezekiel, Qumran authors exhibited a great
sensitivity to the message of Ezekiel. Even brief allusions were usually
derived from passages in Ezekiel that contributed to the author's point or
resonated with the same theological themes. Of course, Scripture
references were always applied to the Community or used to advance a
position peculiar to Qumran. Ezekiel was appropriated for use within
Qumran, but often without violence to the sense of Ezekiel. For example,
CD 19.11-13 examines the deliverance of 'those who sigh and groan' over
the condition of Jerusalem (Ezek. 9.4). In Ezekiel, these were clearly the
few righteous residents of Jerusalem who were delivered from the
destruction of 587 BC. The Damascus Document acknowledges this
original meaning, but also sees it as a picture of what will happen at the
'second visitation.'
Further, authors at Qumran often show sensitivity to the meaning of
prophetic oracles (in Ezekiel and other prophets) by distinguishing
between prophecies that were already fulfilled in the Exile and restoration,
and prophecies that remained to be fulfilled in the eschaton. Since Ezekiel
and other prophets seem to make this distinction in their own writings,
attention to it in the DSS confirms their interest in careful interpretation.
This combination of extensive and careful use of Ezekiel suggests that
many authors in the Community had a strong affinity for that prophet.
The fact that stock phrases, images, and ideas from all over Ezekiel were so
often used with sensitivity for their original meaning (always, of course,
applied to the situation of the Community) suggests that Ezekiel was the
object of frequent and extended meditation at Qumran. The role of Ezekiel
in certain works, such as the Damascus Document and Hodayot, even
competes with the role that Isaiah has.
There are a number of reasons that Ezekiel was so important at
Qumran. First, the Community shared Ezekiel's priestly concerns. The
book of Ezekiel is filled with the concerns of a priest: horror at the
defilement of the Temple, sadness at God's abandonment of his holy place,
concern for Levitical law, and hope for the establishment of a new Temple
with a restored Zadokite priesthood. All of these emotions and hopes
found a ready place in the heart of the Community. Their priestly concerns
may have arisen out of the role of disillusioned priests in the founding of
the Community. Perhaps the Righteous Teacher saw himself in the role of
a priestly Ezekiel to a new generation.
Second, the Community shared Ezekiel's attitude towards Jerusalem.
Like other OT prophets, Ezekiel addresses most of his judgment oracles
against God's people. But Ezekiel is unique among the prophets in his
focus on Jerusalem. Many of the judgments that other prophets address
more broadly against Israel and Judah are directed by Ezekiel against 'the
bloody city' (e.g., Ezek. 22.2). Yet Ezekiel did not condemn Jerusalem
forever. It would be restored and again be the dwelling-place of God and
his people. Ezekiel's anger against the corruption of Jerusalem and his
hope for its future can also be found in the DSS. Perhaps the only
difference is that Ezekiel communicates a sense of sick dread at the
destruction of Jerusalem, while some of the DSS seem to look forward to
the 'second visitation' with anticipation. This difference is understandable;
Ezekiel likely composed much of his work after the awful destruction of
Jerusalem, while the residents of Qumran had not experienced the
devastation themselves.
Most importantly, the Qumran Community made wide use of Ezekiel
because much of their eschatology was built on a replay of the Exile and
restoration as seen through Ezekiel's eyes. Other passages, such as the
Damascus of Amos 5.26-27, could be appropriated to this Exile
eschatology only with some violence. Ezekiel's eschatology, however,
was much more in harmony with that of the Community. Ezekiel's oracles
about the destruction of Jerusalem may have been already fulfilled, but
Qumran authors could see those events recurring through the application
of typology (and, of course, such a recurrence would be in harmony with
prophecies about Jerusalem found in other prophets). Many of Ezekiel's
oracles had not been fulfilled, and these could be applied to the
Community's present and future. Ezekiel had predicted a time of
purification in the wilderness before the restoration (Ezek. 20.35; 1QM
1.2-3); to the Community, the interpretation was obvious. Ezekiel
predicted a restoration of a purified priesthood and the (minor) punish-
ment of priests who had been unfaithful; Qumran saw the current
Jerusalem priesthood destroyed and the new priesthood drawn from the
Community. Ezekiel predicted that God would give his Spirit and a new
heart of flesh to his people; the Community celebrated that giving of the
Spirit in their ceremonial baptisms, although they were still awaiting the
heart of flesh. Finally, the climax of Ezekiel's oracles was the return of
God's presence to a restored Temple in a renewed Jerusalem. This was also
the central hope of Qumran. The coincidence on so many eschatological
issues suggests that Ezekiel was an important source for Qumran's
eschatology, in addition to the important role played by other books from
the Scriptures.
Allusions to Ezekiel in the Dead Sea Scrolls
Qumran Abbreviated DSS Ezekiel Passage in Ezekiel;

Allusion or Summary Reference Reference summary
he hid his face from Israel CD 1.3-4 39.23 Gog; summary of exile
and from his sanctuary
Three hundred ninety CD 1.5-6 4.4-5 Siege of Jerusalem; sin at
years the Temple
and said, 'For it is ours.' CD 3.16-17 11.15 Judgment between first
exiles and remnant
The priests... who kept CD 3.21-4.6 44.15 New Jerusalem; restored
watch of my sanctuary priesthood
Builders of the wall CD 4.19 13 False prophets
to distinguish between the CD 6.17 22 Failed leaders; defiled
impure and the pure priesthood
... builders of the wall CD 8.12-18// 13 False prophets
and whitewash- 19.24-31
daubers ...
not be accounted among CD 19.35 13 False prophets
the council of the people
to make a mark CD 19.11-13 9.4 Slaughter in Jerusalem
upon... those who sigh
and groan
who is melted in the midst CD 20.3-4 22 Judgment on Jerusalem
of a furnace
Plantation, trees by the 1QH 14.14-18 31, 17, 19 Egypt as a cedar;
river Restored king; vine of
Israel
For your own sake you 1QH 14.10; 36 God's deliverance of
have done it. 12.38; 21.6-7 Israel from Exile
Plantation, trees by the 1QH 16.2-24 31,47,21, 19 Egypt as a cedar; Temple
river river; Judgment on Negev;
vine of Israel
Heart of stone 1QH 21.10-13 36 New heart and new spirit
Return from the 1QM 1.2-3 20.35 Wilderness generation
wilderness of the peoples (after Exile)
Role for tribal leaders and 1QM 2.S-4 44,45 New Jerusalem; Prince in
men in the new Temple the new Temple
Judgments against Gog 1QM 11.14^16 38,39 Judgment on Gog
and all his assembly
Holy Spirit, waters of 1QS 3.7-8; 36 Promise of the Spirit,
purification 4.20-22 cleansing
New Jerusalem 2024 40-48 New Jerusalem
. . . in the book of 4Q174 1.16 20.18 Wilderness generation

Ezekiel... ' [ . . . ] their
idols'
Judgment on Put, Egypt, 4Q385 fr. 1 30 Judgment on the nations
Kush, Arabia
Resurrection of the 4Q385 fr. 3 37 Dry bones
righteous in Israel
Throne-vision 4Q385 fr. 4 1, 10 Throne-visions
hanging from a tree, and 4Q385 10 31, 17 Egypt as a cedar (31);
the birds of heaven Restored king (17)
Heavenly Temple; 4Q405 20.7-12 43, 1, 10 Throne-visions
Throne-vision
Builder of the wall 4Q424 1.1 13 False prophets
showers of blessings, wild 11Q14 1.7 34 Blessings on restored
beasts shall withdraw Israel
Chapter 3
THE USE OF EZEKIEL IN OTHER SECOND TEMPLE LITERATURE
We now turn to an examination of the use of Ezekiel in other literature of

the Second Temple period (traditionally called the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha). A few citations or clear allusions can be found in 1
Enoch, Testament ofLevi, Sirach, Psalms of Solomon, Lives of the Prophets,
and 4 Maccabees. These passages combined contain fewer allusions to
Ezekiel than are found in the Damascus Document alone. However, the
scattered allusions and quotations of Ezekiel found outside the DSS still
have value for this study, because they allow comparison with allusions to
Ezekiel in the DSS and in the Gospel of John.
Analysis of other literature of Second Temple Judaism must proceed
somewhat differently than analysis of the DSS. Members of one
community presumably wrote most of the DSS examined above over the
course of about a century. Those works not composed by authors from
Qumran were at least deemed acceptable for use in the Community. With
other Second Temple literature, there was no such relatively homogeneous
reading community. The various works likely represent different subsets of
Second Temple Judaism, and thus are more likely to disagree with each
other on a variety of issues (including their use of the OT). We do not
know how broad the influence of some of these books was, although
certainly 1 Enoch and Sirach were widely known by the first century AD.
Despite the greater diversity of this body of literature, some points of
contact in their use of Ezekiel can be found. As in the section on the DSS,
the uses of Ezekiel will be organized by themes from Ezekiel. The literature
examined here makes use of imagery only from Ezekiel's throne visions
(Ezekiel 1, 10), the shepherd oracle (Ezekiel 34) and the valley of the dry
bones (Ezekiel 37).l
1. Two brief allusions in Josephus and Philo will not be examined at length. In his description
ofZedekiah's punishment 04rcf. 10.8.3§141 ;cf. 2 Kgs 25.6-7), Josephus mentions prophecies of the
events by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. According to Ezekiel, Zedekiah would go to Babylon, but would
not see it:
ccxQeXc, eU Ra$\)k<bva mutrjv OI>K el8e, KOCGGX; Ie(eKir|A.oc; iTpoeiTre (Ant. 10.8.3§141).
a£a) aurov elg Baputaova... Kai OL\)TT)V OI>K oij/eiaL (Ezek. 12.13).
3. The Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature 79
1. The Merkabah Vision (Ezekiel 1; 3.2, 14-15; 10; Sirach 49.8;

Testament of Levi 5.7; 1 Enoch 14.8-25; 39.2; 71.1-2)
Ezekiel's vision of God's throne-chariot became, for some, the most
important part of Ezekiel, or indeed, the only part worth mentioning. Many
apocalyptic writers, beginning with 1 Enoch and continuing on through its
ultimate development in the Hekhalot literature, adapted the details of
Ezekiel's throne vision. In most cases, these visions of Ezekiel (chs 1, 3, 10,
43) were combined with visions from Isaiah 6 or Daniel 7 and were liberally
elaborated with descriptions of the levels and chambers of heaven and the
orders of angels.2 Descriptions of or references to the merkabah (as it came
to be technically called) can be found in Sir. 49.8 (early second century BC);
1 Enoch 14 (second century BC); Testament of Levi 2, 5 (late second century
BC); and 1 Enoch 39-40, 71 (early first century BC).3
Sirach's 'Hall of Faith' (Sirach 44-49) mentions three of the writing
prophets by name (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; the others are called 'the
twelve'). Sirach has only one thing to say about Ezekiel: he 'saw the vision
of glory (eidev opaoiv &o£n<;), which he showed him on the chariot of the
cherubim' (Sir. 49.8).4 This is an allusion to Ezek. 1.1, ' . . . the heavens
were opened, and I saw visions of God (el6ov opaoeiQ Geou).'5
Philo may also have an allusion to Ezekiel's vine metaphors (Ezekiel 17,31) in Agr. 4.17. However,
the parallel is entirely conceptual, with no significant verbal parallel. The virtuous person is
described as a husbandman who cuts down the 'trees of folly' that 'have raised their heads as high as
heaven,' burns out their roots, and replaces them with 'young shoots' which produce virtues. This
sounds like the judgment on the cedar in Ezek. 31.11-14, and the 'young shoots' are reminiscent of
the restoration oracle of Ezek. 17.22-24. However, all of Philo's agricultural terminology is
different from Ezekiel's (e.g., 6€v5pov instead of Zfilov), so the parallel is fairly weak.
2. The elaboration of the vision is commented on by several scholars. Gruenwald,
Apocalyptic, pp. 28, 29; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 71-74; Vogelgesang,
'Interpretation', pp. 44, 208-10.
3. Many works after the Second Temple era also describe the throne vision, using
language from Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and 1 Enoch. These include Apocalypse of Abraham 18
(second century AD); Ascension of Isaiah 6 (second century AD); 2 Enoch 20—21 (late first -
fourth century AD?); 3 Baruch 2 (late second century AD); Life of Adam and Eve 25, 28
(second - fourth century AD). The development of the visionary experience in these books is
important to the study of merkabah mysticism. However, for this study of the use of Ezekiel
in Second Temple Judaism, it will suffice to examine the use of Ezekiel's throne vision in the
works that were written before the second century AD. Later merkabah visions tend to be
more strongly influenced by 1 Enoch than Ezekiel in any case. For discussion of the merkabah
vision in these later works, see Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 54—57, 64; Halperin, Faces of the
Chariot; Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John; Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 222-27.
4. Kanagaraj sees this as evidence that 'Ezekiel's Merkabah vision had occupied a
significant place in the mind of ben Sira and that people in Palestine were familiar with it as
early as the second century BCE.' Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, p. 88.
5. The parallels between Sirach and Ezekiel can be examined only in the LXX, since only
a few fragments of Sirach's original Hebrew survive. According to the prolog of Sirach, the
Sirach's summary of Ezekiel's vision contains some emphases worth

discussing. First, Sirach alters the plural 'visions' to the singular 'vision.'
Ezek. 1.1 is an introduction to the book, not just to the throne-vision, as is
clear from the plural 'visions of God.' By describing the singular 'vision of
glory,' Sirach suggests that the throne-vision was Ezekiel's most important
contribution.6 Furthermore, Sirach suggests that Ezekiel's work could be
summarized best by reference to the throne-vision. Given the brief space
that Sirach allotted for his description of Ezekiel, reference to the throne-
vision is a good choice: the throne-vision is vital to the message of Ezekiel,
and it begins and ends the book.
Second, Sir. 49.8 uses the term 'chariot of the cherubim,' a phrase
not actually used by Ezekiel to describe his vision. Sirach's use of the
word apua may reflect that Ezekiel's vision had already acquired the
technical term 'merkabah.' The LXX also suggests an early technical
use of the term: although the throne visions in Ezekiel 1 and 10 are
correctly translated without the word ap|ia, the translator inserts a
clarifying phrase not found in the MT, 'the vision of the chariot' (rj
bpaoiQ TOU apiiatog) in Ezek. 43.3, when the throne vision is briefly
recalled. Sirach's use of the phrase and his focus on the vision of the
chariot suggest that for Sirach, that vision was Ezekiel's most important
contribution.
Ezekiel introduces his book and his first vision with the phrase 'the
heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God' (Ezek. 1.1). This
connection between an opening into heaven and visionary experience
became common in Second Temple apocalyptic literature. Such
introductions to visions were likely derived directly from Ezekiel or
indirectly through Ezekiel's imitators. The OT contains a few other
references to 'opened heavens,' but always with reference to the pouring
out of judgment (as in the flood) or of blessing (as with manna).
Only in Ezekiel are the heavens opened for God to show visions (see
p. 151).
The first allusion to Ezekiel's 'opened heavens' is found in the Testament
of Levi (probably written 109-106 BC) in descriptions of Levi's ascent to
translator was familiar with early Greek translations of the Scriptures. His familiarity with the
Greek tradition may have led him to translate allusions and quotes in accordance with the
existing Greek traditions. In other cases, however, allusions can be observed only if portions
of Sirach are translated back into Hebrew.
6. Of course, Sirach may have been familiar with a textual tradition that used the singular.
(The translator of Sirach was familiar with a Greek translation of the Scriptures, according to
the prolog.) Most of the Greek mss (K A B C) agree with the MT in the plural 'visions.' Some
mss (all the Syriac, Lucian, Catena) have the singular 'vision.' These manuscripts could also
be seen as evidence that some early translators or copyists saw the throne-vision as one of
Ezekiel's most important contributions.
heaven.7 Levi's vision comes after he meditates on the sinfulness of

humanity and asks for personal deliverance (T. Levi 2.3-4). After praying,
Levi falls asleep and sees a vision: 'And behold, the heavens were opened,
and an angel of God said to me, "Levi, enter'" (T. Levi 2.5). Levi is then
conducted by an angel through the two lower levels of heaven, where he
learns the secrets of God's judgment and forgiveness (T. Levi 2.7-3.6).
Then Levi is admitted into the third heaven: 'the angel opened to me the
gates of heaven, and I saw the holy temple, and upon a throne of glory the
Most High' (T. Levi 5.1). Like Ezekiel, T. Levi 5.1 connects the opened
heavens with a vision of God's throne. However, the Testament of Levi,
like later merkabah literature, makes some important alterations to
Ezekiel's vision. First, Testament of Levi focuses on the visionary's ascent
to heaven, while Ezekiel's visions were seen on earth.8 Second, one of the
main purposes of Levi's visionary ascent is the revelation of cosmic secrets,
where Ezekiel receives the visions as part of God's rebuke and restoration
of his people. Third, Testament of Levi describes God's presence in the
heavenly temple, in contrast to Ezekiel's visions of God in the clouds or in
the plains (Ezek. 1.3^4; 3.22-23). And lastly, Levi's experience may begin
the trend towards theurgy that culminates in the Hekhalot literature.9
What begins in the Testament of Levi as a description of what Levi did that
brought about the vision (meditate, pray, sleep) eventually becomes, in the
Hekhalot, a set of prescriptions for visionary ascent.10
In other cases, Ezekiel's throne language is invoked without reference to
the opened heavens. 1 Enoch has three descriptions of Enoch's journeys to
heaven. The first vision (7 En. 14.8-25) is in the Book of Watchers (third -
early second century BC), and serves as an introduction to the mysteries in
the remainder of the book (7 Enoch 15-36). The second and third visions (7
En. 39.2-40.10; 70-71) are in the Book of Similitudes (early first century
AD). These two visions serve as bookends for the Book of Similitudes,
enclosing revelations about the cosmos and coming judgment. All three
7. Vogelgesang suggests that 1 En. 14.8-10 is the first use of the theme. However, 1 Enoch
makes no reference to the opened heavens, but rather to Enoch's visionary ascent into heaven.
Such an ascent may imply 'opened heavens,' but there is no clear allusion to Ezek. 1.1 in 1 En.
14.8-10. Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', p. 45.
8. Gruenwald notes a transition from the 'geocentric' biblical prophets, who saw the
heavens as unreachable, to the apocalyptic writers, who always lifted their visionaries to
heaven. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, p. 19.
9. On the theurgical prescriptions, see Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, p. 99.
10. The 'opened door' theme can be found in other literature of this period and the
following centuries, which this study will not address. They include: Apocalypse of Abraham
18; 4 Ezra 8; 3 Bar. 2.1-2, 5; 6.13; 11.2; and Asc. Isa 6.6. For further discussion of the role of
the opened heavens in merkabah literature, see Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 66-67; B.
Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB; Greenwood, S.C.: Oliphants, 1972), pp. 121-22.
rely to some degree on Ezekiel's throne vision (Ezekiel 1, 3, 10), although

imagery is also derived from Isaiah 6 and (perhaps) Daniel 7.11
Enoch's first vision of heaven comes after he is sent to rebuke the
fallen Watchers (1 En. 12.4-14.7). In language perhaps reminiscent of
Ezek. 8.3, the winds sweep Enoch up to heaven (1 En. 14.8-9), where
he sees the throne room of God. The throne is described in 1 En.
14.18-20 using language from the throne visions of Ezekiel and
Daniel.12
1 En. 14.18-20 And I observed and Ezek. 1.22 . . . there was the
saw inside it a lofty throne - its likeness of a firmament, shining like
appearance was like crystal and its crystal...
wheels like the shining sun;
Ezek. 10.9 . . . and the appearance
of the wheels was like sparkling
chrysolite.
Dan. 7.9 . . . his throne was fiery
flames, its wheels were burning fire.
and (I heard?) the voice of the Ezek. 1.24 . . . the sound of their
cherubim wings like the sound of many
waters, like the thunder of the
Almighty.
Dan. 7.10 A stream of fire issued
and came forth from before him.
and from beneath the throne were Ezek. 10.6 Take fire from between
issuing streams of flaming fire. It the whirling wheels, from between
was difficult to look at it. the cherubim.
And the Great Glory was sitting Ezek. 1.26, 28 and seated above the
upon it. likeness of a throne was a likeness
as it were of a human form
Such was the appearance... of the
glory of YHWH.
This vision serves as the authority behind the revelations in the Book of
Watchers. That is, Enoch's heavenly ascent serves the same function as the
prophetic call in the classical prophets: it verifies that the information in
11. Vogelgesang has also made extensive observations about the use of Ezekiel in 1
Enoch's throne visions. Most of my observations are parallel to his. I differ only where
Vogelgesang pays attention to detail that is important for his study of the use of Ezekiel in
Revelation. Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 194-200.
12. 1 Enoch primarily survives in Ethiopic translation, so precise verbal parallel is more
difficult to establish.
the prophecy comes from God.13 Since 1 Enoch presents itself as (among
other things) an inspired interpretation of the events of Genesis, it must
show that its added details and clarification of the Genesis account14 come
from God. 1 Enoch's material from the prophetic calls of Ezekiel and
Isaiah helps to place Enoch into the tradition of OT prophecy, and thus
establish 1 Enoch's authority.15 In addition, scholars of the merkabah
literature, such as Gruenwald, Halperin, and Vogelgesang, generally agree
that 1 Enoch places a greater emphasis on the visionary himself than the
classical prophets do, sometimes exalting him above the biblical
prophets.16 For example, Enoch sees the secrets of nature and of God's
judgment that are hidden from Job;17 and Enoch sees all of human history,
while the prophets saw only a slice of the future. It was only appropriate
that one who saw so much should also have a more exalted vision of God's
throne room: Enoch ascends to heaven, whereas the prophets remain on
earth; Enoch sees all the hidden rooms of God's court; and Enoch sees
more details of the throne room than Isaiah or Ezekiel did.18 Enoch is, in
some ways, superior to angels: he, instead of an angel, is appointed as
messenger to the fallen Watchers; and only he is allowed to approach God
on his throne when the angels may not (7 En. 14.21).19
The Book of Similitudes also begins with Enoch being snatched up to
heaven (7 Enoch 39-40). Enoch approaches God's throne and sees
13. Vogelgesang suggests that the vision in 1 Enoch 14 represents 'an intermediate stage
between prophetic call and mystic ascent.' In mystical ascent, the vision of God is the goal,
whereas the prophetic call is the beginning of God's revelation. Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation',
p. 196; cf. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 34-35.
14. For further discussion of the phenomenon of 'rewritten bible' or 'biblical exegesis by
expansion,' see J.H. Charlesworth, 'The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', in C.A. Evans
and W.F. Stinespring (eds), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis (Festschrift H. Brownlee;
Homage, 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 139-52 (141-50); DNTB, s.v. 'Rewritten Bible
in Pseudepigrapha and Qumran' by B.N. Fisk, pp. 947-52.
15. Gruenwald suggests that in works like 1 Enoch, 'Scripture is rewritten in such a way as
to include the whole lot of these foreign elements [mythology and angelology]. The
legitimation of this material comes, as we saw, from the fact that it has the authority of the
angelic revelation, and partly also from the fact that the revelation is - fictitiously so - given to
one of the sages of scriptural times.' Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, p. 28.
16. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 34-35, 44-45; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 71, 82;
17. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 4-5, 8.
18. Charlesworth points out that 'Since Enoch then tends to transcend time and place - his
place is either unknown or hidden (cf. 1 En. 12.1-2) - he is the perfect candidate for ascending
through the heavens and viewing the world below, its history, and the future ages.' Charlesworth,
'The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', p. 149; cf. Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 4-5, 8,12, 32;
Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, p. 71; Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 194—95.
19. 'In this respect Enoch is here more privileged than all the angels... in the eyes of the
apocalypticist, Enoch enjoys a qualitative superiority over the angels.' Gruenwald,
Apocalyptic, pp. 36-37. Halperin comments that the angels in 1 Enoch are like the priests
countless angels praising God (1 En. 39.12-40.2). In this vision, only the
image of the four accompanying angels is drawn from Ezekiel.20
1 En. 39.12 Those who do not Isa. 6.3 And one called to another
slumber... shall bless, praise, and and said: 'Holy, holy, holy is
extol you, saying 'Holy, Holy, YHWH of hosts; the whole earth is
Holy, Lord of the Spirits; the spirits full of his glory.'
fill the earth.
40.1-2 And after that I saw... an
innumerable and uncountable
(multitude) who stood before the Ezek. 1.5 And from the midst of it
glory of the Lord of Spirits. I saw came the likeness of four living
them standing - on the four wings creatures... each had four wings.
of the Lord of Spirits - and saw
four other faces among those who
do not slumber, and I came to
know their names.
Perhaps the only connections between these visions of Enoch and Ezekiel
are the references to 'wings' and to the four divine attendants. However,
the four cherubim in 1 Enoch have only their number in common with
Ezekiel's cherubim. They are not described with wings or multiple faces or
wheels, and unlike Ezekiel's cherubim, they have names and particular
offices (7 En. 40.3ff). If 1 Enoch draws its description from Ezekiel, then it
transfers the four wings of the angels to God. Such a transfer would not be
surprising, since Ezekiel's four winged creatures composed God's chariot.
The modification of angelic descriptions or functions is in any case typical
of apocalyptic literature, and especially of later Hekhalot literature.21
1 Enoch 70-71 contains thefinalthrone vision, and it concludes the Book
of Similitudes. Like the vision of 1 Enoch 14, this third vision uses language
from Ezekiel 1 and Daniel 7.22
in the temple, who cannot enter the inner chamber - but Enoch is allowed to enter. 'We
cannot miss the implication that the human Enoch is superior even to those angels who are
still in good standing.' Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, p. 82.
20. Vogelgesang and Charles both suggest another allusion to Ezekiel in the passage.
'Enoch received the books of zeal and wrath, as well as the books of haste and whirlwind' (1
En. 39.2) is said to be an allusion to the scroll that Ezekiel ate (Ezek. 3.2) that caused him to be
'embittered in the rage of my spirit' (Ezek. 3.14-15). APOT, vol. 1, p. 210 fn; Vogelgesang,
'Interpretation', p. 208. It is true that the books in both cases are associated with anger and
judgment, but there are too few parallel words to warrant calling it an allusion.
21. Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 206-08.
22. The earlier throne visions of 1 Enoch may serve as part of the inspiration.
1 En. 71.1-2 And I saw the holy Ezek. 1.13 In the midst of the living
sons of God,23 walking on flames of creatures there was something that
fire; their garments were white - looked like burning coals of fire.
and their overcoats - and the light Dan. 7.10 A stream of fire issued
of their faces was like snow. Also I and came forth from before him.
saw two rivers of fire, the light of Ezek. 1.28
which fire was shining like hyacinth. And when I saw it, I fell upon my
Then I fell upon my face before the face, (see also Gen. 17.3; Ezek. 3.23;
Lord of Spirits. 43.3; 44.4; Dan. 8.17)
1 En. 71.7 Moreover Seraphim, Seraphim: Isa. 6.2
Cherubim, and Ophannim - the Ophannim: 'wheels' in Ezek. 1.15-
sleepless ones who guard the 21, etc.
throne of his glory - also encircled
it.
Enoch's vision continues with imagery primarily drawn from Daniel 7

(such as the 'head of days'). The vision concludes with an angelic
revelation about Enoch's role as 'son of man' and model for all the
righteous people to come, who will share in Enoch's reward (1 En. 71.14—
16). The heavenly vision and its accompanying prophecy serve as a
conclusion to the Book of Similitudes.
Enoch's first heavenly vision opens the Book of Watchers, and the
second and third visions begin and end the Book of Similitudes. These
two books are usually regarded as the work of two authors.24 However,
there are commonalities in their use of Ezekiel, perhaps because the
author of the Book of Similitudes seems to be familiar with the Book of
Watchers.25 In order to authorize 1 Enoch as a prophetic book, each
author includes something like a prophetic call narrative. In keeping with
the obvious creativity of the authors of 1 Enoch and the exalted status of
the biblical Enoch, each author composed elaborate visionary calls for
Enoch. Each author drew on the three loftiest visions that could be found
in the OT to describe Enoch's call. The throne visions of Isaiah, Ezekiel,
and Daniel were combined and improved on for the purpose of
connecting the secret messages of 1 Enoch to the authority of the OT
prophetic tradition.
In a sense the Book of Watchers and the Book of Similitudes are not
interested in Ezekiel's throne-vision for itself. This is revealed by the lack
of resonance between the allusions and their source. Many other allusions
that we have analyzed show numerous connections between the allusive
23. So APOT; OTP has 'sons of the holy angels.'

24. OTP, vol 1, pp. 6-7.
25. OTP, vol 1, pp. 6-7.
text and the source text. That is, the allusion is not limited to the parallel
words, but rather, the parallel words draw attention to broader and deeper
connections between the two texts. Other OT allusions within 1 Enoch also
demonstrate such resonance (see below, pp. 87-88). But the allusions to the
throne vision in 1 Enoch lack such resonance. Instead, 1 Enoch uses
elements from that vision and other prophetic call narratives to connect 1
Enoch to the OT prophetic tradition. Enoch's status as a prophet allows
him to give authoritative interpretation of the OT. Moreover, since
Enoch's call brings him into the secret places of heaven, it allows Enoch to
comment on matters hidden from the OT prophets. Most importantly for
Enoch's first audience, Enoch's status as the greatest prophet allowed him
to see all of coming history, and explain how the events of the Maccabean
revolt were connected to God's ultimate plans. The allusions to Ezekiel's
throne-visions thus served the important purpose of establishing Enoch's
status and bringing authority to the message of 1 Enoch.
There is a subtle but important difference between this approach to
Scripture and the approach found in the DSS. When the DSS quote or
allude to Scripture, they are also using Scripture to support their own
views. But their approach, for a lack of a better term, is more expository.
That is, the authors of the Scrolls argued for (or sometimes assumed) a
particular interpretation of Scripture. However, their interpretation was
not established or defended through heavenly visions.26 In general, the
DSS argue through Scriptures in a fashion somewhat similar to later
rabbinical interpretation. In contrast, 1 Enoch suggests particular
interpretations of Scripture by claiming immediate revelation, rather
than arguing for a particular interpretation. This is not to suggest that 1
Enoch intends to replace Scripture; rather, the authors present Enoch as an
inspired interpreter and revealer of further mysteries.27
2. Sheep and Shepherd (Ezekiel 34; 1 Enoch 89-90; Psalm of

Solomon 17.21-44)
Ezekiel's shepherd imagery is the likely source of inspiration for two
Second Temple works, Psalm of Solomon 17 and the vision of 1 Enoch 89-
90. There are other works that draw on the shepherd imagery of the Old
26. One possible exception to this tendency is found in Hodayot. The author of Hodayot
comes closest to arguing for direct inspiration when he describes himself as the source of living
waters (1QH 16.16-24; cf. 1QH 18.12-17). Even here, however, the author does not suggest
that he received his interpretations in a vision, but rather that God has given him the ability to
correctly interpret the Law.
27. Although both Gruenwald and Halperin suggest that 1 Enoch and other works in the
apocalyptic tradition did indeed set themselves in opposition to Scripture. Gruenwald,
Apocalyptic, pp. 23, 25; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, p. 71.
Testament (e.g., Sir. 18.13; 47.3; 4 Ezra 5.18), but they have no distinctive
reliance on the denouncement of the shepherds in Ezekiel 34.
The Animal Apocalypse (7 Enoch 85-90) contains an extensive allegorical
vision, revealed to Enoch on his second ascent to heaven. It is presented as
a prophetic vision of the coming events of the people of Israel. The vision
uses a variety of animal symbolism, but the dominant image is that of
sheep. None of the symbols is explained, because the allegory is designed
to be clear enough to anyone who knows the OT. The allegory is very
thorough; every major event, and many of the leading figures of the OT
and the Maccabean era, can be discerned in the allegory. Abraham, Isaac,
Ishmael, Esau, and Jacob are all depicted as various animals, but
beginning with the twelve sons of Jacob, all Israelites are depicted as
sheep. God is described as 'the Lord of the sheep' (7 En. 89.22, 28, 36, 54,
etc.) but not explicitly as shepherd; and the leaders of Israel are sheep (7
En. 89.14, 29, 36, 72), rams (7 En. 89.42, 43, 47), or males (7 En. 90.10-12,
31), not shepherds. Each Gentile nation is associated with a particular
predatory beast (e.g., 7 En. 89.14, 55, 72); Jerusalem is a high rock, on
which is built a house and a tower for the sheep (7 En. 89.29, 36); the exilic
and post-exilic Gentile rulers are described as unjust shepherds (or the
angelic rulers behind them; 7 En. 89.59-72). In the end, the shepherds are
judged, along with the 'blinded sheep' who did not resist the wicked
shepherds (probably referring to Antiochus IV and his Jewish collabora-
tors).
Although the vision in 7 Enoch 89-90 draws on a range of OT sheep
imagery, it is primarily inspired by and based on Ezekiel 34. Ezekiel's
shepherd allegory28 describes the failure of Israel's leadership and God's
promise to personally restore his people and bring back the Davidic
monarchy. Although the failure of the shepherds and the chief sheep in
Ezekiel 34 could refer to the entire history of Israel's leadership, no details
force the reader more than a generation before the Exile. That is, Ezekiel's
allegory contains elements that clearly refer to the Babylonian conquest
and the exile, but no elements that clearly refer to earlier historical events.
The author of 7 Enoch takes Ezekiel's historically brief allegory and
extends it over the whole history of Israel, through the time of the author
and up to Judgment Day.
There are many general elements in 7 Enoch 89-90 that have a parallel in
elements in Ezekiel 34. Most obviously, Enoch's Animal Apocalypse
describes the unjust rule of shepherds over sheep,29 and ends with their
28. The exact category to which Ezekiel 34 should be assigned can be debated. However,
since it is an elaborate tale with a particular meaning for each element, 'allegory' is an
acceptable category. See Allen, Ezekiel, p. 161; Durlesser, 'Rhetoric of Allegory', p. 111.
29. Fikes, 'Shepherd-King', p. 169.
judgment, much like the two oracles of woe in Ezekiel 34 (7 En. 90.21-27;
Ezek. 34.7-11, 20-22). Further, both 1 Enoch and Ezekiel 34 have a sort of
mixed metaphor, where leaders are depicted sometimes as sheep (or rams)
and other times as shepherds.
Other details from Ezekiel's sheep-shepherd imagery strengthen the
parallel: Enoch's God is 'Lord of the sheep' and the leaders of Israel only
lead by God's permission (7 En. 89.59; Ezek. 34.10-11, 23-24). Not
surprisingly for a shepherd metaphor, wild animals symbolize Israel's
enemies in both accounts. In Ezekiel, the Gentile oppressors are described
as 'beasts of the field' or 'harmful beasts' (Ezek. 34.5, 8, 25, 28). 1 Enoch
designates a particular predator for each Gentile nation; so, for example, a
wild boar represents the Samaritans (7 En. 89.72) and wolves represent the
Egyptians (7 En. 89.14-20). In both books, God promises eventual
deliverance from the predators (Ezek. 34.28; 7 En. 90.6-19).
Other details in the account suggest that the author of 7 Enoch was
familiar with other passages in Ezekiel. 7 Enoch's sheep abandon the house
that they built for the Lord of the sheep, thus bringing God's judgment on
them. That house is destroyed, but God builds them a new house 'greater
and loftier than the first one' (7 En. 90.28-29). Some of the details of that
new house (pillars, columns, ornaments) are reminiscent of the new
Temple in Ezekiel 45-48. The 'Watchers' who seduced women (cf. 7 En.
9.8-9) are bizarrely described in the Animal Apocalypse as stars with
'sexual organs like horses' (7 En. 86.4; 88.3); this description is certainly
very similar to the phrase that Ezekiel uses to describe the lovers of the
harlot Oholibah (Ezek. 23.20). These fallen stars are among the first cast
into the abyss at the final judgment of sheep and shepherds (7 En. 90.21,
24). As we discussed in Chapter 1, the presence of one allusion to an earlier
work strengthens the case for any other nearby allusions to the same earlier
work. In this case, the several allusions to different passages of Ezekiel
make it clear that the author of the Animal Apocalypse knows and values
Ezekiel, and thus strengthens the case that Ezekiel 34 is the source of some
of the imagery in the Animal Apocalypse.
1 Enoch makes some significant alterations to Ezekiel's metaphor. Some
of the changes were perhaps attempts to explain Ezekiel's allegory more
clearly. For example, Ezekiel's condemnation first addresses the shepherds,
then the strong sheep or rams. It is not clear in Ezekiel if the strong sheep
are another metaphor for the leaders of Israel, or if they represent subjects
of Israel who are abusing other subjects.30 7 Enoch assigns these two figures
30. Most modern scholars see the 'strong sheep' as a reference to the aristocracy of Israel
who have been allowed to oppress the lower classes. (Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 2, pp. 162-63;
Durlesser, 'Rhetoric of Allegory', p. 350; W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (trans. C.
Quin; OTL; London: SCM Press, 1970), p. 473; Huntzinger, 'End of Exile', p. 120; Vancil,
different meanings. Sheep or rams treated individually in the Animal

Apocalypse are always the leaders or prophets of Israel: Moses (7 En.
89.17-18, 32, etc.), the judges (7 En. 89.41-42), and the prophets (7 En.
89.51-53) are sheep; and Saul, David, Solomon, and Judas Maccabee are
rams (7 En. 89.45-49; 90.9-10). None of these leaders receives condemna-
tion in the Animal Apocalypse. Instead, Enoch's condemnation is directed
towards the shepherds, who punish Israel more than God commanded
them. These shepherds represent the Gentile rulers over Israel (or perhaps
the angelic beings behind the Gentile thrones), as is clear from their
placement in the narrative after the fall of Jerusalem and up to the rise of
the Maccabees (7 En. 89.59-90.5).31 Perhaps Israel's heroes are all
portrayed as sheep precisely because the author of 7 Enoch had decided
to give 'shepherd' a negative connotation.
Another significant change is God's role in the affliction of his sheep. In
Ezekiel 34, God's anger is directed at the leaders of Israel because they
oppress God's people. God's judgment on the leaders partially serves the
purpose of liberating his people. God will at last care for his people, both
directly and through the ideal shepherd, David. But in 7 Enoch, God
'remained quiet and happy because they [the sheep] were being devoured,
swallowed, and snatched; so he abandoned them into the hands of all the
wild beasts for food' (7 En. 89.58). God's happiness at his people's
destruction is perhaps more in keeping with the 'flock doomed to
slaughter' in Zech. 11.3ff. For the author of 7 Enoch, Israel's suffering
thus comes originally from God as the proper judgment for their sin.
However, Israel suffered even beyond what was warranted by their sin,
because God's agents of punishment, the Gentile shepherds, have punished
Israel beyond God's requirements (7 En. 89.59-90.5). However, God is still
just: the sheep who were unjustly punished will be raised up on Judgment
'Symbolism of the Shepherd', p. 232; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 217. However, the passage
never explains its elements clearly, so there is some possible ambiguity in the meaning of the
strong sheep.
31. R.H. Charles (APOT, p. 255 fn) concludes that the shepherds must be angels, because
of their shared fate with the stars (1 En. 90.22-25) and because they are not cast into the same
pit as the 'blind sheep' (1 En. 90.26). He connects their number with the seventy years of the
Exile. VanderKam adds that since humans are represented as animals, shepherds likely
represent angelic beings (J.C. VanderKam, 'Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature', in J.M.
Scott (ed.), Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (JSJ, 56; Leiden: Brill,
1997), pp. 89-109 (97-98); he also gives a summary of other views on the identity of the
shepherds). However, their place in the time-line of Israel makes it seem likely that these
seventy shepherds must be at least associated with Gentile rulers. The fact that there are
seventy may also connect them with the traditional seventy Gentile nations (e.g., b. Sukk.
5.55b, Peshikta R. 52.7). J. Jeremias concurs that the seventy shepherds are the Gentile rulers,
although allows that they might be the 'angel princes' of those nations. TDNT, s.v. 'noi|!r|v,
apxiiToi|ir)v, mniiotLVG), iTOL|!r|v, iTot|!VLov' by J. Jeremias, vol. 6, pp. 485—502.
Day (7 En. 90.32), and the wicked shepherds will be punished in a fiery pit
(7 En. 90.25-26).
The differences between the use of flock imagery in Ezekiel and 1 Enoch
can be explained as differences in context. Ezekiel's use of the sheep and
shepherd was designed to explain the problems of the Exile and reveal
God's presence in Israel's afflictions. The leaders of Israel carried the
primary blame even for the Exile, but God promised to restore the people
after the leaders of Israel were judged. Ezekiel thus addressed Israel's
disillusionment with the leadership of Israel and their despair over the
current Gentile domination.
1 Enoch 89-90 was aimed at the problems of the Maccabean era. It
seems probable that this section of 1 Enoch was written in the middle of the
Maccabean revolt,32 since the allegory skips from the Maccabean conflict
directly to Messianic deliverance without depicting the re-dedication of the
Temple or the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty (7 En. 90.13-14).
In contrast to Ezekiel's time, there was less disillusionment about the failed
leadership of Israel, but there was perhaps even greater despair over
Gentile domination. Israel had now been under Gentile rule for almost
four centuries, and the current oppression was possibly the worst yet. The
author of the Animal Apocalypse thus needed to explain the severity of the
punishment and give hope for the future. The author explains that Israel's
current oppression was a continuation of the punishment that began in the
Exile.33 The seventy punishing shepherds began their reign at the beginning
of the Exile (7 En. 89.59, 66) and continued until the Maccabean revolt (7
En. 90.1-2, 6ff). The author of 7 Enoch was concerned, however, that the
punishment exceeded the offense. To explain this injustice, 7 Enoch
ascribes the excess punishment to the wicked (and possibly demonic)
shepherds who exceeded God's orders for punishing Israel (7 En. 89.59-
66). Second, 7 Enoch offered hope for deliverance. The reign of the seventy
shepherds was about to end, since the Lord of the sheep would soon bring
his delivering power to the aid of the last ram, Judas Maccabee. Finally,
the injustice of the seventy shepherds was about to be righted: at the
imminent final judgment, these shepherds would be assigned the same
punishment as the Watchers (7 En. 90.22-25), while the sheep who had
been oppressed or killed would be restored and given a new house (7 En.
90.30-33). The author's connection between the current Gentile rulers and
32. OTP, vol. 1, p. 7.

33. VanderKam points out that the Animal Apocalypse 'presents an enduring view of the
exile' although it also describes 'the historical return of the exiles and the building of the
second temple.' Although some exiles returned and rebuilt the Temple in 1 En. 89.72-73, that
return 'hardly seems a turning point, much less an end to the situation of exile.' The turning
point comes with the arrival of the lambs who could see (7 En. 90.6) and the subsequent new
age. VanderKam, 'Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature', pp. 99-100.
the primordial angelic Watchers transforms the Jewish struggle for

independence into the last battle in a cosmic war.
The image of the sheep in 1 Enoch is thus closely connected to the central
idea of Ezekiel's image of the sheep: God will eventually deliver his sheep
from their wicked rulers. However, 1 Enoch transforms Ezekiel's allegory
in a few key places. The blame for the suffering of Israel is transferred from
the Jewish rulers to the Gentile rulers; and the punishment of the Exile is
extended into the present time.
It seems likely that, if the author of the Animal Apocalypse had Ezekiel
34 clearly in mind, he saw Judas Maccabee as fulfilling Ezekiel's prophecy
about the restoration of David as God's shepherd over Israel (Ezek. 34.23-
24). By describing Judas as a ram, the author is at least suggesting that the
Maccabees are kingly. Before Judas, the onlyfiguresto be depicted as rams
are Saul, David, and Solomon (7 En. 89.42-49).34 Charles suggests that this
support for the Maccabees was a dominant reason for the writing of the
Animal Apocalypse?5 However, the author may have seen Judas as more
than just 'kingly.' The description of Judas as the ram with a strong horn
that could not be overcome by any of the birds of prey invites a 'messianic'
interpretation. The fact that God's deliverance comes to this horned ram,
and final judgment comes after his conquest of the Gentiles, gives further
evidence that the author of the Animal Apocalypse saw Judas as the
anointed king.36
Psalm of Solomon 17 reflects the messianic hopes of the author and his
audience in the first century BC. It clearly expects the return of 'the Lord's
anointed' (Ps. Sol. 17.32) from the line of David, who will purify Israel and
conquer its enemies. While the messianic ideas are drawn from a variety of
OT sources, Ezekiel's influence can be seen in the main themes, and in a few of
the lines of the psalm. Only the Greek translation of the Psalms of Solomon
survives, so parallels to Ezekiel must be examined in the LXX. The translator
apparently conformed OT allusions in the Psalms to the LXX; thus, allusions
in the Greek likely represent allusions in the original Hebrew.37
34. This is somewhat complicated by the use of three words in the Ethiopic for 'ram.' The
followers of the Maccabees are called dabelat, 'males'; whereas Judas and the other Maccabees
are called mahase, 'rams'; and a third word, translated 'rams,' describes Saul, David, and
Solomon. M. Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985), p. 276;
R.H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn, 1912), pp. 208-09.
35. APOT, vol. 2, p. 182.
36. It is possible that Judas is the ram who takes Enoch by the hand in 1 En. 90.31,
furthering the impression that Judas is an eschatological figure (Black, 1 Enoch, p. 279)
However, the identity of the ram is uncertain; it may refer instead to Elijah (1 En. 89.52)
(Charles, The Book of Enoch, p. 215).
37. K. Atkinson, An Inter textual Study of the Psalms of Solomon: Pseudepigrapha (SBEC,
49; Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001), p. 348, fn 9.
The main themes and even some of the structure of Psalm of Solomon 17
are much like those of Ezekiel 34. The Psalm begins with an affirmation of
God as king (Ps. Sol. 17.1-3) and of David's eternal dynasty (Ps. Sol.
17.4). Then the psalmist denounces the rulers of Israel (probably referring
to Pompey and his Jewish supporters38) and describes God's judgment on
those rulers and on Israel (Ps. Sol. 17.5-20). The solution to this situation
is the re-establishment of the Davidic line, which the author prays for and
describes (Ps. Sol. 17.21-44) using some shepherding imagery. This
Davidic king will rule over God's people as God's faithful representative;
in fact, T h e Lord himself will be his king' (Ps. Sol. 17.34; cf. 21, 26, 32,
42). Finally, the psalm reaffirms God's kingship and prays for speedy
deliverance of his people (Ps. Sol. 17.45).39 In Ezekiel, the same themes are
enumerated in more allegorical language. God is the true owner of the
flock (Ezek. 34.6-10), and he condemns the false shepherds of Israel (Ezek.
34.1-10, 17-22). God will appoint David to rule as a good shepherd over
them in his stead (Ezek. 34.23-24), but more importantly, God himself will
directly rule over his people (Ezek. 34.11-22, 25-31).
There are also a few verses in Psalm of Solomon 17 that show verbal
parallels to Ezekiel 34. The oppressed state of the people of Israel is
described using a few phrases reminiscent of the scattered sheep of Ezekiel
34.
Ps. Sol. 17.16 Those who love the Ezek. 34.4 . . . you did not return
assemblies of the pious fled from the wandering (TO i\kx.v6[i€vov)
them...
17 They were wandering (enslaved- 12 Just as the shepherd seeks his
VTO) in the wilderness so their lives flock . . . in the midst of scattered
would be saved from the
evildoer...
18 Their scattering (oKopiTiG|i6<;) by (6iaK€XGjpia|i<EVG)i/) sheep, thus I will
the lawless ones came into all the seek out my sheep and I will bring
earth... them back from every place where
they were scattered
The language of scattering in Ps. Sol. 17.16-18 is reminiscent of sheep

imagery, although not strongly. Since the parallels are only single words
and synonyms, it is difficult to make the case that the language of
scattering derives exclusively from Ezekiel 34. However, the fact that
38. For a discussion of the historical setting and a defense of the view that Pompey is the
pagan leader in view, see Atkinson, Psalms of Solomon, pp. 46-51, 360-61 and OTP, vol. 2,
pp. 640-41.
39. Fikes, 'Shepherd-King', p. 171, points out some of these structural similarities.
Psalm of Solomon 17 follows this description of 'scattered sheep' with a

definite allusion to Ezek. 34.23 (discussed below) suggests that the author
was inspired by Ezekiel 34. As with Ezekiel 34, the scattered state of the
people is contrasted with the coming reign of David.
The author of Psalm of Solomon 17 next appeals to God to raise up the
son of David. The shepherd language used to describe this king reflects the
Davidic Messiah of Jer. 37.9 LXX,40 Ezek. 34.23-24, and Mic. 5.3 LXX.
Ps. Sol. 17.21 Behold, Lord, and Jer. 37.9 (LXX) I will raise up for
raise up for them their king, the son them David their king (xov Aaui6
of David (ccvaoTrpov autolg tov paoiAia auicdv avaoxrpix) aviolc,.)
fiuoikea auxcdv uiov AauiS)41 at the Ezek. 34.23 And I will raise up over
proper time. them (avaoTryw en' atkoug) one
shepherd, and he will shepherd
them (iTOL|iav€l oarcoug), my servant
17.40 He will be strong (laxupog) in David, and he will be their
his deeds and mighty in the fear of shepherd, (cf. Ezek. 37.24-25)
the Lord, shepherding the flock of Mic. 5.3 And he will arise and see
the Lord (iroiiiaivtov TO iroipinov and shepherd his flock
Kuptoi)) in faithfulness and (m)i[iavel TO TTOI|IVIOV OCUTOO) in the
righteousness, and he will not leave strength (lo/m) of the L o r d . . .
(any) to be weak among them in
their pasture. Ezek. 34.30 And they will know
17.27 And he will know them, that that I am the Lord their God, and
they are all children of their God. they are my people.
Clearly, some of the most important elements in the passage allude to

Jeremiah and Micah. However, some elements come from Ezekiel 34: the
weak sheep (Ezek. 34.4, 16); the pasture (Ezek. 34.14, 18); judgment on the
leaders (Ps. Sol. 17.5-20; Ezek. 34.1-10, 17-22), and deliverance from the
Gentile nations (Ps. Sol. 17.22-25; Ezek. 34.28-29). Furthermore, the
shepherd-like rule of the coming David in Ps. Sol. 17.41 will eliminate the
past inequities and oppression by human leaders, much like the promise of
God in Ezek. 34.22, 27. Finally, David's rule is accompanied by a restored
covenant between God and his people in both Ps. Sol. 17.27 and Ezek. 34.30.
The author of Psalm of Solomon 17 also expects the coming king to re-
divide the tribes and the land (Ps. Sol. 17.28, 43). This expectation is
40. Atkinson, Psalms of Solomon, p. 346.

41. aviotrpi in the LXX is normally used in its intransitive sense of 'arise.' It is only rarely
used as a transitive with a personal object, in the sense of 'raise up, appoint' - and when it is
used thus, it is always in prophetic passages (cf. Amos 9.11; Jer. 23.4-5; 37.9 LXX). Thus the
transitive, personal use of aviair||ii in Ps. Sol. 17.21 is evidence for an appeal to the prophetic
tradition of God's promise to raise up a new David.
similar in concept and wording to the expectations found in Ezek. 45.8;

47.13, 21. 42
Ps. Sol. 17.41 He will lead them all

in equality, and there will not be Ezek. 45.8 And the princes of Israel
arrogance among them so as to will no longer oppress
oppress (KaTa6uvaai€i)0f|voa) among (KaToc6uvaaT€i)aoi)oiv) my people,
them. and the house of Israel will inherit
17.28 And he will divide (KaiaKA/rpovoiiriaouoiv) the land
(Kaxa|i€pLO€L) them in their tribes according to their tribes
(ev talc; cjwtaug autcov) on the land, (KarafyvXac,auttiv). (MT: the
princes will give the land to the
house of Israel) (cf. 47.13) 47.21-22
And you will divide (&ia}iepiaeTe)
this land to them, to the tribes
and the stranger and the alien will (talc; (JWAJOUC;) of Israel... for you
no longer dwell (m)cpoiKr|G€i) with and for the sojourners who dwell
them. (TOIQ fTapoiKouaiv) in your midst.
The important similarities are clear: both texts expect an end to unjust
dispossession and a coming re-allocation of the tribes onto their ancestral
land when God delivers his people. Psalm of Solomon 17.28 uses
KaTa|i€pL(k), while Ezekiel uses KaiaKA,r|povo|ieG) (Ezek. 45.8) and 6ux|iepi(a)
(Ezek. 47.21). All three words can be used of an inheritance; the former
two are essentially synonymous and are commonly used of the division of
the land under Joshua and in the Law.
The differences are equally important. Although Ezekiel uses messianic
imagery in other parts of his book, such imagery is muted in Ezekiel 45-48.
There is discussion of the prince and his role in the new Temple, but he is
overshadowed by the description of the new Temple. The MT gives the
assignment of dividing the inheritance to the 'princes,' while the LXX
omits any mention of the agent (Ezek. 45.8). Ezekiel gives the prince only a
negative role in the re-allocation: the prince will no longer take land from
his people, but will allow them to keep their possessions (Ezek. 46.18). In
contrast, Psalm of Solomon 17 assigns the re-allocation solely to the 'son of
David' (Ps. Sol. 17.21).
The most important difference between the division of land in Psalm of
Solomon 17 and Ezekiel is the status of the Gentiles. Ezekiel specifically
includes resident Gentiles (MT: Dân, 'sojourners'; LXX: TTPOOTIXUTOL,
'sojourners' or 'proselytes') in the division of the land; the MT gives the
Gentiles a portion with the tribe among whom they dwell, while the LXX
42. Atkinson, Psalms of Solomon, p. 351; OTP, vol. 2, p. 667.

describes a new (j>uAf| -rrpoor|A.i)T(ji)v ('tribe of sojourners/proselytes') who will

inherit land (Ezek. 47.23). The author of Psalm of Solomon 17 was familiar
with Ezekiel, and likely with the LXX (e.g., note Ps. Sol. 17.23, where the
allusion to Ps. 2.9 follows the LXX against the MT). Clearly the author of
Psalm of Solomon 17 sharply disagreed with the prophetic tradition about the
future inclusion of Gentiles, and favored the exclusivity hinted at in Zech.
14.21. This exclusivity is a strong theme in Psalm of Solomon 17: the
messianic realm will exclude Gentiles (Ps. Sol. 17.22,24,25,28), sinners (Ps.
Sol. 17.23, 25), and the arrogant (Ps. Sol. 17.41). This difference can also be
described as a difference in the moral expectations for the messianic age. For
Ezekiel, the righteousness of the new age would be revealed injustice and in
cultic purity. The new rulers would no longer oppress the poor, the widow,
the orphan, or the alien. For the Psalms of Solomon, the new age would be
characterized by obedience to the Torah and destruction of sinners.
The author of Psalm of Solomon 17 made one other alteration to
Ezekiel's vision of kingship. In Ezekiel, David's rule is described as just
and righteous, but his teaching role is not mentioned. In Psalm of Solomon
17, David's role as a teacher of God's law is emphasized; 'he will judge
peoples and nations with the wisdom of righteousness' (Ps. Sol. 17.29, cf.
17.35); 'he will be a righteous king, taught by God' (Ps. Sol. 17.32); and
'his words are refined more than the costliest gold' (Ps. Sol. 17.43). Psalm
of Solomon 17 thus pictures the anointed king not only as a just ruler, but
as the chief teacher and example of righteousness.
The author of Psalm of Solomon 17 uses Ezekiel's prophecies of the
coming king (Ezekiel 34) and the coming kingdom (Ezekiel 45-47) to
undergird his own hopes for the coming messianic reign. His description
draws on a range of OT passages that describe the coming king or kingdom,
but focuses on elements that were most important to Jews of the first century
BC. With the end of the Hasmonean dynasty, the author longs for a return
of Israel's true kingship. Under the pagan rule of Pompey, the author of
Psalms of Solomon emphasizes the destruction or servitude, not the
inclusion of Gentiles. Essentially, the author uses Ezekiel's prophecies of
a future nation and king in service to his own picture of the coming king and
kingdom. His representation in some cases is faithful to Ezekiel's (as in the
idea of the messiah as representative of YHWH), but in other cases expands
on or even contradicts Ezekiel (as in the changed status of the Gentiles).
Psalm of Solomon 17 and 1 Enoch 89-90, despite their obvious
differences, have in common a focus on the messianic promise of Ezekiel
34. Of course, the term 'messianic' needs some definition; here I accept
P.M. Joyce's minimal definition of 'messianic' as that which 'vests future
hopes in a royal figure.'43 Clearly Ezekiel 34 vests future hopes in 'my
43. Joyce, 'King and Messiah', p. 326.

servant David.' The authors of Psalms of Solomon 17 and 1 Enoch 89-90

each use some of the imagery from Ezekiel 34 to explain their own
messianic hopes.
The sheep allegory in 1 Enoch 89-90 focuses on God's rule and keeps its
reference to Judas Maccabee as the promised king almost as brief as
Ezekiel's reference to David. In contrast, Psalm of Solomon 17 elaborates
on the rule of the coming David, while keeping God's ultimate kingship
clearly in view. 1 Enoch, in the apocalyptic tradition, knew exactly who the
restored king was, and waited only for God's affirmation that Judas
Maccabee was indeed that expected king. Psalm of Solomon 17 apparently
had no particular person in mind, but equally expressed confidence that
God would raise up his anointed to deliver his people at the proper time.
Clearly, this messianic use of Ezekiel by these two authors of the Second
Temple period has implications for John's use of Ezekiel 34. Like the
authors of 1 Enoch 89-90 and Psalm of Solomon 17, John used Ezekiel 34
to describe a messianic figure, a new leader of God's people.
3. Dry Bones (Ezekiel 37.1-11; Sirach 49.10; 4 Maccabees 18.17;

Lives of the Prophets 3.12; 1 Enoch 90.4-5)
Surprisingly, Second Temple literature outside of the DSS contains only
two clear references to Ezekiel's vision of the Valley of the Dry Bones
(Ezek. 37.1-14). Both of these (4 Mace. 18.17; Liv. Proph. 3.12) are direct
quotes of significant phrases from the oracle in Ezekiel 37. There are also
possible allusions to the dry bones in Sir. 49.10 and 1 En. 90.4-5.
4 Maccabees (early first century AD) is a self-proclaimed philosophical
discourse on how 'devout reasoning can overcome any emotion' (4 Mace.
1.1). The author's main evidence is the resistance of Eleazar's martyred
family, who maintained their faith in God and their obedience to the Law
despite torment and death under Antiochus IV. Near the end of his work,
the author praises Eleazar for teaching the hope of the resurrection to his
sons, a hope which allowed them to persevere through torture. Eleazar, the
author says, taught about the resurrection from the works of Moses (Deut.
32.39), Solomon (Prov. 3.18), and Ezekiel.
4 Mace. 18.17 [Eleazar] affirmed the Ezek. 37.3 And he said to me,
words of Ezekiel, 'Son of man,
'Can these dry bones live?' can these bones live?'
(el (r\oemi ia OOTOLra£rpa taOia;) (ei (rjoeToa xa 6am mivroc;)
This is clearly a direct quote; the only additional word, £tpd, was taken
from the immediate context (Ezek. 37.2, 4). The author quotes no more of
the passage from Ezekiel; he expects his audience to know the positive
answer to the question. The question 'Can these dry bones live?' serves as
shorthand for Ezekiel's account of the resurrection of the dry bones. Since
the quotation of Ezekiel is sandwiched between two other OT citations
about life after death, the author of 4 Maccabees saw Ezekiel's dry bones
vision as only, or primarily, about the final resurrection.
Lives of the Prophets has a broader understanding of the dry bones
vision. Written in the early first century AD, Lives of the Prophets contains
brief accounts of the lives and teachings of the biblical prophets. Some of
the material in the Life of Ezekiel (chapter 3 of Lives of the Prophets) is
derived from information in canonical Ezekiel, such as the account of his
ministry to the exiles at Chebar, his visions of the standing Temple, his
rebuke of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and his depiction of the coming
Temple. Other material is hagiographic: a prophecy about the river Chebar
reminiscent of Zech. 5.1-3 LXX, and Ezekiel dividing the river Chebar to
save the exiles. The retelling of Ezekiel's dry bones vision is brief but
instructive:
Liv. Proph. 3.12 He used to say this Ezek. 37.11 LXX Son of man, these
to them: 'Are we lost? Has our hope bones are the whole house of Israel,
p e r i s h e d ? ' (AiaTT€(|)(jOvr|Ka|iev; and they say, 'Our bones have
&mjoA,€TO r\ eA/irlg T\\I<JSV;) A n d i n t h e become dry, our hope has perished,
wonder of the dead bones he we are lost' (anoAxotav r| eAmg r||id)v,
persuaded them that there is hope
for Israel both here and in the
coming age.44
The author of the Lives does not neglect the implications of Ezekiel 37 for
understanding the final resurrection; but he recognizes that the vision is
about resurrected hope for Israel.
Sirach may also contain an allusion to Ezekiel's oracle of the dry bones
in his summary of the twelve prophets in his 'hall of faith.'
Sir. 49.10 And may the bones (m Ezek. 37.11 These bones (m ooxa)
oota) of the twelve prophets rise up are the whole house of Israel, and
(avaGaAm) from their place; for they they say, 'Our bones have become
comforted Jacob and redeemed dry, our hope (elîo) has
them with hopeful faith perished...' 12 Thus says the Lord
4A.IT I8OC;). God: ' . . . I will raise you ^
from your graves...'
44. Greek text from C.C. Torrey, The Lives of the Prophets: Greek Text and Translation
(JBLMS, 1; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1946), pp. 22-24.
The verbal parallel in the Greek is limited to two words (oota and 4A.ITig),
but the allusion may have been slightly stronger in Sirach's original
Hebrew (now mostly lost except for a few fragments among the DSS). The
raising of the dead in Ezek. 37.12 is described with the hifil of nbv;
although this word is translated with a variety of Greek words in the LXX,
it is translated with dvaGaAAco in Hos. 8.9. Thus, Sirach's 'may they rise up'
may have been part of an allusion to Ezekiel's 'I will raise up' in the
Hebrew.45 Besides these two or three parallel words, there are some
conceptual parallels between Sir. 49.10 and Ezekiel 37. Sirach describes the
resurrection in terms reminiscent of Ezekiel 37, and connects that
resurrection with hope, as Ezekiel does. This connection between hope
and the resurrection, although tenuous, is similar to the allusion to Ezekiel
37 in Lives of the Prophets. Sirach's placing of resurrection language
immediately after his description of Ezekiel (Sir. 49.8, see p.79) may be
significant evidence for allusion; on the other hand, the juxtaposition may
be coincidental, since Sirach uses a similar blessing for the faithful judges
(Sir. 46.12).
The Animal Apocalypse in 1 Enoch 85-90 (discussed in greater detail
above, pp. 87-91) may also contain an allusion to Ezekiel 37, although it is
weaker than the above allusions. Enoch's description of the Maccabean
martyrs may derive some of its language from the account of the
resurrection of the dry bones.
1 En. 90.4^5 . . . and [the birds of Ezek. 37.8 And as I looked [at the
prey] left neither flesh, nor skin, nor bones], there were sinews on them,
sinew on them absolutely, until and flesh had come upon them, and
their bones stood bare, then their skin had covered them; but there
bones fell to the ground, and the was no breath in them,
sheep became few.
The account of the slaughter of the sheep is primarily a reference to the

horrible tortures endured by the martyrs under Antiochus IV (i.e., 2
Maccabees 6-7), but it is possible that the description is intentionally a
reversal of the resurrection of the dry bones in Ezekiel 37. Certainly the
author of 1 Enoch was familiar with Ezekiel; the entire allegory of 1 Enoch
89-90 is inspired by Ezekiel 34. Presumably, the author of 1 Enoch
understood the vision of the dry bones as a reference to the resurrection. If
so, then this allusion hints at the coming reversal of the death of these
martyred sheep: as their bodies were disassembled, so they will be
45. The translator of Sirach seems to favor dvaGaMo) more than other LXX translators
did, since five out of its eight occurrences in the LXX are in Sirach.
reassembled (1 En. 90.32). On the other hand, such an allusion may

indicate more subtlety than is otherwise typical of the Animal Apocalypse.
4. Summary of the Use of Ezekiel in other Second Temple Literature

The diversity of Second Temple literature cautions against generalizations,
although a few trends can be observed. In contrast to the DSS, other
Second Temple literature alludes to a much narrower range of EzekiePs
oracles: the throne-chariot, the sheep and shepherd, and the dry bones.
The use of these three images suggests some of the concerns of the age.
Ezekiel's merkabah vision in Sirach, 1 Enoch, and Testament of Levi (as
well as in the Sabbath Songs) hints at the rising importance of visionary
ascent literature, and points towards later merkabah mysticism.46 In the
apocalyptic literature, descriptions of the merkabah also served to
authenticate the status of the visionary as an initiate to divine secrets.
Allusions to the sheep and shepherd of Ezekiel 34 in / Enoch and the
Psalms of Solomon indicate the rising hopes for messianic deliverance
during the Second Temple era. References to Ezekiel's vision of the dry
bones show the rising interest in the final resurrection.
As with the DSS, other Second Temple writings tend to use allusions
with sensitivity to their meaning and context. Careful reading of both
contexts of the allusions often reveals that the later work was reapplying or
contextualizing Ezekiel's message to the problems of another time. There
are some exceptions to this careful interpretation; perhaps more exceptions
than are found in the DSS. 1 Enoch and Psalm of Solomon 17, for example,
seem to correct Ezekiel's oracles. Allusions to the merkabah vision are
somewhat less concerned with the role of that vision in Ezekiel. Rather,
they combine imagery from Ezekiel's vision with other OT theophanies as
part of a new visionary account. Their goal was more to connect with the
general OT prophetic tradition than with the specifics of Ezekiel's
revelation.
46. See pp. 84-86.

Chapter 4
ALLUSIONS TO EZEKIEL IN JOHN: MAJOR ALLUSIONS
In Chapters 2 and 3, we examined allusions to Ezekiel in the literature of

the Second Temple period to try to discern the range of ways that Ezekiel
was understood and used. Observations from those chapters will provide a
background against which to observe John's understanding and use of
Ezekiel. In Chapter 4, we will look at John's two clearest allusions to
Ezekiel: the Good Shepherd discourse (Jn 10.1-30) and the Vine discourse
(Jn 15.1-10).
1. Shepherds and Sheep

John uses the metaphor of sheep and shepherds extensively in Jn 10.1-30,
and returns to the image in Jn 11.51-52. The first passage is strongly
allusive of Ezekiel 34, but also contains allusions to Numbers 27. Jn 11.51-
52 resumes some of the themes from John 10, and alludes to the shepherd
image of Ezekiel 37. John returns to pastoral imagery in the account of
Peter's restoration (Jn 21.15-17), but it is difficult to demonstrate clear
allusions to Ezekiel or any other OT passage. In this section, I will examine
the allusions to Ezekiel and Numbers, comment on John's modification of
Ezekiel's imagery, and then compare John's use of Ezekiel with the use of
Ezekiel in Second Temple literature.
a. The Setting of John 10

The setting of John 10 is crucial for understanding its use of OT images
and its role within the Fourth Gospel. The discourse and debate of John 10
are the culmination of the controversy over Jesus' identity in John 7-10.1
1. This narrative flow is so clear that it is surprising to read the suggestion that the
shepherd discourse is 'out of place,' as Deeley suggests (M. Deeley, 'Ezekiel's Shepherd and
John's Jesus: A Case Study in the Appropriation of Biblical Texts', in C.A. Evans and J.A.
Sanders (eds), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and
Proposals (JSNTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 252-65 (252-53)).
Du Rand sees the shepherd discourse as 'a conclusion to chapters 5-10 in which the unbelief
and hostility towards Jesus are mounting, especially from the religious establishment in
Jerusalem (spatial framework) around the time of the mentioned feasts (cultural framework).'
4. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Major Allusions 101
John 7 begins with Jesus' brothers who 'do not believe in him' (Jn 7.5). The
crowds at the Feast of Tabernacles debate Jesus' identity (Jn 7.12, 26-27,
31, 40-43, 45^6), but most of the leaders reject his teaching (7.13, 25-26,
32, 47-52). Jesus makes a number of claims about himself (Jn 8.28-29, 37-
38; 8.12), which results in a debate about Jesus' identity and the source of
his authority (Jn 8.12-30). Jesus eludes capture on three occasions during
this series of conflicts (Jn 7.32, 44-45; 8.20, 59), and then ends this period
of teaching in the Temple.
Most of the themes and arguments of John 8 are repeated in John 10,
either within Jesus' shepherd discourse, or in the ensuing conversation. The
following chart lists several of these parallels. Other thematic ties could be
adduced, but the following are the clearest verbal connections between the
two passages.
Parallels Between John 8.12-59 and John 10.1-33

10.7-8 I am the door of the 8.12 I am the light of the world; the
sheep... if anyone enters through one who follows me will never walk
me, he will be saved, he will go in in the darkness, but he will have the
and out, and find pasture. light of life.
10.9 If anyone enters through me, 8.31-32 If you remain in my
he will be saved and go in and out word... you will know the truth,
and find pasture. and the truth will set you free.
10.17 For this reason the Father 8.29 And the one who sent me is
loves me, because I lay down my with me; he has not left me alone,
life, that I may take it up again. for I always do what is pleasing to
him.
10.19 Many of them were saying, 8.48 The Jews answered and said to
'He has a demon, and he is insane.' him, 'Don't we say correctly that
you are a Samaritan and you have a
demon?'
10.24 And they were saying to him: 8.25 Then they were saying to him,
'How long will you keep us in 'Who are you?'
suspense? If you are the Christ, tell
us plainly.'
J. du Rand, 'A Syntactical and Narratological Reading of John 10 in Coherence with John 9',
in J. Beutler and R. Fortna (eds), The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and its Context: Studies
by Members of the Johannine Writings Seminar (SNTSMS, 67; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), pp. 94-115 (95); see also J.B. Soucek, T h e Good Shepherd and His
Flock', Ecumenical Review 9 (1957), pp. 143-53.
10.25 ' . . . the works that I do in my 8.18 I am the one who testifies
Father's name, these testify concerning myself, and my Father
concerning me.' testifies concerning me.
10.26-27 But you do not believe, 8.47 The one who is from God
because you are not of my sheep. hears the words of God; for this
My sheep hear my voice, and I reason you do not hear, because
know them and they follow me. you are not from God. (cf. 8.31, 43)
10.27-28 My sheep hear my 8.51 Truly, truly I say to you, if
voice... and I give them eternal anyone keeps my word, he will
life, and they will never perish never see death
(ou (JLT| dTToA.a)VTOu eiQ t o v alcdva). o(oi) [ir\ GecoprioT] elc; xov oclcovoc).
10.33 The Jews again took up 8.58-59 Jesus said to them, 'Truly
stones to stone him... The Jews truly I say to you, before Abraham
answered him, 'For good works we was, I am.' Then they picked up
do not stone you, but for stones to throw at him. But Jesus
blasphemy, because... you make hid and went out from the temple.
yourself God.' Then they were
trying again to lay hold of him, and
he escaped from their hand.
After the debates of John 8, the controversy continues as Jesus performs

another Sabbath healing. The healed blind man is the focal point of the next
controversy. The Pharisees, unable to directly attack Jesus, put the blind man
on trial as a means of condemning Jesus. The once-blind man openly
acknowledges Jesus' power, and as a result is expelled from the synagogue.
The 'trial' of the blind man illustrates that the Pharisees are guilty both of
rejecting Jesus and of misusing their authority over their 'flock.'
A brief conversation between Jesus and some Pharisees (Jn 9.39-41)
provides the transition from the trial of the blind man to the shepherd
discourse.
Jesus said, 'For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not
see may see, and those who see may become blind.' Some of the
Pharisees who were with him heard these things and said to him, 'Surely
we are not also blind?' Jesus said to them, 'If you were blind, you would
not have sin2; but now that you are saying, "We see," your sin remains.'
This exchange makes it clear that the shepherd discourse that follows
begins as a polemic against the leaders of Israel. The immediate situation
2. The phrase 'to have sin' (exeiv &\xapxiav) seems to imply the guilt of sin; see Jn 15.22, 24;
1 Jn 1.8.
to which Jesus responds is the Pharisees' rejection of him and their

mistreatment of the blind man. 3 More broadly, Jesus is denouncing the
entire political and religious leadership of Jerusalem. During Jesus' stay in
Jerusalem (John 7-10), the Temple leadership and the Pharisees have
rejected his authority and tried to arrest him. In the shepherd discourse,
Jesus uses two (or three) linked pastoral metaphors to condemn the unjust
judgment of the leaders of Israel, to proclaim himself as the only reliable
judge and leader of Israel, and to again call people to follow him.
The discussion that follows the shepherd discourse also confirms how
clearly the shepherd discourse is tied to the narrative of chapters 7 through
10. The crowds see Jesus' speech as a continuation of the debate over the
blind man, since some use the healing as evidence that Jesus was not
demon-possessed (10.21; cf. 9.24ff).4
b. Gatekeepers (Numbers 27.16; John 10.1-6, 9)

Jesus begins his polemical metaphor by criticizing the Pharisees' decision
about him, and appealing to the leaders of Israel to judge him correctly.
Thus far they have used human standards to judge Jesus (Jn 7.24; 8.15).
Jesus appeals to them to use the right criteria to judge him, and thus to
accept him as the legitimate shepherd of Israel. The OT background of Jn
10.1-6 complements this understanding of the passage. Although much of
the imagery in John 10 is derived from Ezekiel 34, the first section seems
primarily inspired by Num. 27.16-23.5
John 10.1-9 Numbers 27.16-23
10.1 Truly, truly I say to you, the 16 And Moses said to the Lord,
one who does not enter through the 'Let the Lord G o d . . . appoint a
door into the fold of the sheep, but man over this congregation... and
climbs in from outside, he is a thief the congregation of the Lord will
and a bandit. 2 But the one who not be like sheep who have no
enters through the door is the shepherd (i)oe\ Trpopatoc, o!<; OUK <EOTIV
shepherd of the sheep (mH|ir|v kox\v iToi|ir|v)-
icov TTpopaicov).
3. Several scholars have noticed the connection to the previous trial. R.E. Brown, The
Gospel According to John (AB, 29-29A; 2 vols; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970),
vol. 1, p. 388; Dodd, Historical Tradition, pp. 358-59, 361; C.R. Koester, Symbolism in the
Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), p. 104;
Soucek, 'The Good Shepherd and His Flock', pp. 143-53.
4. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 388; Koester, Symbolism, p. 104.
5. Evans also points out some of the parallels in the chart below. Evans, Word and Glory,
pp. 29-31.
20 A n d you will give your glory

3 To him the doorkeeper opens, upon him, so that the children of
and the sheep hear his voice (if|<; Israel may listen to him
c|)G)vf|<;
21 at his word (4irl tcp OX6\IOLTI carcou)
they will go out, and at his word
they will come i n . . . 17a [a man]
and he calls his own sheep by name who will lead them out (kJZa%Ei
and he leads them out (âyei aura). aiJToug) and who will lead them in,
17b who will go out before t h e m . . .
4 When he brings out all his own, TTpo TTpoocoTroi)
he goes before them C<E|iTrpoa0€v auicov
TTopeueTai) and the sheep follow him, 7
for they know his voice.
9 I am the door; if anyone enters 17b who will go out (k&Xevotxai)
through me, he will be saved, he will before them and who will go in
go in and out (eioeXeboemi Km (elotXevoemi) before them. 2 1 . . . at
and find pasture. his word they will go out
(QeXevoovmi), and at his word they
will come in (eloeXevoovmi), he and
all the children of Israel.
The number of words and synonyms in c o m m o n makes the allusion to

N u m . 27.16-23 quite likely. The first allusion (Num. 27.16/Jn 10.1) is not
too impressive, since any use of sheep/shepherd imagery is likely to use the
words 'sheep' and 'shepherd' (iTpoPaia and 7roi|ir|v).8 The use of such
language in N u m . 27.16 at least establishes that Joshua's selection is seen
as the appointment of a new shepherd. The rest of the parallels carry more
weight. The idea of the sheep hearing the shepherd's voice is not found in
any shepherd metaphor in the O T except in N u m . 27.16-23. 9 Although
J o h n 10 does not use exactly the same wording, it uses synonymous words
6. Cf. Jn 10.27a, 'My sheep hear my voice.'

7. Cf. 10.27b, 'and I know them and they follow me.'
8. For example, 2 Sam. 24.17 (LXX only); 2 Chron. 18.16; Ps. 79.2 LXX; Isa. 40.11; 63.11;
Jeremiah 23; Ezekiel 34; Zechariah 10, 11, 13.7.
9. It is occasionally claimed (e.g., by J. Turner, 'The History of Religions Background of
John 10', in J. Beutler and R. Fortna, (eds), The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and its
Context: Studies by Members of the Johannine Writings Seminar (SNTSMS, 67; London:
Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 33-52 (43-44)), that the sheep's recognition of the
shepherd's voice is one of the elements of John 10 not found in the OT at all. It is true that the
verbal parallel between John 10 and Numbers 27 is not exact, but the study of verbal parallel
must take into consideration the use of cognates and idioms; see below.
and phrases - CCKOUG) for eloaKOUG), and 4)covr| auioO for 4TTI ICO OTO\IOLTI airrou
(at his mouth; Num. 27.20). These changes are at least partially motivated
by changes in the language. The LXX eloaKouco was normally replaced in
the NT by dcKouca; the few remaining occurrences in the NT describe God
hearing prayers.10 The phrase 'at his mouth' is a literal translation of the
Hebrew idiom nsrbi7. The Hebrew phrase occurs 23 times in Numbers,
usually translated with fyuvr] or iTpootaYiia. Only here in Num. 27.21 is it
literally translated with 4TT! TQ ox6\xaxi ocircoi).11 John's use of 4>a)vr| here is
thus consistent with the normal translation of '•S'Si? in the LXX. This may
indicate John's familiarity with the Hebrew, or it may indicate his updating
of Septuagintal language.
The language of 'going in' and 'going out' also primarily alludes to
Num. 27.16-23, although there are some loose connections to Ezekiel 34
(explored below, p. 111). First, there is a phrase in common (egayei ahm/
e£ct£ei airuoix;). This phrase is very common in the OT, usually describing
God's action in bringing Israel out of Egypt.12 However, the phrase is
only used in two of the OT shepherd images: Num. 27.17 and Ezek.
34.13. The phrase in Jn 10.4 'he goes before them' Cqj/rTpooGev atkcov
has a parallel in Num. 27.17, 'he will go out before them
irpoooSiTOi) oarcwv). Here again, John's language updates the
older Greek. TTpo TTPOOWITOU is rarely used in the NT, and only when
quoting or alluding to the LXX; John replaces it with the more
contemporary e|iTTpoo0€v. Finally, the pairing of e£€pxo|ica and eloepxo|iai
provides a parallel between Jn 10.9 and Num. 27.17, 21. This pairing is by
no means uncommon in the NT or in the LXX,13 but only John 10 and
Numbers 27 use the words in the context of a shepherd metaphor.
Although each of these four phrases (he leads them out; he goes before
them; they hear his voice; he/they go in and out) is only a moderate or
weak allusion by itself, the cumulative effect of the four is a rather strong
and recognizable allusion.14
10. eloaKouo) occurs 226 times in the LXX, but only five time in the NT (and only in
passages otherwise allusive of the LXX). dKouw occurs 428 time in the NT, and 888 times in the
LXX.
11. The phrase ^"b^ is translated as 5ia (f>G)i/f|c; (Kupiou) in Num. 3.39; 3.51; 4.37; 4.41; 4.45;
10.13; 13.3; and as 6ict upooxctYiictTog (KDPLOD) in Num. 9.18; 9.20; 9.23; 33.38; 36.5. It is
sometimes translated with other phrases related to speaking or commanding: em. TO OTOÛXTL in
Gen. 41.40; Deut. 21.5; Deut. 19.15, etc.; as 6ia prpaxoc, Kupiou (Num. 33.2; 34.5); or hv Tponov
ouveia^v (Num. 3.16).
12. There are at least 64 occurrences in the LXX and six in the NT.
13. There are at least 22 occurrences of the pair in the LXX and eighteen in the NT.
14. Contra Robinson, who suggests that 'the language [of 10.1-9] is not coloured by the
Old Testament in the way that it is in the allegorical sequel.' J.A.T. Robinson, 'The Parable of
John 10:1-5', in Twelve New Testament Studies (SBT; Naperville, 111.: Alec R. Allenson, 1962),
pp. 67-75 (69).
The shepherd of Ezekiel 34 has often been proposed as the sole or

primary background for Jn 10.1-9,15 but the appointment of Joshua in
Numbers 27 is the more likely source. Ezekiel 34 uses some of the same
words (or synonyms) discussed above (7Toi|ir|v, TTpopata, eâya), eioayu).
However, John's use of the -ayco terms is closer to that of Numbers 27. In
Ezek. 34.13, God promises that he will lead his people out (eâyco) of the
Gentile nations and into (eloayo)) their sheepfold. In both Numbers 27 and
John 10, the similar terms are used to describe the role of the leader of
Israel leading his people freely in and out of the camp or sheepfold.16 This
is not to suggest that Ezekiel 34 has no role in Jn 10.1-9 (that role will be
fully explored below), but that the language of Numbers 27 dominates.
John's use of imagery from Joshua's appointment carries significance for
Jesus' polemic against the leaders of Israel. Num. 27.16-22 is primarily
about the legitimacy of Joshua's rule.17 Moses asks God to appoint a
leader over Israel 'so that they will not be like sheep who have no
shepherd.' God responds by selecting Joshua, 'a man who has the spirit in
himself (Num. 27.19). Moses is to take Joshua before the congregation,
publicly lay hands on him, and the people will 'ask for judgment by Urim'
from the high priest (Num. 27.20-21). Then some of Moses' glory (LXX
6o£ct; MT Tin, majesty or authority) will pass to Joshua (Num. 27.20), and
he will lead the people. This confluence of symbolic actions powerfully
affirms Joshua's legitimacy as Moses' replacement over Israel.
The use of this imagery in the setting of John 10 is clear. Jesus is saying
that he is the legitimate leader of Israel, as Joshua was, and he is calling on
the people and the rulers of Israel to accept his leadership. The wilderness
generation, including the high priest, made a correct judgment about
Joshua. The beginning of the shepherd discourse rebukes the Pharisees and
chief priests for their faulty logic in rejecting Jesus, and invites them to
make a correct judgment about Jesus. The immediate setting of conflict
with the Pharisees in John 9 suggests that the shepherd discourse is a
polemic against the Pharisees; the broader setting of conflict with the
15. E.g., Dodd, Historical Tradition, pp. 358-59; Fikes, 'Shepherd-King', p. 183; D.F.
Kiefer, 'Ezekiel 34: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of the Shepherd Motif with
Special Reference to John 10' (unpublished masters dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School, 1991), p. iii.
16. The phrase 'to go out and go in' may also suggest the breadth of Joshua's leadership;
as Gray suggests, lto go out and come in is an idiomatic way of expressing activity... and is a
usus loquendi similar in character to the frequent Semitic periphrases for all which consist of
two terms for opposed classes... Moses, therefore, begs that his successor may initiate all the
undertakings of the people and see them through.' G.B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Numbers (ICC, 4; repr., 1956, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903).
17. P J . Budd, Numbers (WBC, 5; Waco: Word Books, 1984), p. 308; D.T. Olson,
Numbers (Louisville: John Knox, 1996), p. 169.
authorities in John 7-9 suggests that the polemic is also directed against
the Temple council (Jn 7.45-52).18
There are other, peripheral connections between Num. 27.16-22 and Jn
10.1-9. The description of Joshua as a 'man who has the spirit in himself
invites comparison to John's Jesus, who is marked by his possession of the
Spirit (cf. Jn 1.33; 4.13-14; 7.37-39; 20.22). The transfer of Moses' glory to
Joshua reminds the reader of the glory of Jesus in Jn 1.14, 17. And of
course, the fact that Joshua and Jesus have the same name ('Iriooug) is
significant for some NT authors (Mt. 1.21; Heb. 4.8ff). These are intriguing
ways in which John 10 resonates with Numbers 27, and it would not be
surprising if John considered them significant as he wrote these passages.
However, John explicitly alludes only to the 'leading' and 'following'
language of Numbers 27 (elaepxo[ioa, 4£€pxo[iai, e^dyw, and eloaKouw),
suggesting that his primary aim in alluding to that text was to discuss
Jesus' legitimate leadership and Israel's need to accept it.
The opening Trapoi|iia makes this point by presenting a hypothetical
decision to be made. The gatekeeper of the fold needs to decide whether
someone coming in is a thief or a real shepherd.19 How can the gatekeeper
tell the difference? Jesus offers some obvious criteria, couched in language
drawn from Numbers 27. A thief would sneak in over the wall and the
sheep would be afraid of him, but a legitimate shepherd would enter
through the door, and his sheep would come at his call. The application to
the context of John 10 is clear: the Pharisees and the priesthood, as
'gatekeepers' of Israel, need to make correct judgments about Jesus' claims
to authority (cf. Jn 7.24; 8.15).20 The Temple council has used the wrong
criteria (Sabbath-keeping) to reject Jesus (Jn 7.23-24, 32, 45-52), and the
Pharisees of the synagogue have used the same wrong criteria to reject
Jesus and one of his followers (9.14-16, 24, 34). Jesus acknowledges that
18. Brown (following Brims) also suggests that the background in Numbers 27 gives 'an
echo of the priestly ideal and ordination... Jesus was attacking the priests as well as the
Pharisees in these parables.' Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 392, citing J.E. Bruns, 'The Discourse on
the Good Shepherd and the Rite of Ordination', AER 149 (1963), pp. 386-91.
19. Koester described the passage as a contrast between Jesus and 'the Jewish authorities
who monitored access to the synagogue.' Koester, Symbolism, p. 104; see also Robinson, 'The
Parable of John 10:1-5', p. 71.
20. This is roughly in agreement with Robinson's and Koester's interpretation of the
gatekeeper in Jn 10.1-2. (Koester, Symbolism, p. 104; Robinson, 'The Parable of John 10:1-5',
p. 71). However, Brown thinks that the role of the gatekeeper is assigned to Jesus even in Jn
10.1-2. Following Schneider, Brown sees the structure of John 10 as a parable in Jn 10.1-5,
and an explanation of the parable in the following verses (Brown, John, vol. 1, pp. 391-92,
citing J. Schneider, 'Zur Komposition von Joh. 10', ConNT 11 (1947), pp. 220-25). While this
is an attractive suggestion, it does not explain how John 10 alters the meaning of the images
on each approach. Jesus is first the shepherd, then the gate; the leaders of Israel are first
gatekeepers, then strangers, then hirelings, then wolves.
they should exclude false leaders (Jn 10.1), but they should accept him as
the true leader of Israel because he has openly proclaimed himself (cf. Jn
18.19-21), because many people in Israel are openly accepting him, and
because he is 'shepherding the sheep' in a way that no thief would.21
This interpretation of the TTocpoijiia, based on its background in Numbers
27, explains a few of its difficult elements. If the point of the gatekeeper
image is to point to Jesus' legitimate rule, then the sense of Xr\oxr\(; in Jn
10.1 becomes clear. The Temple hierarchy has decided to reject Jesus as an
insurrectionist, and so Jesus defends himself as a true shepherd. This
decision by the Temple council has only been hinted at until now: we hear
that they have been planning to kill Jesus (Jn 7.25); that they tried
unsuccessfully to arrest him on the Temple grounds (Jn 7.32); that 'none of
the rulers or the Pharisees have believed in him' (Jn 7.48); and that the
Temple council rejects Jesus before hearing from him (Jn 7.50-52). The
labeling of Jesus as an insurrectionist becomes clearer in Jn 11.47-50. The
chief priests, Pharisees, and the high priest Caiaphas all condemn Jesus in
words that amount to calling him a hrpTr\Q: if Jesus continues, the Romans
will intervene. It is better for Jesus to die the death of a revolutionary. In
one of the great Johannine ironies, the high priest, who ought to be
instrumental in commissioning Jesus as ruler of Israel (Num. 27.19, 21-22),
instead conspires for his death. John highlights another great irony at the
trial of Jesus. The gatekeepers' judgment is so poor that they crucify their
true king as a Aâiife, and allow the real criminal to go free: 'Now Barabbas
was a A.T)OTr|<;' (Jn 18.39-40).22
Another problem in the passage is the apparently abrupt break between
the two door images in Jn 10.1-6 and 7-9. The first iTapoi|iia has Jesus as
the shepherd and the leaders of Israel as the gatekeepers; the next has Jesus
as the door and the leaders as thieves. However, the two images fit together
thematically. The first parable is a defense of Jesus' legitimacy and a
rebuke to the gatekeepers of Israel; the second parable assumes Jesus'
legitimacy and calls their legitimacy into question. To put it another way:
Jesus first calls the gatekeepers to make a correct judgment and allow him
in (10.1-6); then he reminds them that he is the true gate, the true judge,
and they risk being excluded and convicted as Xr\oml (10.7-9).23 The chief
21. Meyer agrees on the emphasis on correct criteria, but focuses primarily on the
criterion of the means of entry. P.W. Meyer, 'A Note on John 10:1-18', JBL 75 (1956), pp.
232-35 (233).
22. Soucek also wrestles with the use of lr\oxr\(; in John 10, and suggests that Jesus is
directly condemning messianic pretenders (Soucek, 'The Good Shepherd and His Flock', pp.
143-53. However, it seems clear that the real opponents in the passage are the Pharisees and
priests, who are compared to XrpmL
23. Bernard suggests something similar, although he sees both the doorkeeper and the
door as referring to Jesus: 'the primary meaning is that He is the legitimate door of access to
priests and Pharisees thought they were judging Jesus and his followers,
but instead, they were being judged. The single criterion for this judgment
on the leaders was whether they would correctly judge Jesus.
This image works on two levels. First, if Jesus is claiming to be the true
shepherd, this is equivalent to a claim to kingship (explored further below).
As the true king of Israel in the Davidic line, Jesus can rightly dismiss 'all
who came before' as thieves and Xrpmi (Jn 10.8). They were all unlawful
claimants to the leadership of Israel. If the current authorities continue to
resist Jesus' kingship, then they label themselves as insurrectionists.
Further, their behavior has been that of thieves: they steal, kill, and destroy
(Jn 10.10). Such a description is in keeping with a long tradition of calling
the Jerusalem priesthood 'thieves.' Craig Evans lists twenty examples of
Temple priests being called thieves or described as thieves in Second
Temple and rabbinic literature.24
But the image also works on another level, that of the new sheepfold.
The chief priests and Pharisees see themselves as the gatekeepers of Israel.
They protect Israel from the threats of false teaching and from
revolutionary leaders. Jesus' description of himself as the 'door' suggests
another sheepfold that the chief priests and Pharisees have no control over,
and indeed one that currently excludes them. Jesus is the gate that will
exclude the thieves and Xr\ozai.
The word auAri needs to be briefly unfolded. Is there any significance to
the choice of this word? The word is used to mean 'sheepfold' in the Iliad
and in a few papyri,25 but it is never so used in the NT or in the LXX. In
the NT, this is not surprising, since there are no other occurrences of a\)Xr\
or other words for sheepfold. In the LXX, the normal word used is |iav6pa
(also used in Ep. Barn. 16.5, so it remained current into the second century
AD). In most occurrences in the LXX, |iav6poc is used literally to refer to
the dens of lions or folds for sheep. Only in Ezek. 34.14 is it used
metaphorically:
In good pasture I will feed them, in the high mountain26 of Israel will be
their folds (|iav6pai);27 there they will rest and there they will be refreshed
the spiritual auA.r|, the Fold of the House of Israel, the door by which a true shepherd must
enter. In v. 9 the thought is rather that He is the door which must be used by the sheep.' J.H.
Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. (ICC, 29;
2 vols; New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1929), vol. 2, p. 352.
24. Targ. Jer. 6.13; 7.9; 8.10; 23.11; T. Mos. 6.6; Josephus, Ant. 20.8.8§181; 20.9.2§206-07;
2 Bar. 10.8; 4 Bar. 4.4-5; Targ. 1 Sam. 2.17, 29; t. Men. 13.18-22; t. Sot. 14.5-6; /. Zeb. 11.16—
17; lQpHab 8.12; 9.5; 10.1; 12.10; 4QpNah 1.11; Mk 11.17. Evans, Word and Glory, p. 32.
25. //. 4, 433; PHib. 36, 4; POxy. 75, 20. BDAG, s.v. a&Xi\, p. 150.
26. The MT has the plural "nrn 'in the mountains.'
27. The MT has DITU, which can mean 'their grazing grounds' or 'their dwelling-places.'
BDB, s.v. ma.
with good food, and in rich pasture they will be fed on the mountains of
Israel.
When John uses OCUATI to describe the sheepfold, it is possible then that he is
using a synonym for [iav6poc. Since much of the shepherd image in John 10
relies on Ezekiel 34, this is a distinct possibility. The fold is Israel, or even
'the high mountain,' Jerusalem, and the gatekeepers control access to it.
There is another possibility for the meaning of auA/r|, one that is
complementary to the first. The vast majority of the uses of oa>A.r| in the
LXX refer to the courts of the Tabernacle or Temple.28 The use of the word
in this metaphor may hint at the direction of Jesus' polemic: the Temple
council that has been conspiring against Jesus.
In either case, it is clear that the sheepfold refers to Israel. Thus, when
Jesus claims to be the 'door of the sheep,' he is claiming that he is the judge
who determines who gains access to the true sheepfold. The chief priests
and Pharisees believe that they have excluded Jesus from the sheepfold;
Jesus tells them that they themselves are now excluded from the true
sheepfold (Jn 10.8-9, 26-27). Only those who enter through Jesus the gate
will be accepted. While it might be too much to suggest that John is talking
about the 'true Israel,' he is certainly establishing criteria for membership
in God's people.
The Synoptic teachings on the Kingdom of God have much in common
with John's teaching on God's flock. Membership in the Synoptic
Kingdom or in the Johannine flock is dependent on believing Jesus. In
the Synoptics, membership in the Kingdom is dependent on accepting
Jesus as the proclaimer of God's kingdom; in John, it is dependent on
believing in Jesus and his teaching.29 Membership in the flock is no longer
dependent on membership in Israel. This sense is made clear the next time
the cc&lri is mentioned. 'I have other sheep which are not from this fold. I
must bring them also; they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock,
one shepherd' (Jn 10.16). All who hear Jesus' voice are his sheep,
regardless of nationality. John is not content to leave this as a metaphor;
he explains the meaning in Jn 11.51-52,'... Jesus was about to die for the
nation; and not for the nation only, but that he might gather the scattered
children of God together.'30
28. Of course, the word ax>Xx\ can be used generically to refer to a public square or an open
section of any building. In the LXX, it has this sense 45 times; but on 141 occasions it refers to
the Temple courts. In the NT, ax>\r\ is used only once to signify the Temple courts (Rev. 11.2),
seven times to refer to the court of the high priest, and twice for some other house court.
29. Brown makes a similar observation, suggesting that the 'I am' statements replace the
Synoptic phrase 'The kingdom of God is l i k e . . . ' Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 393.
30. See below, pp. 125-26.
Jesus also explains the meaning of his sheepfold in his conversation with
Pilate. When Pilate points out that Jesus' own nation and chief priests have
handed him over (Jn 18.35), Jesus responds, 'My kingdom is not from this
world.' Part of Jesus' point is that he has a heavenly kingdom, but certainly
the contrast is also with Pilate's 'your nation.' Jesus is the shepherd-king of
a new sheepfold that is not bound to the narrow confines dictated by the
chief priests and Pharisees.
c. The Good Shepherd (Ezekiel 34; John 10)

The shepherd discourse begins with an allusion to the appointment of
Joshua in Numbers 27. However, most of John's shepherd imagery (Jn
10.1-30; 11.49-52; 21.15-17) alludes to the shepherd metaphors in Ezekiel
34 and 37.15-28. Even the early sections of John 10 examined above have
some affinities to material in Ezekiel.
John's combination of allusions to Numbers 27 and Ezekiel 34 is worth
discussing. There is a transition from language that primarily alludes to
Numbers 27 (Jn 10.1-9), to language that primarily alludes to Ezekiel 34
(Jn 10.10-16, 27-30). There is some overlap between the allusions to
Numbers 27 and the allusions to Ezekiel 34: the hearing and following
language drawn from Numbers 27 is resumed in Jn 10.27, and Ezekiel's
sheep and bad shepherds have influenced Jn 10.1-2. It is quite possible that
John has combined the two passages around catchwords, as is common in
the DSS and in Paul's writings. In this case, the catchwords are e^dyo),
elodcYO), Trpopaia, and TTOL|irjv. These words (or close synonyms) are found in
both Numbers 27 and Ezekiel 34, and both passages deal with the concept
of God's legitimate shepherd.31 Num. 27.16-22 is useful to John because it
contains the idea of Israel properly judging and accepting Israel's
legitimate ruler. Ezekiel 34 is useful to John because it contrasts the bad
shepherds of Israel with two good shepherds, God and David.
The allusions to Ezekiel are clear if only for their number. In the
following chart, the parallel words and their roles in each book are
compared. This allows a demonstration not only that the two passages
share many words in common, but that those words have the same
function in each metaphor. Each of the themes in the chart will be explored
below.
31. Vancil suggests that 'legitimate rule' is one of the dominant themes in Ezekiel 34.
Vancil, 'Symbolism of the Shepherd', p. 230.
Verbal Parallels between the Shepherd Images in John and Ezekiel32
John 10, 11 Ezekiel 34, 37
Protagonist m)i[ir|v (Jesus, 10.2, 11, TTOL|ir|v (God, 34.12;

14) David, 23)
Actions of the dyco (Jesus, 10.16) eloayco (God, 34.13)
Protagonist
eâyoi) (Jesus, 10.3) âyw (God, 34.13)
ouvayco (Jesus, 11.52) o\)vdy(x) (God, 34.13;
37.21)
ocpCo) (Jesus, 10.9) ocpCco (God, 34.22)
God's People TTpopata (10.1-27) Trpopata (34.1-31;
36.37-38)
m TTpopata t a k[id t a TTpoPatd [iou ( 3 4 . 3 -
(10.26, 27) 22)
mk\xa (10.14) XOLOQ |ioi) (34.30)
7TOL|ivr) (10.16) ITOL^VLOV (34.12, 31)
Actions of God's YLVCOOKO) (they know YLVCOOKCO (that I a m the
People Jesus, 10.14) Lord, 34.15, 27, 30)
olSa (they know his
voice, 10.4, 5)
Blessings on God's |iCoc TTOL|ivr| ( 1 0 . 1 6 ) pdpSov litav (37.17, 19)
People
eQvoc, Iv (37.22)
elc; iTOLfiriv ( 1 0 . 1 6 ) TTOL|i€va Iva ( 3 4 . 2 2 )
etc; avGpGyrroc; ( 1 1 . 5 0 ) ocpxcov e t c ( 3 7 . 2 2 )
v o ^ (10.9) vofxri ( 3 4 . 1 4 )
Leaders of Israel33 OUK coy TTOL|ir|y ( 1 0 . 1 2 ) \ir\ e l v a t TTOL|i€va(; (34.8)

|iio0a)TO<; ( 1 0 . 1 2 ) iTOL|ieveg ( 3 4 . 2 , 5, 7, 8,
9, 10)
KXhxr)<;, XJ]OTX]Q ( 1 0 . 1 , TTpopaia loxupd (34.20,
9) cf. 17-19)
aXXozpioc, (10.5)
Actions of Leaders KleTTTCO ( 1 0 . 1 0 ) t a epta TrepLpdXXeo0€
(34.3)
32. Parallel words are given in their lexical forms; parallel phrases are quoted verbatim.
33. This row is added for completeness; clearly there is no exact verbal parallel between
the descriptions of the leaders of Israel in Ezekiel 34 and John 10. Conceptual parallels
between the two are explored below.
TO yaAa KaxeoQeTe ( 3 4 . 3 )
Guco (10.10) oc()aCa) (34.3)
KateoGta) (34.3) 34
CCT\6XX\)[H (10.10) aTroA-ûa) (34.4) 35
dîrpi (10.12) OUK €K(Tyc«jO ( 3 4 . 6 , 8)
Other Antagonists Xikoc; (10.12) Griptov (34.5, 8)

Actions of apTTccCw (10.12) 6O6LGJ (34.28)
Antagonists (or eivj kata,brwma (34.5,
resulting state of 8,10)
God's people) eivj pronomh, (34.8,
22, 28)
OKOpfTlCcO ( 1 0 . 1 2 ) 6iaoTT6Lpa) ( 3 4 . 5 , 6, 12)
&iaaKOpiTLCG0 ( 1 1 . 5 2 ) TTAxxvdoo ( 3 4 . 4 , 1 6 )
5iaxk)pL(Gi) (34.12)
Before moving to an analysis of the parallels, it is worth noting the

strength of the overall connection between John 10 and Ezekiel 34. The
two passages share three phrases, eleven key words, five close synonyms,
and four weaker synonyms. The amount of verbal parallelism makes it
clear that John is not merely drawing on everyday shepherd life, as a few
scholars have claimed.36 Furthermore, no other shepherd metaphor in the
OT comes close to having this many verbal parallels to John 10. For
example, John has in common with Zech. 11.1-17 only 5 shepherding
terms. John and Jer. 23.1-4 share only four shepherding terms. The rest of
the occurrences of the shepherd metaphor in the OT (LXX or MT) show
even fewer parallels with John 10. There are about 60 passages in the OT
that use shepherding terminology metaphorically; the rest of these have
only one, two, or three significant words in common with John 10. These
other passages become even less likely as background passages when it is
realized that at least one of the terms they usually share with John is
'sheep' or 'shepherd.'
34. The LXX has 'you drink the milk,' while the MT has 'you eat the fat' ( t e « n
35. Ezek. 34.4 actually describes the state of the sheep as lost (TO diToA.G)A.6c;), which is the
result of poor shepherding.
36. E.g., J. Quasten, 'The Parable of the Good Shepherd: John 10:1-21', CBQ 10 (1948),
pp. 1-12, 151-69(6-7).
d. The Good Shepherds: God, David, and Jesus

Jesus identifies himself as the good shepherd. The adjective 'good' suggests
two distinctions. First, in the opening lines of John's shepherd discourse,
Jesus sets up a contrast between the thief and the shepherd. 'Good'
describes Jesus as the shepherd who comes in through the door (OUTOC), in
contrast to the thief (kKelvoc,).37 But in the context of the allusion to Ezekiel,
the 'good shepherd' is God, in contrast to the bad shepherds of Israel. The
allusion seems designed to read Jesus' role in light of God's role as
shepherd of Israel. It is not only the fact that both are called 'shepherd'; in
John's metaphor, Jesus fulfills all the tasks that God fulfills in Ezekiel 34.
In Ezekiel, God rebukes the leaders of Israel; in John, Jesus rebukes the
leaders of Israel. In both metaphors, God and Jesus share the roles of
leading their sheep (Jn 10.3, 16; 11.52; Ezek. 34.13; 37.21)38 and saving
them (Jn 10.9; Ezek. 34.22). Beyond the parallel use of ocpCca, the idea of
deliverance by God and Jesus is important. In Ezekiel, God will deliver
his sheep from their old shepherds (Ezek. 34.7-10); in John, Jesus will
exclude the thieves from the sheepfold (Jn 10.8-10) and will rescue the
sheep when the hirelings have run away (Jn 10.12-13). Ezekiel's God and
John's good shepherd also both deliver their sheep from predators; the
good shepherd does so at the cost of his own life (Jn 10.11, 13-14; Ezek.
34.28).39
There is also a hint that Jesus, like God in Ezek. 34.10, will 'require the
sheep from their hand,' and remove his opponents from their positions of
authority over Israel. In Jn 10.3, the shepherd leads the sheep out of the
fold, but does not lead them back in (unlike the shepherd in Numbers 27).
In the next part of the iTapoi[iia, the leaders of Israel find themselves
described, not as gatekeepers, but as thieves and kr\oxai (Jn 10.8) who are
excluded from Jesus' sheepfold.
A similar relationship between sheep and shepherd is described in
Ezekiel and John. Jesus and God both describe the people as 'my sheep',
'my own', 'my flock', or 'my people' (Jn 10.14, 16, 26, 27; Ezek. 34.3, 6, 30,
31, etc.). In the OT sheep metaphors, the owner of the sheep is always
37. J.A.T. Robinson pointed out that 'The parable is built around the contrast between
Toutcp and eicelvoc;, the two figures who seek access to the courtyard.' Robinson, 'The Parable
of John 10:1-5', pp. 70-71.
38. Luzarraga notes that Jesus in John 10 and God in Ezekiel 34 both lead their sheep by
their word. J. Luzarraga, 'Presentacion de Jesus a la luz del A.T. en el Evangelio de Juan', EE
51 (1976), pp. 497-520.
39. Fikes, analyzing John's view of Jesus, suggests that Jesus 'viewed himself as the one
who accomplished the activity Yahweh promised. He saw himself as the compassionate
shepherd who met the needs of his flock, as the shepherd-king who was able to rescue and
save, and as the judge who separated the believers from unbelievers.' Fikes, 'Shepherd-King',
pp. 182-83; see also Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 472.
God, even when a human leader is given the title of shepherd.40 The phrase
'my sheep' occurs only in Jeremiah 23 and Ezekiel 34 in the OT, and in
both metaphors, the speaker is God. Thus, when John's Jesus uses the
phrase 'my sheep,' a reader familiar with the OT is drawn to consider the
close connection between Jesus and God. That connection must at least be
an identity of purpose and function; furthermore, it suggests a sharing of
authority that transcends most OT messianic expectations.
In both John and Ezekiel, there is an emphasis on the relationship
between sheep and shepherd. In both books, the relationship is expressed
in terms of knowledge. In John 10, the sheep know the shepherd's voice (Jn
10.3), they know Jesus, and Jesus knows them (10.14, 27). In Ezekiel 34,
one of God's promises of hope is that 'they will know that I am the Lord'
and that 'they are my people' (34.27, 30). The final line of Ezekiel's oracle
assures the people that 'I am the Lord your God' (34.31).
John 10 thus primarily uses Ezekiel 34 to make a connection between
two good shepherds: God and Jesus. But John 10 also makes a connection
to David, the other good shepherd of Ezekiel 34.41 The connection is first
suggested within Ezekiel itself. David is God's shepherd, and he will do the
same things that God does: he will shepherd the people (m)i|iav€i) and be
their shepherd and ruler (Ezek. 34.23-24; cf. 37.22-24). John also
establishes the connection between Jesus and David by alluding specifically
to Ezekiel's prophecies about David.
Jn 10.16 And I have other sheep Ezek. 37.19 [Israel and Judah] will
which are not from this fold; and I be one staff (pap6ov \iiav) in my
must lead them, and they will hear hand.
my voice, and they will become one 37.22 And I will make them one
flock (|ita TTOL|j.vr|), nation (eGvoc; <EV) in my land... and
one ruler (apxoov etc;) will be over
them.
37.24 My servant David will be
ruler over them, and there will be
one shepherd (&Q mn|ir|v). one shepherd (iroiiifjv etg) over all.
34.23 And I will raise up over them
one shepherd (i\oi\ieva eva)... my
servant David.
40. See, e.g., 2 Sam. 5.2; Ps. 77.20; 78.71; Isa. 63.11 (MT only); Jer. 23.1; 50.6; Zech. 10.3.
In each of these, human leaders are named as shepherds, but the sheep still belong to God.
41. Note Deeley's comment, 'The appropriation of Ezekiel 33-37 makes it possible for
John to speak of Jesus as the "good shepherd"; in such a way and in such a context that he
emphasizes Jesus' unity with the Father as well as his authority to rule and his rightful place as
Davidic descendant.' Deeley, 'Ezekiel's Shepherd', p. 264.
In Ezekiel's oracles, the restoration would not be complete until Israel was
again one kingdom with one king. The first mention of this united
kingdom referred only to its one shepherd (Ezek. 34.23; cf. 37.24). That
phrase (etc; m)i|ir|v) is found in Jn 10.16, and nowhere else in either
testament, making the allusion to Ezekiel certain. The reversal of word
order is consistent with changes in Greek usage. In the Greek of the LXX,
it was customary to place dc, after its noun; in the NT, dc, occurs before its
noun with a few exceptions (none in John).42 The phrase [iioc m)i|ivr| (one
flock) is not found in the OT, but it is intended to refer to the pap6ov \xiav
(one staff) and <E9VO<; <EV (one nation) of Ezekiel 37. The modification from
'one nation' to 'one flock' was likely for stylistic purposes. It allowed better
preservation of the metaphor, and the cognate alliteration (|iia iT0i|ivr|, CLC;
m)i|ir|v) is pleasant and proverbial in style.43
There are some other important parallels between John's Jesus and
Ezekiel's David. Although David is never called the 'good' shepherd, he is
clearly presented as good in contrast to the wicked shepherds of Israel. The
mention of 'one shepherd' (Ezek. 34.23; 37.24) likely not only refers to the
united kingdom, but also to David's eternal reign - there will be no other
king after him (Ezek. 37.25). David's rule is clearly secondary to God's in
Ezekiel, however.44 David is only appointed after God himself has
eliminated the wicked sheep and shepherds, and God is the one who
brings down the eschatological blessings on his people (34.25-30; 37.24-
28). David rules as vassal prince over Israel, while God is the suzerain
king.45 David does exactly what God does - he is a faithful shepherd who
feeds God's flocks. Although David is subordinate to God, their actions
are united. As Eichrodt expresses it, 'One can see Yahweh himself at work
in this servant... what Ezekiel chiefly means by this servant David is that
42. Of the 345 occurrences of dc, in the NT, dq only follows its noun in 14 instances (many
of which may use dc, as an indefinite article). Although I did not study all of the 1034
occurrences of dc, in the LXX, the ratio in Ezekiel appears typical of much of the LXX: dc,
occurs after its noun 26 times (e.g. Ezek. 1.15; 4.9; 34.23; 37.17) and before its noun only once
(Ezek. 9.2).
43. Brown nicely preserves the alliteration with his translation 'one sheep herd, one
shepherd.' Brown, John, vol. 1, pp. 384, 387.
44. Joyce, 'King and Messiah', p. 334.
45. 'As the Judaean kings had only stayed in place by the sufferance of the suzerains, so,
in Ezekiel's view of the future, the 'messiah' will reign only in so far as his rule remains subject
to the stated will of Yahweh.' Joyce, 'King and Messiah', p. 336. Allen similarly suggests that
the coming monarchy would be protected against the old abuses by the subordination of the
prince as vassal to God. Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 163. Eichrodt suggests that 'my servant
David, the prince' implies that David is king, but also God's 'minister and trusted adviser' or
has a 'specially preferential position among Yahweh's counsellors.' Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 476;
see also Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 219
he is to be regarded as the fully reconstituted image of God, in whom the

will of God... is finally brought into effect.'46
The parallel to John's christology is clear. Jesus is God's faithful
representative who fully carries out God's work (Jn 10.25, 37-38). As God
appoints David over God's sheep, so God gives the sheep to Jesus (Jn
10.29). God makes a covenant with David (Ezek. 34.25 LXX); God knows,
loves, appoints, and commands Jesus (Jn 10.15, 17, 18). Outside of the
shepherd discourse, Jesus regularly points out that his authority comes
from the Father (5.26-27, 30-32, 37) and that there is unity of purpose and
action between Jesus and the Father (Jn 5.17-23, 6.38, 8.28-29).
Although John's 'one shepherd' is a strong allusion to Ezekiel's David,
John never describes Jesus as the son of David.47 The only reference in
John to David is ironic: the Jerusalem crowds are sure that Jesus cannot be
the Messiah, since they know that the seed of David must come from
Bethlehem, and Jesus is from Nazareth (Jn 7.42). However, the allusions in
John 10 to Ezekiel's coming David should be regarded as implicit
references that the audience comprehended. Their request that Jesus
openly declare if he is the Christ (Jn 10.24) should be read as the crowd's
reaction to Jesus' claim to be the good shepherd.48
The fact that Jesus' speech links him to both good shepherds, God and
David, makes it clear that the passage is intended to communicate Jesus'
messianic identity in divine and human terms.49 Jesus' connection to God is
established at first by his allusions to divine action in Ezekiel 34, but it
becomes more explicit during the following debate: 'I and the Father are
one' (Jn 10.30). Jesus, like David, has been given charge over the sheep (Jn
10.28-29). But that rule over the sheep is so closely united with God's own
shepherding rule that Jesus can speak of a oneness with God. After further
46. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 478.

47. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1968), p. 80.
48. A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship: A Study of the Relation of St.
John's Gospel to the Ancient Jewish Lectionary System (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960), pp.
131-32.
49. That Jesus' shepherd metaphor connects to both God and David has been observed by
many commentators. 'Jesus is recognized by John as the eschatological fulfillment of
Yahweh's promises in Ezekiel 34, both as shepherd God and messiah' (Fikes, 'Shepherd-
King', p. 180). 'Thus when Jesus proclaims himself the good shepherd (John 10), the reader
cannot forget that in the OT Yahweh (Ezek. 34.11) or the messiah (Ezek. 34.23) is the
shepherd who cares for his flock: Jesus identifies his ministry with theirs, and the
appropriation of Ezekiel 34 is fairly direct.' D.A. Carson, 'John and the Johannine Letters',
in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture
(Festschrift B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 245-64 (255); cf.
Deeley, 'Ezekiel's Shepherd', p. 264; Fikes, 'Shepherd-King', p. 180; Koester, Symbolism, pp.
27-28, 104; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 84.
debate over his meaning, Jesus explains in another way: since he does all of
his Father's works, The Father is in me and I am in the Father' (Jn 10.38).
This pronouncement of the unity of Jesus and the Father is somewhat
unprecedented in John 10. Jesus' statement that 'I and the Father are one'
seems out of place, unless the appeal to the shepherds of Ezekiel 34 is seen.
Jesus has connected himself with Ezekiel's David, and through David, to
God.50
Jesus' use of Psalm 82 ('You are gods') as a defense for his unity with
God has troubled commentators and produced a variety of interpretations.
Understanding the allusions to Ezekiel 34 in John 10 does not solve all of
the problems, but at least some connections can be seen. Psalm 82, Ezekiel
34, and John 10 share the same central message: the rulers of Israel are
mistreating their people, and God will judge those rulers and deliver his
people. Furthermore, John's interpretation of Psalm 82 coheres with the
rest of the argument of John 10: the Son is the agent of the Father and
accomplishes his work (Jn 10.36-38), just as Ezekiel's shepherd oversees
God's flock on his behalf. While the precise nature of Jesus' argument
from Psalm 82 can be debated, the choice of the quoted passage is in
harmony with the topic of John 10.51
There are a few differences between the good shepherds of Ezekiel 34
and the good shepherd of John 10, and these differences reveal the
distinctive christology of John. Most importantly, John's shepherd 'lays
down his life for the sheep' (Jn 10.II).52 Within the metaphor, this
describes the good shepherd risking his life, in contrast to the hireling, who
flees. In Ezekiel, there is little thought of any risk to either great shepherd,
God or David. If John is drawing his image from Ezekiel, it is only through
elaboration.53 Perhaps the combination of two images, David the shepherd
of Israel (Ezek. 34.23; 37.24) and God defending the sheep from predators
(34.5, 10, 22, 28) was a reminder of David the shepherd-boy risking all for
his sheep (1 Sam. 17.34-36).54 While the shepherd-boy story is not
50. See also Nielsen, 'Old Testament Imagery in John', p. 70.

51. Jungkuntz also noted this connection between Psalm 82 and Ezekiel 34. R. Jungkuntz,
'An Approach to the Exegesis of John 10:34—36', Cone 35 (1964), pp. 556-65 (564).
52. Nielsen points out that the reader knows what to expect from a shepherd metaphor, so
'John's Gospel comes close to breaking the frame when it presents the good shepherd as laying
down his life for the sheep.' Nielsen, 'Old Testament Imagery in John', p. 80; see also Fikes,
'Shepherd-King', p. 179.
53. J. Beutler suggests that John here drew on the image of the servant who lays down his
life in Isa. 53.10-12 (although no shepherd imagery is used in this passage). J. Beutler, 'Der
Alttestamentlich-judischer Hintergrund der Hirtenrede in Johannes 10', in J. Beutler and R.
Fortna (eds), The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and its Context: Studies by Members of the
Johannine Writings Seminar (SNTSMS, 67; London: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp.
18-32 (25).
54. Cf. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 398.
mentioned in Ezekiel, it is not far-fetched to recall it. The purpose of the

boyhood accounts of David was to illustrate his worthiness as king. His
old occupation as shepherd was possibly one reason for the prominence of
the shepherd image during the Exile. Thus, when Ezekiel treats David as
shepherd, recalling David the shepherd-boy may have been quite natural.
While the metaphor may describe the shepherd risking his life, clearly
the meaning of the metaphor is the giving of his life. Jesus makes this clear
once the metaphor proper is finished: 'the Father loves me because I lay
down my life, that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I
lay it down of my own will' (Jn 10.17-18).55 After this, 'to lay down one's
life' always describes the voluntary giving of life for another.56 The
metaphor is thus expanded from the polemic against false shepherds to
include a foreshadowing of Jesus' death and resurrection.57 John's
christology requires this addition: the sheepfold cannot welcome Jesus'
sheep until he has died and risen.
e. Jesus' Opponents
The polemic against the leaders of Israel comes in four waves. Each is a
variation on the image of the shepherd and the sheep. All are influenced by
OT images; all fit well into the thought of John. First, as discussed above,
the leaders of Israel are the gatekeepers who are unable to tell the
difference between a thief and the real shepherd. Jesus rebukes the
gatekeepers for their lack of discernment. Second, the leaders of Israel are
themselves the thieves who are taking advantage of the sheep; they are
excluded from Jesus' sheepfold. Third, the leaders of Israel are hired
shepherds who do not defend the sheep against the predators. They are
replaced and made irrelevant by the arrival of the true shepherd. Finally,
the leaders of Israel (as well as others who do not believe Jesus) are the
false sheep who are excluded from Jesus' fold.58
The image of the leader as gatekeeper is probably not derived from the
OT. Although the image of blind watchmen combined with poor
shepherds can be found in Isa. 56.9-11, there are no verbal ties to that
image in John 10.59
55. The phrase xiQr\vai xr\v y\ivxr\v ev xf\ xeipi (to take life in hand) is used in the LXX to
describe risking life (Judg. 12.3; 1 Sam. 19.5; 28.21), as Brown points out (Brown, John, vol. 1,
p. 386). However, the bare ii0r|vai xr\v \\roxr\v (to take life) is used of killing (1 Kgs 19.2).
56. Jn 13.37, 38, of Peter's wish to die for Jesus; Jn 15.13, to describe Jesus' great love in
dying for his friends; and 1 Jn 3.16, to describe Jesus dying for his followers and his followers
dying for each other. The phrase does not occur elsewhere in the NT.
57. See also Koester, Symbolism, p. 17.
58. Brown notes the first three of these. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 388.
59. Isa. 56.9-11 is sometimes presented as a strong parallel to John 10 because of its
combination of blind watchmen and shepherds. (L. Morris, The Gospel According to John
The connections to Ezekiel 34 are more apparent in other parts of John's

metaphor. First, although the words 'thief and 'steal' do not come from
Ezekiel 34, the idea certainly does. The thief, Jesus points out, only comes
into the fold to 'kill and steal and destroy' (Jn 10.10; cf. 10.1, 8). The bad
shepherds of Ezekiel act as thieves, although they are never called such.
They feed themselves (Ezek. 34.2, 8), they drink up (KOCTOJGIG)) the milk and
clothe themselves with the sheep's wool (Ezek. 34.3). Clearly, since the
sheep belong to God, this is theft. The killing and destroying is also
apparent in Ezekiel 34, since the shepherds 'slay the failing' (Ezek. 34.3).
Jn 10.10 The thief does not come Ezek. 34.8 The shepherds fed
except to steal and kill (euofj)60 and themselves, (cf. 34.2)
destroy.
10.8 All who came before me61 are 34.3 Behold, you drink up the milk
thieves and bandits, but the sheep and clothe yourselves with the wool
did not hear them. (cf. 10.1) and slay the fatling.
As discussed above, John's description of the leaders as thieves points

towards the rapaciousness of the ruling priesthood, so often denounced in
Second Temple literature.62 In this context, it also points towards the
rejection of Jesus' followers by the Temple Council and the Pharisees.63
The polemical epithet 'stranger' is a subset of the thief metaphor. The
thief and the stranger both try to lead the sheep, but the sheep will not
follow (Jn 10.1, 5, 8). There is no clear OT allusion for the 'stranger,' but it
is clearly an insulting title here. The term akkozpioQ can range in meaning
from 'stranger' to 'foreigner.'64 In either case, the sense of aAAotpiog here is
(NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 443; Robinson, 'The Parable of John 10:1-5', p.
72). However, the two passages share only the word 'shepherd,' and the parallel disappears
altogether in the LXX. The LXX omits 'watchmen' and misreads 'shepherds' (a s m) as 'evil'
(misreading shepherd language is not uncommon in the LXX, due to the similarity between
run, n*n, Jttn, and in).
60. Guco is usually used in the sense of 'sacrifice'; Brown suggests that this could be 'a sly
reference to the priestly authorities.' Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 386.
61. It is difficult to decide whether the phrase 'before me' is the best reading, since some
early witnesses (sp45vid' 75 K* E etc.) lack it, and since the omission would be both shorter and
stylistically more difficult. It is possible that the phrase was omitted by some scribes to avoid
the implied condemnation of OT heroes. This was apparently the motivation behind the
omission of TTavteg in other witnesses. B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2nd edn, 1994), pp. 195-96.
62. See p. 109 above.
63. Brown sees the thief in Jn 10.10 as a 'general representative of darkness who is a rival
to the Son,' and the thief in Jn 10.1 as a direct reference to the Pharisees and priests. Brown,
John, vol. 1, pp. 395, 393.
64. Robinson suggests that the implication in Jn 10.5 is that the leaders of Israel are
actually 'foreigners to God's people.' Robinson, 'The Parable of John 10:1-5', pp. 69-70.
that the people of Israel will no longer follow the leaders of Israel. This
may be an oblique reference to the blind man of John 9, who refused to
submit to the Pharisees.65 This suggestion that the leaders of Israel might
lose their following would strike a note of fear; one of the regular concerns
of Jesus' opponents in John is that the people will follow him en masse (Jn
7.47-53; 11.47-48; 12.10-11; 12.19).
The third characterization of the leaders of Israel in John 10 comes
closest to Ezekiel 34. The leaders are described as 'hirelings' who do not
care about the sheep and who leave them to be eaten by wolves.
Jn 10.12-13 The one who is a Ezek. 34.5 My sheep were scattered

hireling, and not a shepherd because there were no shepherds
(OUK civ TTOL|ir|v), who does not own (\ir\ elvai TTOifievou;), and they became
the sheep, sees the wolf coming and prey for all the beasts of the field,
leaves the sheep and flees, and the (para 34.8)
wolf seizes and scatters, because he 34.6 My sheep were scattered, and
is a hireling and the sheep do not there was no one who seeks or
matter to him. returns them.
Deeley downplays the connection here between John 10 and Ezekiel 34 by

emphasizing that in John 10, Jesus' opponents are never even called
shepherds.66 Although Deeley is technically correct, she misses the
significance of IIIGGGJTOC; as one who tends the sheep, but does not own
them. Conceptually, this is the same as the shepherds of Ezekiel, who must
give an account to the true owner for the mistreatment of the sheep.
Furthermore, the parallel Greek phrases OIJK OJV m)i|j.r|v (Jn 1.12) and \ir\
dvai noL|ievag (Ezek. 34.5) suggest that the two metaphors have the same
view of the leaders. Ezekiel has the negated infinitive of €1411 followed by
TToi|i€va<; and John has the negated participle of €l|ii followed by mH[ir|v\
Both clauses are causal: Ezekiel's sheep became prey because (8 id +
infinitive) of the lack of true shepherds; John's hireling abandons the sheep
to the wolves because (causal use of the participle) he is not a shepherd.
John's metaphor has one other antagonist: the wolf. The wolf is parallel
to the 'wild beasts' of Ezekiel 34, although there may also be an allusion to
Ezek. 22.27.
65. Brown makes a similar suggestion. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 393.

66. Deeley, 'Ezekiel's Shepherd', p. 260.
Ezek. 22.27 Her rulers in her midst

Jn 10.12 the wolf seizes are like wolves seizing prey
(6 XUKCX; apira(ei) and scatters them (ol XUKOL apiTa(ovTe<; apTTayiiata) to
shed blood, so that they may
acquire dishonest gain.67
34.5 My sheep... became prey for
all the beasts of the field, (cf. 34.8,
25, 28)
34.22 I will save my flock, and they
will never be prey again.
The presence of this element of the metaphor is evidence of how

thoroughly John follows Ezekiel 34 here. In Ezekiel 34, the meaning of
the 'wild beasts' is very clear: they are the surrounding pagan nations
(Ezek. 34.5-6, 13, 27-28). John has reproduced this element of the
metaphor in the ravaging wolf, although the predator no longer has a clear
referent. It certainly does not refer generically to the Gentiles, since they
are now welcomed into the new fold.68 John's replacement of Ezekiel's
GrjpLov with AAJKOC may be a normal development of the sheep metaphor in
the Second Temple era. Isaiah's description of the future peace between
wolf and lamb (Isa. 11.6; 65.25) developed into a standard pairing (Sir.
13.17; Mt. 7.15; 10.16; Lk. 10.3; Acts 20.29; 4 Ezra 5.18).
On the other hand, the wolf may be intended to symbolize a particular
entity. If Jn 10.12 also alludes to Ezek. 22.27, then the wolf could refer to
the rulers of Jerusalem. Ezekiel 22 contains a declaration of woe against
'the bloody city,' Jerusalem (Ezek. 22.2, 19). The princes of the city are
described as predatory lions and wolves because they oppress the poor,
take bribes, and use violence in their pursuit of wealth (Ezek. 22.7, 25, 27).
The accusation against the hireling in John 10 is thus that he has done
nothing to prevent oppression by the rulers of Jerusalem. This claim is
similar to other accusations against the high priests found in Second
Temple literature.69 If John's wolf is intended to recall the ruling
priesthood, then John's metaphor is somewhat mixed, since the 'hireling'
may also refer to the priesthood. Interestingly, Ezekiel's metaphor is mixed
in the same way: the negligence of the shepherds allows predators to seize
the sheep (Ezek. 34.5, 8), but the shepherds themselves are described using
predator language. The shepherds 'slaughter the fadings' (Ezek. 34.3), and
67. A similar pairing of XVYLOQ with apna£ is found in Gen. 49.27, describing Benjamin; and
in Mt. 7.15, describing false prophets.
68. Jn 10.16; 11.52; see below, [4 fn 78-np]. The inclusion of followers of Jesus from
outside Israel is suggested in Jn 11.51-52: Jesus will die 'not only for the nation, but so that he
might gather the scattered children of God as one.'
69. See p. 109, above; esp. Josephus, Ant. 20.8.8§181; 20.9.2§206-07.
God will rescue the sheep 'from the mouths' of the shepherds (Ezek. 34.10)
as if they themselves were predators.70
It is also possible that John's wolf refers to the Roman procurators and
the legions that will destroy the sheep of Israel. This would maintain the
Gentile referent of the predator in Ezekiel 34, and would be consistent with
the rapaciousness of the wolf. If so, the claim is that the leaders of Israel
are the true Xvpml. They are the insurrectionists who will bring the wrath
of Rome on Israel. However, although the wolf may refer to the Roman or
priestly rulers of Jerusalem, that meaning is muted. The wolf of John 10
primarily serves two roles: to point out the consequences of the shepherds'
failure, and to draw attention to John's allusion to Ezekiel's shepherd
metaphor.
Finally, the leaders of Israel are counted with the non-believers who are
not Jesus' sheep (Jn 10.26-27).71 Ezekiel is the only OT prophet to 'judge
between sheep and sheep' (Ezek. 34.17, 22). In Ezek. 34.11-16, God
promises to restore the lost and injured sheep - but he will 'feed the strong
sheep with judgment' (Ezek. 34.16b). These sheep have been oppressing the
weak sheep, and now they will be judged. In Ezekiel's allegory, these
'strong sheep' may refer to the kings of Israel, or they may refer to the
upper class. If the strong sheep are the kings, then Ezekiel's allegory is
restating the oracle against the bad shepherds from a different viewpoint.
More likely, Ezekiel is showing how poor shepherding by the kings has
resulted in social chaos, with the upper classes oppressing the lower
classes.72 In either case, the strong sheep are the ruling class of Israel, and
their oppression is brought under control by the appointment of the new
shepherd, David.
In John 10, Jesus never calls his opponents by Ezekiel's epithets 'fat
sheep' or 'strong sheep.' Instead, the parallel between the polemic in
Ezekiel 34 and John 10 is conceptual rather than verbal: God in Ezekiel 34
and Jesus in John 10 both judge between sheep and sheep. In Ezekiel 34,
the strong sheep are judged for their oppression of the weak sheep. That
element is present in Jesus' polemic against the Pharisees' treatment of the
blind man, but it is muted. In John 10, the sheep are judged on the basis of
their belief in Jesus. The shepherd has entered the fold and called for his
70. Zimmerli's translation of Ezek. 34.10 is particularly suggestive: 'I will tear (the beasts
of) my flock from their jaws.' Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 206.
71. Dodd points out how the trial of John 9 begins to separate the sheep. The blind man is
revealed to be Jesus' sheep by his defense of Jesus, whereas the Pharisees show that they are
not Jesus' sheep by their rejection of Jesus. Dodd, Historical Tradition, p. 361.
72. This is the view of most Ezekiel scholars: Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 473; Huntzinger, 'End
of Exile', pp. 120-21; Vancil, 'Symbolism of the Shepherd', p. 232. Similarly, Allen, Ezekiel,
vol. 2, p. 163 sees this passage as a description of 'social exploitation... among the exiles
themselves.'
sheep, and his sheep have followed (Jn 10.2-4). If any sheep do not follow
him, the logical conclusion is that they do not belong to the shepherd.73
This is the conclusion that Jesus proclaims in Jn 10.26-27: 'But you do not
believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice and I
know them and they follow me.' The characteristics of hearing, knowing,
and following were used to prove the identity of the shepherd in Jn 10.2^;
now the same characteristics are used to prove the identity of the sheep.
The sheep that do not hear and follow Jesus are clearly not his sheep, and
they are excluded from the sheepfold. Jesus' sheep are secure: 'there is no
one who will snatch (apTraoei) them from my hand' (Jn 10.28, cf. 29). The
implication is that all those sheep that will not follow Jesus risk being
snatched by the wolf.
We can trace a development in theology as we examine John's
modification of polemical epithets from Ezekiel. God's judgment against
the leaders of Israel in Ezekiel 34 stands on two related themes: justice and
covenant faithfulness. Ezekiel judges the leaders of Israel because they
have not been just rulers. Like most OT prophets, Ezekiel accuses Israel's
wealthy and elite of oppressing the poor. This charge introduces another:
the rulers of Israel have not obeyed the covenant. The Law did not forbid
wealth, but it gave clear guidelines for how the wealthy ought to treat the
poor, and how the rulers ought to treat the ruled (e.g., Deut. 15.1-18;
16.18-20; 17.14-20; 24.10-22). Thus God's accusations in Ezekiel 34 are
that the elite of Israel have not kept the covenant. They have brought
down the curse of Deut. 17.19, 'Cursed be the one who perverts the justice
due to the alien, the orphan, and the widow.'
The judgment in John 10 begins similarly. The Pharisees have unjustly
mistreated the blind man and others who wish to follow Jesus. However,
Jesus' primary indictment against the leaders of Israel is not that they are
unjust or do not follow the covenant. Rather, Jesus accuses them of not
accepting his claims. In essence, this is a transition from judgment based
on faithfulness to judgment based on faith. While Paul's justification by
faith is not an explicit point of theology here, clearly the only standard of
judgment that is important to John is faith in Jesus as the Son of God. This
standard is held as superior to covenant faithfulness, since John presents
belief in Jesus as more important than keeping the Sabbath.
f. The People of God

We turn last to the element of the sheep as the people of God in the
shepherd discourse. This element is left for last because the sheep are not
73. Brown gives an excellent quote from Chrysostom {In Jo. 61.2): 'If they do not follow
Jesus, it is not because he is not a shepherd, but because they are not sheep.' Brown, John, vol.
1, p. 406.
introduced into the discourse for their own sake. Rather, the sheep serve to
show the difference between Jesus and his opponents. Jesus and his
opponents are contrasted in how they treat the sheep. Hence, most of the
ideas addressed in this section have already been touched on in the above
sections. Nevertheless, it is valuable to address how John 10 uses the image
of the sheep from Ezekiel 34 to describe God's people. The fact that both
John and Ezekiel use sheep as a metaphor for God's people is in itself not
very striking, since God's people are described as sheep throughout the
OT. However, there are other important parallels.
John first suggests a redefinition of the people of God in Jn 10.16, 'I have
other sheep who are not of this fold; and I must bring them and they will
hear my voice and they will be one flock, one shepherd.' The addition of
sheep from outside the fold, who are admitted on the basis of hearing
Jesus, suggests that John is redefining God's fold. In John 11, the narrator
resumes the theme of gathering God's people in his explanation of
Caiaphas' prophetic words, 'You do not consider that it is better for you
that one man die for the people and that the whole nation should not
perish.' John's explanation is closely tied to Jesus' earlier description of the
'other sheep' and alludes to two related passages in Ezekiel.
Jn 11.51-52 . . . [Caiaphas] Ezek. 28.25 And I will gather

prophesied that Jesus was about to (GI)VCC£CO) Israel
from the nations
die for the nation (tou eGvoix;); and where they were scattered
not for the nation only, but that he (SieoKopTaoGiiaoa').
might also gather (awaYocYfl) all the 37.21-22, 24
scattered (SieoKopiuqieva) . . .
I will gather (owcâ)) them from the
regions around them, and I will
lead them into (doafa) the land of
Israel. I will appoint them as one
. . . children of God as one (elg ev). nation (etc; <EGVOC; £V) in my land...
10.16 I have other sheep that are and one ruler (apx^v elq) will be
not of this fold, and I must bring over them all, and they will no
them and they will hear my voice, longer be two nations... And my
and they will be one flock, one servant David will be ruler in their
shepherd (jiia Troqii/n, elc, T\oi[ir)v). midst, and one shepherd (TTOLHV etc;)
will be over all.
The allusion to Ezek. 28.25 is subtle but demonstrable.74 The idea of

gathering scattered Israel is described elsewhere in the OT (e.g., Isa. 11.11-
16; Mic. 2.12; Jer. 23.3; 31.7-14; Ezek. 34.12, 16), but the combination of
74. As far as I can tell, this allusion has not been pointed out in the secondary literature.
ovvctyu and SUXOKOPTTICO) only occurs in Ezek. 28.25 and Deut. 30.3. Ezek.
28.25 itself alludes to Deut. 30.3, invoking God's promise to restore the
people of Israel to their land if they repent.75
The parallel between Jn 11.52 and Ezek. 37.21-27 is also subtle; it only
includes the gathering of God's people (ouyayo), eloayco) and the phrase dc,
ev. The use of the phrase eic, <EV to describe unity is more in line with Greek
usage in the LXX than in the NT, 76 suggesting that it alludes to some
passage in the LXX. The presence of this allusion to Ezek. 37.21-27 can be
further demonstrated by a number of interlocking clues. First, the slightly
clearer allusion to Ezek. 28.25 can be used as evidence for the allusion to
Ezek. 37.21-27. It seems likely that John has combined allusions using the
sort of catchword combination that we have seen elsewhere in the DSS and
in John. Here, allusions to Ezek. 28.25 and 37.21-27 may have been
combined by the use of ovvayu. There are other connections between Ezek.
28.25 and 37.21-27: both promise restoration from the surrounding
nations to the land 'which I gave to my servant Jacob' (Ezek. 28.25; 37.21,
25),77 and each passage has independent parallels to Ezekiel 34.
Second, complex intertextual connections between John 10 and 11.52 on
the one hand, and Ezekiel 34 and 37.21-27 on the other hand, suggest that
Jn 11.52 alludes to Ezek. 37.21-27. Ezek. 37.21-27 resumes the
shepherding image begun in Ezekiel 34. The ruler in both oracles is the
'prince,'78 'My servant David,' the 'one shepherd' (Ezek. 34.23-24; 37.24-
25), and God promises a 'covenant of peace' in both passages (Ezek. 34.25;
37.26). In a similar fashion, Jn 11.52 resumes themes from John 10. God's
people are scattered but will be gathered (Jn 10.12, 16; 11.52); the shepherd
gives his life for the sheep (Jn 10.17; 11.51-52), and there is an emphasis on
the future unity of the flock (Jn 10.16; 11.51-52). The connections between
these passages are tangled, but suggestive, as the following diagram
depicts. The arrows show the direction of influence; the arrows indicate
clearer allusion.
75. Deut. 30.3, part of the 'blessings and curses,' promises restoration as part of God's
blessing after Israel's repentance. Ezek. 28.25 closely parallels Deut. 30.3, but gives no explicit
prerequisites for the restoration to the land.
76. E.g., Gen. 2.24; Exod. 26.24; 2 Sam. 2.25; 1 Chron. 23.11; Ezek. 22.19; 37.17, 19. The
phrase only occurs in the NT in Mt. 19.2 (a quotation of the LXX), Jn 11.52, and 1 Jn 5.8.
77. Note the parallel phrases between the two passages in Ezekiel:
) UOLVTOL OIKOV lopa.r\k 4K (ieoou x&v 49VG)V, oh elor|A.0ooav 4K€I (Ezek. 37.21)
xbv Iopar|A. 4K TG)V 49vwv, ou 6L6OKop7TLO0Tioav 4K6L (Ezek. 28.25)
Lv 4TTI tf|g yf\c, auicav, r\v 6€8c»)Ka xQ 6oiUa) (aou LxKWp (Ezek. 37.25)
iv 4TTL xf\Q yr\c, auxwv, fjv 4yw 6e6coKa xQ 6ouA.co (iou ICCKCDP (Ezek. 28.25)
78. Both passages describe David as 'prince' rather than 'king,' (K*1^ in the MT and apxcov
in the LXX).
Jn 10 <- Ezekiel 34
I \ I
Jn 11.51-52 «- Ezekiel 37.21-26
The fact that both John and Ezekiel briefly resume their shepherd
metaphors in later chapters may be coincidental. However, the connections
at least provide some supporting evidence for the allusion in Jn 11.52 to
Ezek. 37.21ff.
The main reasons for John's allusions to Ezek. 28.25 and 37.21-26 are
clear. John sees the OT prophecies of the gathering of Israel being fulfilled
in the followers of Jesus. Ezekiel promises the coming restoration of exiles
to the land (Ezek. 28.25; 37.21) and the establishment of David's rule over
both Israel and Judah so that there is only one nation (Ezek. 37.21-22).
John transforms Ezekiel's 'one nation... one ruler' (Ezek. 37.22) into 'one
flock... one shepherd' (Jn 10.16) with some warrant, since Ezekiel also
describes David as a shepherd in Ezek. 37.24. However, John modifies the
image from Ezekiel: other sheep will be included 'that are not from this
fold.' Since the fold represents Israel in John 10, this suggests the inclusion
of believers in Jesus from outside Israel (Jn 10.16, 26-27). The inclusion of
followers of Jesus from outside Israel is also described in Jn 11.51-52:
Jesus will die 'not only for the nation,79 but so that he might gather the
scattered children of God as one.'80 The gathered sheep in Jn 10.16 become
the gathered children of God in Jn 11.52, and now it is clear that Jesus will
gather sheep, God's children, from beyond the nation. These two
references by themselves could be taken as a promise to gather Diaspora
Jews to Jesus, but in John, Gentile believers are suggested by John's
description.81
This inclusion of Gentiles is clear from John's description of the
'scattered children of God (xcc TCKVOC TOO Geou)' in Jn 11.52. In the Johannine
corpus, tot i€Kva xoO Oeou are all God's children, regardless of nationality.
The only other use of that phrase in the Gospel of John explicitly includes
all believers in Jesus. 'But as many as received him, he gave them the right
to become children of God (T€KVCC GeoO), to those who believe in his name,
79. Does John's phrase oux u-rrep TOU eGvoix; novov parallel Ezekiel's dc, eGvoc ev or perhaps
OUK eoovioa eci eU Suo eOvrf? If so, it suggests that John saw Ezekiel's creation of 'one nation' as
including Gentiles along with Israel and Judah.
80. Heil points out that 'Jesus' dying on behalf of (uirep) the people parallels his laying
down his life on behalf of (inrep) the sheep (10.11, 15) that is, those who believe in him.' J.P.
Heil, 'Jesus as the Unique High Priest in the Gospel of John', CBQ 57, no. 4 (1995), pp. 729-
45 (734).
81. Brown suggests that Jesus' reference to the gathering of the fold in Jn 10.16 may have
originally had a 'much simpler meaning' on the lips of Jesus, but that John has extrapolated
the sense to include the church. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 397.
who were born not from blood, nor from the will of the flesh, nor from the
will of man, but from God' (Jn 1.12-13). Human ancestry provides no
privileged access to becoming children of God, according to John (see also
1 Jn3.1, 2, 10;5.2).82
Where does John's inclusion of Gentiles come from? The OT in several
places describes a future in which Gentiles will worship in the Temple (Isa.
2.2-4; 56.6-8; 60.2-14; Zech. 14.16-17). Isaiah follows his description of
Gentile service to God (Isa. 56.6-7) with a promise to gather both Jews
and Gentiles. 'Lord Yahweh, who gathers the scattered of Israel, declares,
"I will gather yet others to him [Israel] besides those already gathered'"
(Isa. 56.8). Isaiah's connection of the gathering of Israel with the in-
gathering of Gentiles may have influenced John and other NT writers.
But the fact that John alludes to Ezekiel's account of the gathering
suggests that Ezekiel may also be one of the sources for John's thoughts on
Gentile inclusion in God's people. The main passages on the gathering of
Israel to which John alludes (Ezek. 28.25; 34.12-13; 37.21-26) do not
explicitly include Gentiles in that gathering. Ezekiel's sheep are the people
of Israel, not Gentiles (Ezek. 34.30). The role of the Gentile nations in
these passages is to be judged if they opposed Israel (Ezek. 28.26; 34.25-29)
or to testify to God's deliverance of Israel and acknowledge him as God
(Ezek. 28.26; 37.28). It is possible that John's understanding of Ezekiel's
sheep metaphor was strongly influenced by the last line of Ezekiel 34 (in
the MT only): 'You, my sheep, the sheep of my pasture; you are humans
(D*TK) and I am your God.' This may have led John to a universalizing of
the sheep image.
John's allusions to Ezekiel may be intended to recall the prophet's
understanding of Gentiles as revealed throughout Ezekiel. Ezekiel's
inclusive attitude towards Gentile sojourners or proselytes may surpass
that of any other OT prophet. Like many prophets, Ezekiel calls for fair
treatment for sojourners (Ezek. 22.7, 29). But Ezekiel goes further by
including sojourners in Israel. In Ezekiel 14, Ezekiel condemns those who
worship idols, then hypocritically inquire of God's prophets. The oracle
declares judgment on 'anyone of the house of Israel, or of the sojourners
(i3/iTpoor|AuTo<;) who sojourn in Israel, who separates (iTrVana/UoTpicoGfi)
from me...' by keeping idols in his heart (Ezek. 14.7). God warns the
inwardly idolatrous Jew or sojourner: 'I will cut him off from the midst of
my people' The sojourner is thus linked with 'my people', 'the house of
Israel' and is expected to worship God alone (Ezek. 14.7-8; cf. Num.
15.16). The Torah-keeping sojourner is regarded as initially in a relation-
82. Most commentators agree that John's 'other sheep' and the 'scattered children of
God' primarily refer to Gentile Christians. G.R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC, 36; Waco:
Word, 1987), pp. 171, 198; Brown, John, vol. 1, pp. 396-97, 442-43.
ship with God, since idolatry causes separation from God and from his
people.83
Among the 'oracles of hope' that begin with Ezekiel 34, the Gentile
sojourner is also included in Israel. Even while the Gentile nations (eGvn)
are regarded as enemies of God's people (see especially Ezekiel 38-39), the
sojourners inherit with the children of Israel. Ezekiel 47 pictures the just
reallocation of land in Israel, but sojourners are included.
Allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who live
among you and have children in your midst. They will be to you as
native-born children of Israel; they will be allotted an inheritance with
you among the tribes of Israel. In whatever tribe the sojourner resides,
there you shall assign him his inheritance, says the Lord YHWH. (Ezek.
47.22-23).
Interestingly, the LXX heightens the inclusion in comparison with the MT.
The LXX adds the phrase 'they will eat with you'84 and describes a new
tribe of sojourners rather than membership in the tribes. In either case,
allocation of land to Gentiles is unprecedented in the OT.85 In Ezekiel, it
illustrates the expectation that Gentile sojourners will become part of the
people of God. Even the language of the MT makes this clear: the
sojourners are called 'children of Israel' and they receive an inheritance.86
No NT passage directly alludes to the above passages in Ezekiel.
However, John's modification of Ezekiel's sheep metaphor to include
Gentile sheep 'who are not from this fold' seems to reflect Ezekiel's attitude
towards Gentile sojourners. John's reinterpretation of the sheep metaphor
to include Gentiles is an expansion of Ezekiel's metaphor that is in
harmony with the message of Ezekiel.
83. Zimmerli agrees that Ezek. 14.7 'displays the distinct intention of including the ~ta in
the cult' and that it is related to pre-exilic casuistic law for sojourners. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol.
1, p. 303, also citing Alfred Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten undder Juden zu den Fremden
(Freiburg, 1896), pp. 110-13.
84. The addition of (Jxtyoviai in the LXX may result from reading "b^ (they will eat) for
lbs"1 (they will cast).
85. Zimmerli suggests that Ezekiel's promise of inheritance for sojourners arose when
Gentiles joined the 'Yahweh community in Babylon.' The author of the passage is 'fully
prepared to assimilate the la ... this surely means also that [the sojourner] is to be
incorporated into that tribe.' Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 532. Allen agrees with Zimmerli and
adds, 'The injunction to treat [sojourners] like nationals did indeed form part of the legal
traditions... but here it is given a radically new application in terms of naturalization and
integration into tribal communities.' Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 281.
86. Allen speaks of a new 'liberating spirit' in the closing chapters of Ezekiel, 'embracing
within its range of tribal privilege the resident alien (47.22-23). If there was no longer room in
the temple for the pagan staff who cared nothing for Yahweh (44.7, 9), there was room
aplenty in the land and so in the covenant for non-Israelites who were committed to him in
faith.' Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 281.
John also modifies the criteria for inclusion in God's people. In Ezekiel
34, God's sheep are the people of Israel whom God promises to rescue
from oppression. Some people are excluded from this group: the failed
leadership of Israel and the pagan oppressors. Thus, Ezekiel's implied
criteria for membership in God's flock are membership in Israel and
faithfulness to the covenant. Pagan oppressors (the predators) are excluded
because they do not belong to Israel; the past leaders of Israel (the bad
shepherds) are rejected because they are blatant violators of God's law.
Although Ezekiel 34 makes no mention of it, elsewhere Ezekiel makes it
clear that Gentile proselytes are also part of God's sheep (Ezek. 14.7-8;
47.22-23), as we have suggested above. However, Ezekiel's sojourners are
only included because they dwell in Israel and live as Israelites.
Within Ezekiel's eschatological scheme, membership in the coming
reconstituted flock of God is first dependent on God's restoration through
his servant David; individual sheep (including the Gentile sojourners
implied in Ezek. 14.7-8; 47.22-23) belong to the flock if they live in the
land and follow the covenant. In John, membership in the new flock of
God is first dependent on the death and resurrection of Jesus (Jn 10.17;
11.51-52); and individual sheep belong to the flock if they follow Jesus,
hear his voice, and obey him (Jn 10.16, 26-27, 4).
A related development in John's metaphor of the sheep is the emphasis
on following (ctKoAouGeiv). In Ezekiel, the emphasis is on God's shepherd
role in leading (-ayco) the sheep from exile to grazing lands (Ezek. 34.13-
15). In John, there is also an emphasis on the sheep obediently following
the good shepherd (10.4-5, 27). The reason for this becomes clear in the
contrast set up in Jn 10.26-27. 'But you do not believe, because you are not
of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow
me.' Hearing the shepherd and following him are equivalent to believing in
Jesus. John's shift of the metaphor from leading to following is consistent
with the important theme of belief in John's Gospel.
John also modifies the blessings on God's people found in Ezekiel. There
are some interesting similarities. As mentioned above, Ezekiel and John
both use the idea of abundant pasture as a picture of blessing on God's
people (Ezek. 34.13-15, 25-29; Jn 10.9). Ezekiel's 'good' and 'fat' pastures
(Ezek. 34.14) symbolize safety, deliverance from enemies, and abundance
of resources for Israel (Ezek. 34.25-29), but these physical blessings come
as a result of God's new 'covenant of peace' and his appointment of David
over his people (Ezek. 34.23-25). The restoration to the land is associated
with a spiritual restoration of the people: 'they will no longer defile
themselves with their idols... or with their transgressions... I will cleanse
them, and they will be my people...' (Ezek. 37.23).
For John, the pasture symbolizes life. Entry through Jesus the sheep-
gate allows the believer to find pasture, which is closely connected with
having abundant life (Jn 10.9-10). Thefirstpromise that Jesus makes to his
sheep who hear and follow him is that he will give them eternal life ( p
oclwviov, Jn 10.28); perhaps this should remind us of the eternal covenant
(6ta0r|Kr| alcovta) that God promises his people in Ezek. 37.26. In both
books, the adjective 'eternal' is intended to comfort and assure of safety.
Ezekiel also emphasizes that the people, King David, the Temple, and
God's personal dwelling will all abide forever in the land (Ezek. 37.25-27).
Three times, Ezekiel's shepherd oracle assures God's people that they will
'dwell in security' (ev €Am6i) in the land, safe from enemies (Ezek. 34.25,
27, 28). In John, Jesus assures his followers that 'no one can snatch them'
from the hands of Jesus and the Father (Jn 10.28-29).
In summary, John redefines Ezekiel's flock. Ezekiel promised a new
flock, gathered and restored by God, and shepherded by David. The flock
consists of Israelites who keep the Torah. Ezekiel's other observations on
the coming restoration of Israel allowed for Gentile sojourners to become
part of the flock as well. John also promised a new flock, brought together
by the death and resurrection of Jesus. The flock consists of those who
believe in Jesus, both Jews and Gentiles.
g. Restoration of Peter (John 21.15-17)

John returns to the shepherd metaphor once more in the account of Peter's
restoration and re-commissioning. Jesus' words of restoration have some
connection with Ezekiel 34, but the allusion is weaker than that in John 10
and 11.
Jn 21.15-17 [Jesus] said to him, Ezek. 34.15 I will tend my sheep

'Tend my lambs'
(pooK€ ra dpvtot |iou)... 'Shepherd (cyo) PooKipo) id upopaid |iou).
my sheep' (iToijioave m TTpoPaia 34.23 [David] will shepherd them
|iou)... 'Tend my sheep' (iTOL|iav€L
td
The parallel is not very strong, first, because the only parallel words are so
common (POOKO), TToip,atvG), TTpoPaxov). It would be difficult to speak about
shepherding without using at least m)i|iaivG) and iTpopaiov; and all three of
the Major Prophets used these three terms in their pastoral metaphors for
God, his people, and their leaders. Second, the parallel words do not have
similar roles in the two passages. The verses quoted in Ezekiel describe
God's resolution to take care of his people and appoint a new shepherd; in
John, Jesus is telling Peter to take care of the people. Contrast this with the
strong parallels seen between John 10 and Ezekiel 34, where the parallel
phrases demonstrate Jesus' connection to God and David. Here, there is
little suggestion that Peter is fulfilling any expectation from Ezekiel 34.
Any links to Ezekiel's shepherd imagery are implicit at best, and mediated
through the shepherd discourse of John 10. Jesus appoints Peter to serve as
shepherd in the same way that God appoints Jesus (Jn 10.29); this is much
like God's appointment of David in Ezekiel 34. Thus, Peter is expected to
carry out the same shepherding tasks as Jesus, as Jesus carries out the same
shepherding tasks as the Father (Jn 10.28-30).
If an OT antecedent is sought for Peter's commission, there may be a
faint reference to Jer. 23.4, where God promises, 'I will raise up shepherds
for them, who will shepherd them, and they will not be afraid or terrified
any longer.' There are some conceptual ties between Jn 21.15-17 and Jer.
23.4, but the verbal parallel is no better than the parallel between John 21
and Ezekiel 34.87
Jn 21.15-17 should therefore be treated as a resumption of John's
shepherd symbolism, not as an allusion to any OT passage. Jesus had
denounced the leaders of Israel as hirelings who flee at any sign of danger.
Jesus is now calling Peter to be a good shepherd in contrast to the leaders
of Israel. Jesus' restoration of Peter thus deals with the various elements of
Peter's denial before the cross, and his continued failure after the
resurrection. Peter's reason for attempting to follow Jesus into the high
priest's courtyard had been love for Jesus (Jn 13.36-37); now Jesus ties that
love to service rather than martyrdom. Peter's fear had caused him to deny
Jesus; now Jesus calls him to be the sort of fearless shepherd who will not
abandon God's people.88 After the resurrection, Peter had abandoned his
calling to return to fishing; now Jesus calls him to take up the shepherd's
staff and lead the flock with the same sort of self-sacrifice with which Jesus
leads.
Comparison to Second Temple Literature. John's use of Ezekiel 34 cannot

be directly compared with the interpretation of Ezekiel in the DSS, since
the DSS never allude to Ezekiel 34. Shepherd metaphors are occasionally
used in the DSS, but there are no clear allusions to Ezekiel 34. The only
similarity is in methodology. Both John and some of the DSS occasionally
combine allusions to various OT texts around common themes and
catchwords. I suggested that John 10 combined allusions to Numbers 27
and Ezekiel 34 around the common theme of God's legitimate ruler, and
by the catchwords eâyw, doayu, TTpopatcc, and ITOIIIIV- Jn 11.52 may have
combined allusions to Ezek. 28.25 and 37.21-22 with the catchword
87. Sheehan sees the shepherd language as a reference to the 'appointment passages' such
as Numbers 27; Ps. 78.70-72; 1 Chron. 17.6; and Jer. 3.15; 23.1-4 (J.F. Sheehan, 'Feed my
Lambs', Scr 16 (1964), pp. 21-27). However, Jn 21.15-17 has very little verbal parallel with
any of these passages.
88. Koester suggests something similar: 'Peter's task must be understood in light of what
Jesus said earlier in the Gospel about what it means to be a shepherd... Peter, like the good
shepherd, would lay down his life.' Koester, Symbolism, pp. 16-17.
o\)vayu). This type of combination of Scriptures can be found, for example,

in CD 1.3-4, linking Lev. 26.40 and Ezek. 39.23 by the catchword 'sword';
and in Florilegium, linking Ps. 1.1, Isa. 8.11, and Ezek. 20.18 by the
catchword 'walk.'89
John's use of Ezekiel can be compared more readily to the use of Ezekiel
in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 89-90) and in Psalm of Solomon 17,
since those two works are the only Second Temple works (besides the NT)
to allude extensively to Ezekiel 34. There are a number of similarities
worth noting. First, all three authors expect a fulfillment of Ezekiel's
prophecy about 'my servant David.'90 For John, God's appointed shepherd
is Jesus; for the Animal Apocalypse, it is Judas Maccabee; for Psalm of
Solomon 17, the shepherd is yet unknown. All three authors follow Ezekiel
34 in seeing their messiah as the representative of God, who delivers his
people by God's power. In this sense, all three works interpret Ezekiel 34 in
a messianic fashion.91 Ezekiel 34 is primarily about God as shepherd of his
people, with a few verses on his representative, David; the three later works
give more attention to the messianicfigure,although they never forget that
he serves as God's representative. The fact that all three maintain the
messiah's subordination to God suggests their common reliance on the
messianic expectations found in Ezekiel (and other OT prophets), since in
other ways, the three works have rather different views of the messiah.
The three authors have a similar balance between messianic and
community-centered interpretation of Ezekiel 34. Each passage puts great
emphasis on God's appointment of and aid to the messiah; but in each, the
messianic community is also important. All three define the faithful
community in relationship to the messianic figure. In the Animal
Apocalypse, the faithful community consists of the lambs who take up
swords and fight beside Judas Maccabee; in Psalm of Solomon 17, the
faithful community consists of those who have resisted Hellenization and
kept the Law; in John, the faithful community is the trueflock,who follow,
believe, and obey Jesus. In each case, the identification of the faithful
community entails judgment on outsiders.92 For the Animal Apocalypse
89. See [2 fn 24-np, 71].

90. Hanson suggests that John's usage is more typological, since Jesus' Davidic role is not
emphasized (A.T. Hanson, 'John's Use of Scripture', in C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (eds),
The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 104; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1994), pp. 358-79 (363)). However, the fact that Ezekiel 34 contains clear prophecies makes it
unlikely that John is interpreting Ezekiel 34 typologically. John and the Animal Apocalypse
are announcing the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, while Psalm of Solomon 17 is asking God
to fulfill that prophecy.
91. Much like Hays' 'christocentric' interpretation, although of course the term is less
appropriate for 1 Enoch and Psalms of Solomon.
92. Nielsen points out that John 10 leaves the reader with only two choices: 'life within the
flock or outside it.' Nielsen, 'Old Testament Imagery in John', p. 79.
and Psalm of Solomon 17, the messianic kingdom is clearly faithful Israel.
In John, the messianic kingdom, Jesus'flock,is also faithful Israel, but in a
different way. Entry into this flock is on the basis of belief in Jesus, not on
the basis of keeping the Law or membership in ethnic Israel.
The differences between the appropriations of Ezekiel 34 in the three
works are also important. The Animal Apocalypse and Psalm of Solomon
17, in keeping with typical messianic expectations, describe their messiahs
as conquering kings who will expel the Gentiles and establish the kingdom
of Israel. The power of these messiahs comes from God, but the messianic
figures are not themselves supernatural. In John 10, the picture of the
good shepherd is different in important ways. Most obviously, John's
shepherd is one with God in a way that far surpasses anything in the
Animal Apocalypse or Psalm of Solomon 17. Even when Jesus is linked
with Ezekiel's other good shepherd, David, there is a different expectation
of what it means to be a shepherd-king. To the author of Psalm of
Solomon 17, the messiah's kingship entails not only conquest, but also
being taught by God, teaching the people, and serving as a model of
obedience to God. In John 10, Jesus' kingship is pictured as equally real,
but Jesus' role as teacher is the dominant image, and there is no sense of
conquest.
In 1 Enoch, Judas Maccabee is expected to be the last king, since the day
of judgment will come after the victory. In Psalm of Solomon 17, there is
little suggestion that the messiah will bring in the end time; rather, he is the
beginning of a new Davidic dynasty. John's pastoral imagery does not
explicitly describe thefinalage, but the connections with Ezekiel 34 make it
likely that John describes the messianic age as beginning with Jesus. The
literal day of judgment and resurrection is yet to come (John 5), but the
messianic age is inaugurated by Jesus' 'glorification.' There is no question
that Jesus is the beginning of a new dynasty; Jesus is the 'one shepherd'
who will never need to be replaced.
All three images of the shepherd-king and his flock intentionally modify
the pastoral imagery in Ezekiel 34. Each author chose to modify the image
in different ways. It is interesting that both 1 Enoch and the Psalm of
Solomon modify Ezekiel's image to increase enmity towards Gentiles, while
John modifies the image to include Gentiles. Psalm of Solomon 17 is clear
that there will be no place in Israel for Gentiles when the king comes;
Ezekiel's inclusion of Gentiles in the land distribution is vetoed. The
author of 1 Enoch's Animal Apocalypse transforms the symbolism of the
wicked shepherds from Jewish leaders to Gentile rulers, and describes the
destruction of the Gentile shepherds and predators. However, the Animal
Apocalypse keeps a place in the final age, and even in the Temple, for those
Gentiles who 'worship the first sheep,' Jacob (1 En. 90.30, 32). In John's
pastoral metaphor, Gentiles are not slaves to the flock; rather, they are
described as the 'other sheep' who are also safe in Jesus' hand, for whom
he lays down his life. Even those sheep who were not born into the original
flock receive the right to become God's sheep.
2. Vine and Branches
Jesus' parable about the vine and the branches builds on a broad OT
background. I will not attempt to prove that Ezekiel is the only
background passage, since it is clear that the Vine discourse of John 15
is composed of elements from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Material from
each of the three prophets will be examined to determine how John uses
and modifies their vine images in his description of Jesus and his followers.
a. Jesus as the True Israel (Isaiah 5.1-7; Jeremiah 2.21-221John 15.1-10)

The opening line of Jesus' Vine parable contains a clear reference to Jer.
2.21:
Jn 15.1-3 I am the true vine (rj Jer. 2.21 But I planted you a fruit-
a[iireA.o<; r\ aXr|0iv6(;), and my father is bearing vine (ct|j,TTeA,ov KapTroc|)6pov),93
the gardener... he prunes every entirely true (moav akr\Qivx\v)f4 how
branch that bears fruit (kapiTov did you turn to bitterness, an alien
cj)€pov)... vine?
The verbal parallel includes the two words qrrreA.o<;, aAr|0iv6<;, and KapTiov
(|)6pov/KccpTTO(t)6pov\ The first two words constitute a strong parallel, since
they occur in the same phrase, separated by two other adjectives in Jer.
2.21. The parallel extends to more than just the parallel words, however. In
John, God is specifically called the gardener (yeoopYoc;); in Jer. 2.21, God
clearly functions as the gardener without the title. God plants the vine, and
part of the point of the oracle (Jer. 2.1-3.4) is that Israel has rejected God
despite God's care for Israel (Jer. 2.3).
The phrase Kapuov c|)epov (Jn 15.2) parallels Kocpmxt)6pov (Jer. 2.21), but
there is a subtle modification. In Jer. 2.21, fruit-bearing is a metaphor for
Israel's earlier faithfulness and usefulness to God (cf. Jer. 2.2-3, 5), in
contrast to Israel's later apostasy. In John 15, the vine is Jesus, so there is
no thought of his apostasy. The metaphorical element of fruit-bearing is
thus transferred from the vine to the branches. There, the meaning of fruit-
bearing is essentially the same as in Jeremiah: branches that do not bear
93. The Hebrew p-iro (Soreq, a choice species of vine) is rendered here as
KapTro4)6poi> (a fruit-bearing vine); in Isa. 5.2, the same word is rendered as qj,TTeA.ov ocoprix (a
Soreq vine), transliterating the Hebrew (see below, [ch. 4 fn 97]).
94. The MT has 'a Soreq vine, an entirely faithful seed.'
fruit are apostate and worthless; branches that bear fruit are faithful and
useful.
The themes of faithfulness and usefulness are dominant themes in both
John 15 and Jeremiah 2. In Jeremiah 2, Israel is described as a devoted bride,
holy to the Lord, and as the first-fruits that are sacred to God alone (Jer. 2.2-
3). The sin of Israel is described as faithlessness: the people have gone after
other water sources (Jer. 2.13, 18), the bride has become a harlot (Jer. 2.20,
25, 32-33) and the vine has become 'alien' (Jer. 2.21).95 Jeremiah also
condemns Israel for worthlessness: 'they went far from me, and went after
worthless things, and became worthless' (Jer. 2.5). The prophets went after
'profitless things' (Jer. 2.8, cf. 2.11), the people hewed out broken cisterns
(Jer. 2.13), the grapes became bitter (Jer. 2.21 LXX). In John 15, the repeated
command to abide (Jn 15.4,5,7) communicates the necessity of faithfulness;
the fruitless branches (Jn 15.2, 5-6) warn against uselessness.
Many of these observations about Jer. 2.21 could also be made about
Isa. 5.1-7, which also provides important parallels to John 15.
Jn 15.1-3 I am the true vine (r| Isa. 5.2, 6 I built96 a fence around it,
oqiTTeAoc;), and my Father is the and I provided stakes, and I planted
gardener. He takes away every a Soreq vine (a|iTTeA.ov ocoprix)97 . . .
branch that does not bear fruit and I waited for it to bear a grape-
bunch
(KapTrov ())epov), and he prunes (iTOifiaai oiaûA.riv), but it bore
(Ka0aLp€i) every branch that bears thorns 9 8 ... I will lay it waste; it will
fruit. not be pruned (ou \ir\ T[ir\Qr\) or hoed.
The verbal parallels between Isa. 5.1-7 and Jn 15.1-10 are not very
impressive, since they consist only of synonyms (e.g., Kapirov êpov is
equivalent to mnfiocu om<b\)Xr\v). However, the passage resonates in a
number of ways with Jesus' parable of the vine. As with Jer. 2.21, God is
the gardener, although he is not given the title. In Isaiah 5, the emphasis is
placed on God's care for the vineyard and vine: he builds a fence, tower,
95. Craigie et al. see this image of worthlessness as a development from earlier positive
senses of the metaphor (as in Ps. 80.8-11), which is further developed in Ezekiel 15. P.C.
Craigie, P.H. Kelley, and J.F. Drinkard, Jr., Jeremiah 1-25 (WBC, 26; Waco, Tex.: Word
Books, 1991), p. 37.
96. MT describes God in the third person in vv. 1-2, and switches to the first person in v.
3; the LXX begins the first person description in v. 2.
97. Isa. 5.2 and Jer. 2.21 have in common their reference to the choice Soreq species of
vine (see p. 135, above), which only occurs in two other places in the OT. It is possible that
John has combined allusions to these two passages around the catchword Soreq, although
such a linkage is only visible in the MT.
98. MT has 'wild grapes.'
and wine-vat; then plants and tends the vine. He waits for grapes, but the
vine produces only thorns. As in John 15, the lack of fruit results in
judgment. In both John 15 and Isaiah 5, pruning is only for fruitful vines.
God's protection and nurture are only directed towards those who bear
fruit.
Isa. 5.1-7, like Jer. 2.21, condemns the worthlessness of Israel. What use
is a vine that doesn't produce grapes? This emphasis is more noticeable in
the Hebrew text. The vine produces DÔKS, which can be translated as
'stinking or worthless things' or 'wild grapes.'99 Isaiah's exposition of his
parable makes it clear that the expected fruit is righteousness and justice,
while the wild grapes are bloodshed and outcry (Isa. 5.7). 10° This bears
some resemblance to the fruit in John 15, which represents the proof of
discipleship: answered prayer, keeping Jesus' commandments, and love for
God and one another. While the fruit does not have exactly the same
meaning in Isaiah 5 and John 15, both use fruit to describe positive moral
qualities expected in God's people.
The most important modification that John makes to the images from
Isaiah and Jeremiah is to the identity of the vine. In both OT passages, the
vine is Israel; while in John 15, the vine is Jesus.101 Perhaps John's transfer
of identity resulted from messianically oriented meditation on Isa. 5.7, 'For
the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts is the House of Israel, and the man of
Judah is his beloved seedling.' Both the LXX and the MT have the singular
'man of Judah,' which could have been interpreted as a reference to the
messiah (although it was not so interpreted in the Targum). Psalm 80
might have provided a connection that allowed the vine to symbolize both
the messiah and Israel:
'O Lord of Hosts, turn, we pray; look from heaven and behold; visit this
vine and mend it, [this vine] that your right hand planted, and on the son
of man, whom you strengthened for yourself.' (Ps. 79.15-16 LXX).
John and other early Christians could easily interpret the LXX reference to
the 'son of man' as a messianic reference. The combination of this
messianic reference with a description of Israel as the vine makes it an
99. BDB, s.v. D"Wn. The word is a hapax and is rendered variously by various ancient
translations and modern scholars (see J.D.W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33 (WBC, 24; Waco, Tex.:
Word Books, 1985), p. 55). The LXX translator rendered it as CLKOLVQOL (thorns), perhaps
confusing it with the nearby TO© (thorns, Isa. 5.6).
100. Isaiah uses a nice play on words: God expected ttsroo, but there was only nsED; he
expected npiz, but there was only npi7S.
101. Kee, focusing on the 'Branch' of Isa. 4.2; 11.1, sees the problem a little differently:
'Instead of picturing the community as the vine and the Messiah as the Branch, John identifies
Jesus as the vine and his people as the branches...' H.C. Kee, 'Messiah and the People of
God', in J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad, and B.C. Ollenburger (eds), Understanding the Word
(Festschrift B.W. Anderson; JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 341-58 (355).
13 8 Echoes of a Prophet
attractive background passage for John 15. However, Psalm 79 LXX has
relatively few words in common with John 15, and the two passages have
rather different points. Psalm 79 is an appeal for God to deliver his vine,
Israel, from its enemies; John 15 calls for God's people to be faithful to
Jesus and thus useful to God.
However the transfer of meaning in the vine metaphor was justified,
John's allusions to the vine imagery in Isaiah and Jeremiah suggest that
Jesus is faithful Israel. Israel had been the 'true vine' (Jer. 2.21), but was now
useless and faithless. Jesus remained faithful, and thus God would now
prune and tend Jesus and his branches instead of Israel. For the disciples,
this meant that their hope of usefulness to the farmer lay in remaining
connected to the faithful vine. By implication, all other vines were false and
were destined for destruction. Although the passage never states it clearly,
there is a suggestion that the nation of Israel was such a false vine.
To put it another way, the individual's relationship with God had always
been mediated through Israel. Individual fate was tied to the collective fate
of Israel. Now Jesus calls his followers to mediate their relationship to God
through himself. Their fate would no longer be dependent on Israel's
faithfulness and usefulness; it would now be firmly fixed on Jesus.
Furthermore, the individual's usefulness would now be assured by his
dependence on the faithful vine, Jesus. This is not to suggest that John's
vine metaphor invites a radical shift to individualism, since abiding in the
vine ties each believer to the vine community. However, John invites
individuals to transfer their loyalty from Israel to Jesus, the true vine.
b. Judgment and Blessing: The Vine in John and Ezekiel

Ezekiel's vine parables are more developed than those in Jeremiah or
Isaiah, perhaps because those works influenced Ezekiel. Ezekiel's vine
parables have some of the same themes: failed expectations, worthlessness,
and judgment. Before analyzing John's use of Ezekiel's vine parables, I will
briefly describe the three uses of vine imagery in Ezekiel.
In Ezek. 15.1-8, Jerusalem is described as a bundle of vine prunings that
have already been burned at the edges. The status of the vine wood as
pruned branches is only implied in the MT, but is made explicit in Ezek.
15.4 LXX ('at the annual pruning'). Ezekiel rhetorically asks about the
usefulness of vine wood, especially half-burned vine wood. Clearly, the
wood itself is useless except for firewood. The initial burning likely refers
to the fires started during the sack of Jerusalem in 597 BC; the final
burning refers to the destruction of the city in 587 BC (Ezek. 15.7).102 The
102. Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 221. However, Eichrodt sees the burning of the two ends of
the vine as referring to the conquests of Israel by Sargon, and Judah by Nebuchadnezzar; the
unburned portion referred to Jerusalem. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 194.
point of Ezekiel's parable is that Jerusalem's only value is to feed the fire.
Thus, the coming destruction of Jerusalem is only what is expected, since
its residents 'have acted faithlessly' (MT, bvn ibya) or 'fell away in
transgression' (LXX, TrapeireoovTOpa-rrcoSiiaTi,Ezek. 15.8).
Ezek. 17.1-10 contains an extensive parable about Israel's rebellion
against Babylon, explained in Ezek. 17.11-21. The royal house is
described as a vine, removed from a cedar in Israel and transplanted to
Babylon, and tended by an eagle, the king of Babylon. The vine had the
opportunity to grow strong in its new field, but instead it turned its loyalty
to another eagle, Egypt. In consequence, the vine is torn up, its fruit rots
(LXX) and its branches wither. The punishment against king Zedekiah
will come, says Ezekiel, because Zedekiah swore in the name of the Lord
to serve Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek. 17.19), but now seeks to ally with Egypt
(Ezek. 17.13-19). The vine, the royal house, will be destroyed in
consequence.
Ezekiel 19 tells the same story in hindsight. Two laments are given for
the fallen royal family. The first describes the royal family as a pride of
lions, now captured and lying in a pit in Babylon. The second lament
describes the royal family as a vine with strong branches. The vine itself is
the royal mother (Ezek. 19.1, 10), either literally referring to Josiah's wife,
Hamutal, or metaphorically referring to David's line. The strong branches
are the princes of the house. Ezekiel laments the current state of the vine:
torn up, cast down, withered, stripped of fruit and branches, and
paradoxically transplanted in the wilderness (Ezek. 19.12-13). Although
most of the destruction came from outsiders, the fire came from the 'strong
branch,' signifying that the blame lay at Zedekiah's feet. The destruction is
so total that Ezekiel sees no hope of another king arising from the royal
family (Ezek. 19.14).
In a few important ways, John 15 parallels Ezekiel's vine parables more
than it follows other OT vine metaphors.103 This can be seen first by the
amount of shared vocabulary between John 15 and Ezekiel's vine parables,
especially in contrast with Isaiah 5 and Jeremiah 2. The chart below shows
the common words and phrases in John 15 and five OT vine metaphors,
and gives the meaning of each metaphorical element.
103. Scott sees the Ezekiel passages as the prime background for John 15, although 'even
Ezekiel does not really match the imagery employed in John 15, where the main thrust is the
description of the relationship between the vine and the branches.' M. Scott, Sophia and the
Johannine Jesus (JSNTSup, 71; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), p. 29.
OT Verbal Parallels to Vine Imagery in John 151
John 15 Ezekiel 15 Ezekiel 17 Ezekiel 19 Isa. 5.1-7 Jer. 2.21-22
Jesus Jerusalem Royal house Royal Israel Israel

house
Disciples or Uselessness upoavaTeAAovTa Rulers

apostates Blessing, rulers
TToietv oxafyvXr) KapiTO(j)6po<;

Blessing, Blessing Blessing Justice, Blessing,
discipleship righteousness purity
KaGodpo), KaQapoic, T6(iva) p r u n e ,

KaGapog (annual) tend cleanse
cleansing/ pruning
pruning
TO KA,f||ia... TTUp,
KCCTeoGLG), upoavaTeAAovTa T] pdp6og; nup,
TTUp, I Judgment on KaTeaGtco,
Judgment Judgment royal house
on fruitless on Judgment on
branches Jerusalem royal house
The amount of verbal parallel makes it clear that Ezekiel's vine parables
are the dominant background to John's vine parable. Overall, Ezekiel's
vine parables have 8 words (qiTTeA-og, K ^ a , (jxEpco, KapTOc, KaGaLpco/KaGapog/
KaGapoic, £npoavG), TTUp, Kmco/KaTeaOLGo) and two phrases (tyepeiv KapiTOv, TO
Kkf\\ia... e^Tipav9r|/€?r|pav0r| r\ pap&o<;) in common with John 15. This is
significantly more than the wording shared between John 15 and any other
OT passage. Even when only one of Ezekiel's vine parables is compared to
John 15, the parallels are greater than with any other OT passage. Isa. 5.1-
7, for example, has only one word and two synonyms in common with
John 15; whereas Ezekiel 17 has three words, one synonym, and one phrase
104. Several of the connections between John 15, Ezekiel 15, 17, 19, and Jeremiah 2 are
commented on in Evans, Word and Glory, p. 39. Evans also suggests Hos. 10.1, Kaia TO TT^GOC;
x<bv Kapuwv ai)Toi> (according to the abundance of his fruit) as an important background for the
phrase Kccp-rov TioXvvlvXdova (much/more fruit) in Jn 15.1, 5 (see also Morris, John, p. 593).
However, the use is rather different in the two passages. The fruit in Hos. 10.1 is condemning
evidence against Israel, whereas fruit is positive proof of discipleship in John 15.
in common with John 15.105 Ezekiel and John also share some rare words
in common. Ezekiel 15 and John 15 are the only two passages in either
testament to use cognates of KaGocipG) to refer to pruning. Ezekiel is the only
book in the LXX that regularly uses Kkxpa for 'branch'; John 15 is the only
passage in the NT to use the word at all. John's use of the word suggests
his intention to recall Ezekiel's vine parables.106
Ezekiel's vine parables, like John's and unlike any other OT vine images,
distinguish between vine and branches. In Ezekiel 17 and 19, the branches
are individuals and the vine is the royal house of Israel. The branches of
Ezek. 17.6-7 are interpreted in Ezek. 17.13-15 as the 'chief men'
(r)YOD|ievoi) and the 'emissaries' (dyYôi) to Egypt.107 In Ezek. 19.10-14,
the vine is the royal house, the 'strong branches' are the princes of the
royal house, and the singular 'branch' is Zedekiah. Other OT vine images
either do not describe branches, or use them to symbolize blessing on the
vine.
One of the most important parallels between John 15 and Ezekiel is the
use of KaGcupG) and its cognates (ica0apo<;, KaGapaiq) to refer to pruning.
Everywhere else in the NT and LXX, these words refer to purity and
purification; only in Ezekiel 15 (LXX) and John 15 are they used to refer to
pruning. Ezek. 15.4 describes the uselessness of vine wood; the LXX
clarifies this by describing the uselessness of vine branches that have been
pruned xv\v KCCI' evioarrov KaGapaiv air' OCUTTIQ ('at the annual pruning from it
[the vine]'). In Jn 15.2-3, God prunes (Koceoapei) the fruitful branches, thus
making them pure (KaGapog).
John 15 describes judgment on the vine in terms similar to all three of
Ezekiel's vine metaphors. In Jn 15.6, the fruitless branches wither
grpaiveiv) and are burned (Koaeiv) in the fire (nup). In Ezek. 15.4, the
pruned branches serve only as fuel for the fire (TTUP); in Ezek. 17.9-10, the
vine's shoots (with rotten fruit) wither (£r|paiveiv); in Ezek. 19.12-14 the
branches and the 'strong branch' wither ($r|pocu>€iv), and the fire (irup)
consumes them (KcaeoGieiv, avodiGKeiv). John's choice of wording for
burning updates septuagintal language; fire in the LXX typically
'consumes' (KaieoGieiv, avodioKeiv) whereas in the NT, fire always 'burns'
or 'burns up' (KOCL€IV, Koaaicaieu/).108
105. Contra Nielsen, 'Old Testament Imagery in John', pp. 72-73. There is a strong
conceptual connection between Isa. 5.1-7 and John 15, but the stronger verbal parallel shifts
the evidence towards Ezekiel as the dominant background.
106. KACCSOC; is the most common word for 'branch' in both testaments.
107. However, Zimmerli sees the branches as representing the attitude of King Zedekiah,
first towards Babylon and then towards Egypt. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, pp. 362, 364.
108. On two occasions, the book of Hebrews follows the LXX pattern, but one is a
quotation of the LXX (Heb. 10.27), and the other is an allusion (Heb. 12.29).
John 15 also shares broad themes with Ezekiel's vine images. John's
judgment on the fruitless branches has strong verbal parallels with the
judgment on Jerusalem in Ezekiel 15, and the themes of the two images
resonate as well. The main point of Ezekiel 15 is that the faithlessness of
Jerusalem (Ezek. 15.8) has resulted in worthlessness and therefore
judgment (Ezek. 15.4-6). In John 15, the judged branches fail to abide
in Jesus (faithlessness) and thus produce no fruit (worthlessness) and are
judged.109
Similar images of judgment are found in Ezekiel 17 and 19. The king has
forsaken his covenant with God and the king of Babylon, and has placed
his trust in Egypt. Instead of staying in his appointed place, the king
rebelled and sought a different farmer (Ezek. 17.7-8, 15). In consequence,
the vine was uprooted and the strong branch vine withered and burned
(Ezek. 19.12, 14). In John 15, the branches, Jesus' disciples, must remain
where God has placed them. If they do not remain attached to Jesus, but
seek prosperity elsewhere, they will be cut off, allowed to wither, and
burned (Jn 15.2, 6). In Ezekiel, the allegiance is directed towards God and
Nebuchadnezzar; in John 15, the allegiance is directed towards Jesus,
God's representative.
In Ezekiel, the three vine metaphors announce judgment against
Jerusalem and its leaders. This is perhaps one reason for John's
appropriation of Ezekiel's vine metaphors. Conflict with Jerusalem and
its rulers is one of the driving themes of John, as was already seen in
examining the shepherd discourse. In a few places, the Farewell discourses
keep the Jerusalem opposition in the background (e.g., Jn 15.21-25).
Judas, a fruitless vine, has just left to betray Jesus to the chief priests (Jn
13.21-30). Judas is an example of one who places his trust in a false vine,
the Jerusalem council. Jesus' parable of the true vine explains the betrayal
of Judas, and exhorts the disciples to trust only Jesus. The covenant faith
once mediated through Israel would now be mediated through Jesus, the
faithful vine.
c. The Messianic Vine

Jesus' description of himself as the 'true vine' can be explained as his
appropriation of the privilege and status of Israel to himself. Jesus was
Israel as Israel ought to have been: a choice vine, producing fruit consistent
with his identity. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel describe Israel as a vine
that had failed to produce grapes, a nation that had been unfaithful to
God. John describes Jesus as the 'true vine' who remains faithful to the
109. Morris points out the shared emphasis on usefulness: fruit 'is the only reason for
growing a vine; as Ezekiel pointed out long before, a vine does not yield timber (Ezek. 15).'
Morris, John, p. 594.
Father and produces fruit through his disciples. However, the vine image
also contains the potential for messianic interpretation.
We have already seen that Ezekiel 17 provides important background
for John 15. In Ezekiel 17, the royal house is depicted as a vine
transplanted from a cedar in Israel to Babylon. Instead of growing there,
the vine faithlessly seeks to be transplanted to Egypt, and the vine is
destroyed. The line of David has apparently failed, and there seems little
hope that it will be restored. But the allegory does not end there. God
himself promises to take a new cutting from the tall cedar, and he himself
will plant it in Israel. It will become not a vine, but another mighty cedar
that dominates the world.
There is some verbal parallel between John 15 and the messianic cedar in
Ezek. 17.22-24.
Jn 15.1-3 I am the true vine and my Ezek. 17.23 On a high mountain of

father is the gardener... and every Israel I will plant it, and it will bring
branch (KAf||ia) bearing fruit (KapTTOv forth shoots (PAXXOTOV) and bear fruit
4)epov), he prunes. (TTOLT|0€L Kapuov) and become a
noble cedar... its branches (toe
will be restored.110
Jn 15.1-3 and Ezek. 17.23 thus have in common one word (Kkfpa) and one
parallel phrase (KapiTOv 4)€pov/m)ir|aei Kapirov)111. Although Ezek. 17.22-24
is primarily about a cedar rather than a vine, the vine image is in the
immediate background (Ezek. 17.1-10), and the translator's use of pAxxotog
to describe the shoots recalls more the shoots of a vine than of a cedar.112
The parallel is strengthened by the fact that the elements of the two
metaphors have similar meanings. In both images, God is the farmer who
tends his plant and ensures that it will bear fruit. Ezekiel's cedar is a king
from the royal line, tended by God, while John's vine is Jesus the Messiah,
also tended by God.
Ezek. 17.22-24 was the subject of some messianic speculation in the
Second Temple era. The LXX subtly increases the messianic emphasis of
the passage by its use of masculine pronouns for the cedar. The Hebrew text
110. The MT has n»ton (they [the birds] will live); possibly the LXX translator read it as
(they will return/be restored). Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 253.
111. The modification of the phrase for 'bearing fruit' is typical of Johannine style. The
L X X uses KapTTOv iToielv, KapiTov (j)epeiv or KOCPTTOV 8i8ovoa, as d o other N T writers, b u t J o h n
only uses Kapirov cf)€peiv (Jn 12.24; 15.2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 16). Ezek. 17.8 also uses KapiTov cêpetv.
112. pAxxotoc is normally used to describe the shoots of a vine or other small plant, as in
Ezek. 17.8; 19.10 (cf. Gen. 40.10; Num. 17.10; Sir. 50.8; see also BDAG, s.v. pAaoiog, p. 177).
Here, pXotoioc; translates ^tt, which is variously translated elsewhere as K^fpa (Mai. 3.10),
or
naturally uses masculine pronouns and adjectives to refer to the cedar, since
HK (cedar) is masculine. However, the Greek K€Spoc; is feminine. The LXX
appropriately uses a feminine adjective (\xeyaXvi) to modify the cedar, but
then uses masculine pronouns to personify the cedar. 1 will plant... and I
will hang him (ctkov)... every beast will rest under him (akoO), and every
bird will rest under his (auuou) shade... his (OCUTOO) branches will be
restored' (Ezek. 17.22-23). The last three pronouns could be masculine or
neuter, but neuter would be even less likely than masculine. There is no
neuter antecedent, and the first pronoun is clearly masculine. The translator
consistently uses feminine pronouns, participles, and adjectives to refer to
the vine (r| cqnreAxx;) in Ezek. 17.6-10, so the alteration to masculine here
seems to intentionally refer to the person represented by the cedar.113
The Targum to Ezekiel also treats the cedar as a king from the line of
David, although it does not use the word 'Messiah.'
'I Myself will bring near a child from the kingdom of the house of David
which is likened to the lofty cedar, and I will establish him from among
his children's children; I will anoint and establish him by my Memra on
a high and exalted mountain. On the holy mountain of Israel will I
establish him, and he shall gather together armies and build fortresses
and become a mighty king; and all his righteous shall rely upon him, and
all the humble shall dwell in the shade of his kingdom.' (Targ. Ezek.
17.22-23)
Levey contends that the lack of 'Messiah' in this passage (and throughout
the Targum to Ezekiel) makes the Ezekiel Targum non-messianic in
contrast to other targumim.114 He suggests that this Targum was written
during the time of Johanan ben Zakkai, when explicit messianic teaching
could incur the Roman death penalty.115 However, despite the lack of the
word 'messiah,' the Targum preserves a messianic interpretation by the use
of targumic messianic language such as 'house of David.'116
113. Levey claims that only the Vulgate gives a messianic translation of this passage; but
the Vulgate uses neuter pronouns to refer to the cedar, and makes no other significant
modification to the text. S.H. Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel (Aramaic Bible, 13; Wilmington,
Del.: Michael Glazier, 1987), p. 57. Hos. 10.1 LXX does something similar with pronoun use:
'Israel (masc.) was a luxuriant vine (fern.), its (fern.) fruit was prospering; according to the
abundance of his (masc.) fruit he multiplied altars.'
114. S.H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the
Targum (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974), pp. 78-80, 85; Levey, The Targum of
Ezekiel p. 57.
115. Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel, p. 5.
116. It is possible that another element in the LXX may have been interpreted
messianically by early Christians. The LXX translates bubm nnrin (on a high and lofty
mountain) as €TT' opog ui|/r|A.6v, Kod Kpe(iaaa) aurov (on a high mountain, and I will hang him).
The rare word Slbn (lofty) was misread, by the translator or by an earlier scribe (note the use
It is clear that Ezek. 17.22-24 referred to a messianic figure (a coming

Davidic king) when it was written, and was so interpreted by some authors
of the Second Temple era. The messianic conclusion to Ezekiel's vine
parable may have provided the primary motivation for John to apply the
image to Jesus. If so, then part of the implication of Jesus as the 'true vine'
is that he is faithful to God, unlike the unfaithful vine, Zedekiah. Like
other unfaithful kings, Zedekiah broke his oath and his covenant with God
(Ezek. 17.13-19). In contrast, Jesus will be completely faithful to his father.
There may be a hint of polemic against the current faithless rulers of Israel
here as well.
d. The People of God

The shepherd discourse was primarily a messianic claim for Jesus, with the
sheep as literary foils for the good and bad shepherds. The Vine parable
makes some claims about the identity of Jesus, but is primarily about the
branches, the people of God.
The parables of the vine and the shepherd make many of the same
christological and ecclesiological claims. In both cases, Jesus transfers
authority and privilege from Israel or its rulers to himself. The sheep must
follow the good shepherd instead of the bad; the branches must cling to the
true vine instead of the false. John 15, like John 10, redefines God's people.
God's people always enjoy his tending and produce fruit for his benefit.
Before, that opportunity came through being a faithful part of the vine of
Israel. Now, God's tending, and the resulting fruitfulness, would only
come through the faithful vine Jesus. God's people are now those who
'abide in' Jesus, hear his words, obey his commands, and thus produce
fruit.
of rbn in Pseudo-Ezekiel's allusion to this passage; see p. 72) as the verb rbr\ (to hang), and
thus translated it with the Greek verb Kp6(iaoo). The Greek verb group Kpeâvvuiii (including
eiTLKp€(iavvi)(iL, Kpe|iaCa), and Kp€|iaco) means 'to hang,' and can refer to the hanging of anything.
However, whenever the object is a person, Kpe|iavvi>|j,i invariably refers to execution or the
public display of executed corpses. The Kpe|iavvi>j!i group is used with a personal object to
signify execution or display of corpse seventeen times in the LXX, always translating nbn, and
four times in the NT. rbn is also translated once with aiaupow and once with UJTTHII. It is
unlikely that the LXX translator had this meaning in mind; either he was literally translating a
phrase that made no sense to him, or he was using Kpe[iavvu|ii in some agricultural sense that is
otherwise unattested in Classical or Hellenistic Greek. However, a survey of patristic
references to Ezekiel 17 reveals that none commented on the unusual wording in Ezek. 17.22.
Little more can be said of this unusual phrase in Ezekiel 17 except that one can easily imagine
that early Christian readers of the LXX could have seen it as a prophecy about the crucifixion
of the messiah.
The True Vine parable of John 15 is thus both christocentric and

ecclesiocentric.117 Agricultural images from the OT are used to describe
both the Messiah and his community. In comparison with John 10, John
15 is less christocentric in its use of OT imagery. John 15 makes only two
observations about Jesus: he is the true vine, and he mediates life to the
branches. The rest of the vine parable describes God's people. In John 10,
most of the OT language is used to defend Jesus' legitimacy, although there
are also a number of observations about God's people. The different
emphases are appropriate to the two contexts: John 10 defends Jesus'
legitimacy over against the legitimacy of the Pharisees and priests; while
John 15 is part of the Farewell Discourses, which are primarily concerned
with the post-glorification relationship between Jesus and his disciples.
Comparison to Second Temple Literature. The only Second Temple works

to significantly allude to Ezekiel's vine metaphors are Hodayot 14 and
16.118 Hodayot 14 and 16, like John 15, combine agricultural imagery from
a variety of OT passages.119 John 15 draws on the generic OT symbol of the
vine, but alludes primarily to the words and ideas in the vine images of
Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah. It seems likely that these passages were
combined because they all describe judgment on Israel or its rulers using
vineyard or vine metaphors. The passages also share the themes of failed
expectation, faithlessness, and uselessness, and common words (or
synonyms) related to fruit-bearing, pruning, and withering. John's vine
parable uses the judgment language of its OT sources to warn against
faithlessness and uselessness to Jesus; but John's focus is more on the
positive aspects of Jesus as the faithful vine and his followers as fruitful
branches.
The two 'agricultural' Hodayot do something similar in combining
plant-related metaphors from the OT to create a new image. In the
Hodayot, the metaphors are more expansive and draw on more of the OT.
In Hodayot 16, for example, there are allusions to almost every agricultural
metaphor in the OT. When the Hodayot allude to Ezekiel, they are more
likely to draw on the image of the cedar from Ezekiel 31, but occasionally
phrases from Ezekiel 15, 17, 21, and 47 can be found. Perhaps because the
Hodayot allude to so many agricultural metaphors in the OT, no single
pattern of appropriation can be discerned. As we saw in Chapter 2, the
Hodayot sometimes reverse the original usage of a particular metaphor.
117. Kee describes it thus: 'These related symbols [vine and branch] announce both the
launching of the Messiah's work and the results of his transforming activity in behalf of God's
people.' Kee, 'Messiah and the People of God', p. 355.
118. See Chapter 2, pp. 52-58.
119. Sir. 24.12-22 (not analyzed in this work because it makes no allusions to Ezekiel) also
alludes to a variety of OT agricultural images to create an ode to Wisdom.
For example, Hodayot 10 uses phrases from Ezekiel 31, an oracle of woe
against Egypt, to describe blessing on the Community (see pp. 54-55).
John 15 and the Hodayot both appropriate OT agricultural imagery
(including imagery from Ezekiel) to describe their communities. In both
cases, this appropriation entails a replacement: the privileges and blessings
once bestowed on Israel are now bestowed on the new community. John
makes this replacement by describing Jesus as the 'true vine' with an
implied contrast to the faithless vine, Israel. Membership in this new
community is dependent on 'abiding' in the vine, the Messiah. Only by
remaining faithful to the true vine, Jesus, can anyone experience the
pruning of the Father and the joy of bearing fruit to God's glory. The
Hodayot makes a more explicit contrast between true trees and false trees.
The Community is the plantation of trees with roots reaching to the 'rivers
of Eden,' the 'living waters' (1QH 14.16, 16.7). The rest of Israel are other
trees that appear healthy but have not tapped into the living water (1QH
16.9-10). Those trees will experience judgment (1QH 16.19), while the true
plantation will grow up to cover the world (1QH 14.15-16).
Both John 15 and Hodayot 16 use their agricultural metaphors to warn
their respective communities about the dangers of apostasy. The burned
branches of John 15 are those who have not remained in Jesus and his
teachings; the fruitful branches are those who cling to Jesus and thus
experience the pruning of the Father and greater fruit. Hodayot 16 warns
that the Community is like a plantation that willflourishunder the Teacher's
hand, but will become barren without him (1QH 16.22-26). As part of their
warning, both Jn 15.6 and 1QH 16.20 allude to the judgment of withering
(wzr/SripcavG)) and fire (raK/irOp) found in Ezek. 19.12.120 In John 15, the
withered and burned branch is contrasted with the fruitful branch to
illustrate the consequences of faithfulness to or apostasy from Jesus.
Unfortunately, 1QH 16.20 is imperfectly preserved, but it apparently
contrasts the burned, withered tree with the fruit-bearing tree to illustrate
the consequences of accepting or refusing the message from the Teacher.
Both John 15 and Hodayot 16 have a 'messianic' element, although the
differences are important. In John 15, Jesus is the authoritative mediator
between the Father and his people; the Father will tend only branches that
remain on the vine. This fits well into the Fourth Gospel's messianic claims
for Jesus. It is also possible, as argued above, that the allusions to Ezekiel
17 are designed to associate Jesus with the house of David while
contrasting him with the failed leadership of Israel (see pp. 143^5). The
author of the Hodayot makes no messianic claims for himself,121 but
120. See p. 56.

121. Some of the references in the Hodayot to 'branch' or 'branches' may be subtle
messianic references. 1QH 16.22 expresses the hope 'that their boughs may become a beautiful
presents himself as the authoritative mediator of God's teaching and the

source of life for the Community. He claims to have received 'discernment
into your truth' and the 'mysteries of your wonder' (1QH 15.26-27). The
author is claiming to be at least a prophet extraordinaire: 'But you, o my
God, have placed your words in my mouth, as showers of early rain, for all
who thirst and as a spring of living waters' (1QH 16.16). The community
stands or falls by the mediation of the author of the Hodayot (1QH 16.21-
26).
Thus both John 15 and Hodayot 14, 16 use agricultural imagery from the
OT to define their communities and their leaders. There is a hint of
replacement in both works: Jesus replaces Israel in John, and the
Community replaces Israel in the Hodayot. Or, to put it another way,
membership in the people of God is now mediated through a single leader
for both John and the Hodayot. Both Jesus and the Righteous Teacher
claim to be the exclusive means of access to God, although in a slightly
different manner. Jesus uses vine imagery to describe himself as the true
Israel, and hints that he is the replacement for the royal house of Israel.
The Righteous Teacher does not claim Israel's status for himself, but
rather for the Community. His claim is no less exalted for that difference:
the author of Hodayot claims that God has transferred some of his own
roles to the Righteous Teacher. The Righteous Teacher, authorized by
God, is now the source of living waters (1QH 16.16) and the farmer for the
plantation (1QH 16.21-23). Both of these roles were assigned to God in the
passages to which Hodayot alludes (Jer. 2.13, 21; Isa. 5.1-7).
I suggested above (p. 58) that the various allusions in Hodayot 14 and 16
hint at various ways of interpreting OT passages. Thus, the Hodayot see
some agricultural metaphors as prophecies now being fulfilled, others as
models of things yet to come, and others as warnings to pursue correct
teaching at Qumran. John 15 likewise hints at various modes of reading the
OT. The topic of John 15 is primarily sapiential in that it gives guidelines
for present life in association with Jesus; however, the reference to the 'true
vine' suggests either that Jesus is the antitype of ideal Israel (the intended
vines of Jeremiah 2 and Isaiah 5), or that he is the fulfillment of messianic
expectations (Ezek. 17.22-24). The fact that all three of these methods can
be suggested for John 15 may also suggest that such a distinction is not
useful in this context. In other passages, such as John 10, there is a clear
suggestion that Jesus is the fulfillment of an OT promise. However, in John
15, the distinction between prophecy, typology, and wisdom is less clear.
branch of glory' (cf. Isa. 4.2). It is not clear if the use of the term in the Hodayot is a hope of
generic blessing on the Community or an expectation that the Messiah will arise from the
Community.
3. Summary
John's two clearest allusions to Ezekiel are found in the Shepherd and Vine
discourses. Both of these passages use catchwords to combine allusions to
several OT passages, but in both cases, particular images from Ezekiel are
important. The Shepherd discourse uses allusions to Ezekiel to describe
Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, God's faithful representative, united in
purpose and function with God. The allusions to Ezekiel in the Vine
discourse are designed to contrast Jesus with faithless Israel, Jerusalem, and
its leaders. In both cases, the metaphors assigned to Jesus suggest a
redefinition of God's people. In Ezekiel and the other OT passages to which
John alludes, Israel was God's people, God's sheep, God's vine. John draws
new borders around God's people with his Vine and Sheep discourses. God's
people are those who follow Jesus and his teachings, who believe in him.
God's promises for security and life are now mediated through Jesus: God
will hold Jesus' sheep, and he will tend the branches that are in Jesus.
Some authors of Second Temple Judaism allude to the same passages in
Ezekiel, sometimes for similar reasons. The Animal Apocalypse and Psalm
of Solomon 17, like John 10, use Ezekiel's shepherd to describe messianic
hopes, although those hopes were different in some important ways from
John's messianic claims. The Animal Apocalypse and Psalm of Solomon 17
each use imagery from Ezekiel to aid in describing a conquering messiah.
All three works describe a community of 'true believers' who are faithful to
the messiah: the Maccabean supporters in the Animal Apocalypse, the
faithful resisters of Hellenization in Psalm of Solomon 17, and Jesus'
followers in John 15.
The Hodayot are not explicitly messianic, but use allusions to Ezekiel's
vine and cedar to describe the faithfulness of their own community in
contrast to the rest of Israel. Much like John 15, the Hodayot describe their
community as the true plantation, which alone is tended by God. John 15
and Hodayot 16 both use agricultural imagery from Ezekiel as part of
exclusive claims for their leaders. Each author describes his leader as God's
sole representative and prophet.
The tendency to combine allusions, by the use of catchwords, into new
metaphors was apparently common in literature of the Second Temple
period. John 10 combines allusions to material from Numbers 27 and
Ezekiel 34 around the common image of the shepherd and common words
such as €?dtYW, eloayo), TTpopaia, and TTOi|ir|v. John 15 combines allusions to
Isaiah 5, Jeremiah 2, and Ezekiel 15, 17, 19 around the common image of
the vine and catchwords related to bearing fruit, pruning, and withering.
This is typical also of Hodayot 14 and 16, which combine allusions to
agricultural images in the OT. Psalm of Solomon 17 alludes to shepherd
images in Ezekiel 34 and Micah 5; and the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch
combines allusions to Ezekiel 34 and Zechariah 10, 11.
Chapter 5
ALLUSIONS TO EZEKIEL IN JOHN: MINOR ALLUSIONS
Chapter 4 dealt with the two clearest and most extensive of John's
allusions to Ezekiel. This chapter will address a number of shorter
allusions, most of which are less clear than the allusions found in the
Shepherd and Vine discourses. These secondary allusions include
references to the 'opened heavens' of Ezek. 1.1, the 'dry bones' of Ezekiel
37, and the water symbolism of Ezekiel 36 and 47. Some other scholars
have also suggested Ezekiel 40-46 as the background for the theme of the
'new temple' in John. 1 Although John certainly presents Jesus as the new
temple at times, it is difficult to establish verbal parallel to any passage in
Ezekiel. Thus, this study will only analyze John's image of the new temple
as it intersects with the other topics in this chapter.
1. The Opened Heavens (Ezekiel 1.1; Genesis 28.12; John 1.51)

John's first allusion to Ezekiel occurs at the end of Jesus' conversation with
Nathanael and the other early disciples. As with many other allusions, this
one combines references to two OT passages.
Jn 1.51 'Truly, truly I say to you, Ezek. 1.1 And the heavens were
you will see heaven opened (ptyeoQt opened and I saw visions of God
TOV oupocvov dvetpyora) (iced r)voix0r)oav ol oupavoi, KCA €i6ov
opaoeic, 0€oO).
1. Fowler in particular sees John's 'new temple' imagery (Jn 1.14; 2.17-21; 4.21-24; 7.37-
39) as being a 'primary point of contact' between Ezekiel and John. Furthermore, he suggests
that Jesus' relationship to the Temple in John 7-9 is strongly reminiscent of God's
relationship to the Temple in Ezekiel 6-10 (Fowler, 'Influence', pp. 128-44). However, the
parallels he lists are broadly thematic, not verbal. Other scholars see a more general
connection between the eschatological expectations for a new Temple in John and Ezekiel.
Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 123; Evans, Word and Glory, p. 132; C.R. Koester, The Dwelling of
God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament, Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New
Testament (CBQMS, 22; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989), pp. 222-24;
Schnackenburg, John, vol. 1, p. 350, fn 29.
5. Allusions to Ezekiel in John: Minor Allusions 151
Gen. 28.12 Behold, a ladder fixed

on earth, whose top was reaching
into heaven (Îc; xbv oupavov),
and the angels of God ascending and the angels of God were
and descending on the Son of Man ascending and descending on it
(Kal xoix; ayYôix; xou GeoO (Kal ol ay ye Am TOLI Geou
avapaivovtac; Kal Kaiapaivovrac; e m hvkfyoiivov Kal Kaiepaivov €TT'
xbv uiov TOO av9pc5iTou).' aircf|<;).2
Jesus utters this saying in response to Nathanael's amazed belief in Jesus.

Jesus' promise to the disciples combines elements from the theophanic
visions of Jacob and Ezekiel.
The allusion to Ezekiel can be reasonably established despite its brevity.
It consists of three words (opaco, oupavog, avoiya)) in very similar phrases.
Other passages in the OT speak about opened heavens, but only in Ezekiel
is that image used to introduce revelation from God. Other passages
describe the opening of the floodgates (KatappaKTai/miK), not the heavens,
to pour out God's wrath (Gen. 7.11; 8.2; Isa. 24.18; similarly Isa. 63.19
LXX).3 The variation between the singular and plural of oupavoc; is not
significant, since some LXX translators as well as most NT authors
alternate between the two.4 John uses the singular here because, unlike
other NT authors, he always uses the singular of oi)pavo<;.5
2. The Q account of Jesus' baptism preserves an allusion to the same passage in Ezekiel:
'the heavens were opened {v\v^xQrpav... OL oupavoi) to him, and he saw (ddev) the Spirit
descending (Kaiapofivov) like a dove and coming upon him (en' auxov)' (Mt. 3.16//Lk. 3.21-22).
The parallel baptism account in Mk 1.10 uses OXLCCO instead of dvoiyo). Luke also records a
saying by Stephen that is remarkably like John's version, 'Behold, I see the heavens opened
and the Son of Man (Gecopco toix; oupavoix; 6ir|voiYM<evoD<; Kal xbv ulov IOU dvGpcotTOu) standing at
the right hand of God' (Acts 7.56).
3. In a few cases, these gates open to pour out God's blessing (Mai. 3.10; Ps. 78.23; T. Jud.
24.1). This use of the floodgates seems designed to show God pouring out blessing in as much
abundance as the waters of the Great Flood.
4. The two translations likely reflect the dual form in Hebrew, irntD. The LXX uses the
plural for 9% of the occurrences of oupavo;, while the NT uses the plural for 33% of the
occurrences. Ezek. 1.1 is the only place in Ezekiel that uses the plural.
5. Brown suggests that John's allusion to Ezek. 1.1 is closest to the allusion in Lk. 3.21-22
(see [fn 2], above) because both use the singular of oupavoc;, while Matthew and Mark use the
plural (Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 91). However, the use of singular and plural is in accord with
the style of each author. Like John, Luke prefers the singular of oupavog (18 out of 18
occurrences in John; 55 out of 61 occurrences in Luke—Acts). Matthew's use of the plural of
ohpavoc, reflects his slight tendency to use the plural (55 out of 82 occurrences).
The second part of the saying is a clear allusion to Gen. 28.12.6 The
verbal parallel is precise enough that it almost qualifies as a quote. The
only modification to the Genesis material is the change in case to 'angels'
(from nominative to accusative) and conversion of the imperfect verbs to
participles. Both of these are grammatically appropriate and necessary
changes to fit the allusion into its new context. Gen. 28.12b has a standard
subject-verb pairing (the angels were ascending and descending); John
makes this clause into the object of his sentence by converting the
nominative to an accusative and the indicative verbs to participles. The
precise parallel in word order also is strong evidence for John's dependence
on Gen. 28.12.
The combination of the two allusions is typical of other combinations
we have seen in John and in the DSS, in that the two passages share
common themes and possible catchwords. The two passages both
introduce theophanies: Ezek. 1.1 introduces the vision of God's throne
chariot, and Gen. 28.12 introduces a vision of God upon the ladder.7 In
both theophanies, angelic beings attend God. In Jacob's vision, God's
ladder is filled with angels; in Ezekiel's vision, the wheels of God's throne
are angelic beings. Jacob's ladder is simultaneously fixed in heaven and
earth, allowing Jacob to see God, while Ezekiel's chariot comes from
heaven and descends to earth. The language of ascending and descending is
clearest in Jacob's vision, but that element is also observed in Ezekiel's
vision. The throne is first seen in the storm cloud, but it comes down to the
land and later ascends: 'when the living creatures rose (escape iv) from the
earth, the wheels rose also' (Ezek. 1.19; see also 1.20, 21; 10.19; 11.22).
By combining allusions to these two visions, John implies that Jacob and
Ezekiel had essentially the same vision. More importantly, the inclusion of
the Son of Man in the combined allusion suggests that the visions of Jacob
and Ezekiel were christophanies as well as theophanies. This would be a
difficult claim to maintain, if we did not have an even clearer example of
this idea elsewhere. After quoting and interpreting Isa. 6.10 as a prophecy
about the Messiah (Jn 12.40), John explains how Isaiah gained such insight
about Jesus:
Jn 12.41 Isaiah said these things Isa. 6.1 I saw (el6ov) the Lord
because he saw his glory (dhev xx\v sitting on a high and lofty throne,
So£av OCUTOO), and he spoke and the house was full of his glory
concerning him. (tf)c So£r)c OCUTOU).
6. This connection was first observed by Augustine in contra Faustum 12.26. Brown, John,
vol. 1, p. 89.
7. The MT has God above the ladder, while the LXX has God, like the angels, on the
ladder (4TT' 0Lmf\Q, Gen. 28.13).
This is quite likely a genuine allusion to Isa. 6.1, since it occurs

immediately after a quote from Isa. 6.10. Even without this contextual
hint, a description of Isaiah 'seeing his glory' could hardly be a reference to
anything beside the throne-vision of Isaiah 6. John thus claims that
Isaiah's theophany was a revelation of Jesus as well as of Yahweh.8
Thus, John implies that the three great theophanies of Jacob, Isaiah, and
Ezekiel were somehow also visions of Christ. Two possible meanings
suggest themselves. First, John may be reinterpreting those visions to say
that Jacob, Isaiah, and Ezekiel actually saw Christ rather than Yahweh.
Such a view would perhaps be consistent with John's claim that 'no one
has ever seen the Father' (Jn 1.18). In John's view, the OT visionaries
actually saw the Son. However, there are problems with this view. One of
John's themes is the subordination of the Son to the Father, and it would
seem unusual if John allowed the Son to displace the Father in the great
theophanies of the OT. Furthermore, if John is suggesting that the
apparent theophanies were christophanies only, he invites the interpreta-
tion that the Father is the Son. Regardless of later Trinitarian
considerations and debates, nothing in John suggests that he saw the
Son and the Father as the same person.
It seems more likely, then, that John is suggesting that the great
theophanies revealed Christ in addition to the Father. That is, some
element within those visions also revealed the Son.9 Such a view would be
more in keeping with John's understanding of the relationship between
God and his Son (as revealed, for example, in Jn 1.1-3). It is possible that
John saw Jesus revealed as 'the glory of God' in the three visions.10 The
presence of God's glory is explicit in the throne-visions of Ezekiel and
Isaiah (Isa. 6.1, 3; Ezek. 1.28 (LXX); 3.12, 23; 8.4; 10.22 (LXX)), but is
only suggested in Jacob's vision. The Targumim to Genesis 28.12 both add
that the Shekinah, the inhabiting glory of God, was on Jacob's ladder.11
8. Something similar is implied in Jn 8.56, 'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day;
and he saw and was glad.' There is no clear OT passage to which this refers; it is possible that
it refers to traditions about Abraham's vision of his descendants {Midrash Rabbah 44.22 on
Gen. 15.18; 4 Ezra 3.14). Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 360.
9. Such a view is consistent with the use of the title 'Son of Man' in this passage, since that
title can signify a heavenly being (as Dan. 7.13-14 was often interpreted to mean).
10. Other NT authors have a similar view. The author of Hebrews describes Jesus as 'the
radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his being' (Heb. 1.3, alluding to Wis.
7.25-26). Some Pauline scholars also suggest that Paul viewed Jesus as the glory of God; see
C.C. Newman, Paul's Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup, 69; Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1992), pp. 242-46.
11. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 90. However, this evidence is of limited value, since Targum
Neofiti to Genesis may be dated to the fourth century AD, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to
Genesis may date to the eighth century AD (M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis
(Aramaic Bible, IB; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 15; M. McNamara,
John's allusions to the visions of Jacob, Isaiah, and Ezekiel thus

resonate with the themes of Jesus as the tabernacle, the glory of God (Jn
1.14), and the new Temple (Jn 2.19-20). David Johnson, in his analysis of
John's allusions to the Jacob narrative, points out some of these common
themes in the material drawn from Ezekiel 1 and Genesis 28. Both passages
feature angelic escorts and revelation from God.12 Both passages also share
a Temple theme. Jacob's use of names like 'House of God' (Bethel) and
'Gate of Heaven' to describe the place of revelation led the OT prophets to
see Jacob's vision as 'a proleptic symbol of the significance of the
Jerusalem temple and of the angelic Cherubim.'13 Likewise, Ezekiel's vision
shows God's presence, first leaving the Temple, then returning to a
restored Temple. Johnson thus believes that in John, 'Jesus replaces...
Bethel as the place of God's revelation.'14 This may be reading too much
into John's allusion. After all, John's allusion puts Jesus in the place of the
ladder, not Bethel. However, Johnson is clearly correct in seeing a focus on
the presence and glory of God in the allusions.15
The combined allusion in Jn 1.51 thus promises the disciples that they
will see something as great as the visions of Jacob and Ezekiel. They will
see a revelation of the Messiah, God's glory opened to human eyes.16 He
will be like Jacob's ladder that connects heaven and earth, like Ezekiel's
chariot that brings the glory of God to earth. But how is this promise
fulfilled? In the Prologue, John suggests that it was indeed fulfilled: 'And
the Word becamefleshand dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory
as of the unique one from the Father' (Jn 1.14). That is, John claims that
'we' have seen the revealed glory of the divine Word - essentially the
fulfillment of the promise of Jn 1.51. There is no transfiguration in John
that might qualify as a fulfillment of this promise. Instead, the promise of
Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (Aramaic Bible, 1A; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992),
p. 43). Of course, targumim were in use well before the first century, and it is possible that
these late targumim preserve earlier targumic interpretations.
12. Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob', pp. 48-49; see also U. Busse, 'Die Tempelmetaphorik als
ein Beispiel von implizitem rekurs auf die biblische Tradition im Johannesevangelium', in
C M . Tuckett (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels (BETL, 131; Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 1997), pp. 395^28 (406).
13. Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob', p. 49.
14. Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob', p. 202.
15. Johnson also sees Jesus as replacing Jacob as the 'new Israel, the head of the covenant
community' (Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob', p. 202). This view is based on a possible ambiguity
in the Hebrew text of Gen. 28.12, 'the angels ascending and descending on it/him ("D)' Some
rabbis saw the pronoun as a reference to Jacob instead of the ladder (Midrash Rabbah 49.3 on
Gen. 28.12-13).
16. B. Lindars describes the saying as a 'promise that the disciples will see Jesus risen and
glorified as the messianic King, fulfilling the Jewish expectations which surround the claim to
messiahship.' Lindars, John, p. 121.
Jn 1.51 is fulfilled in Jesus' crucifixion, when he is 'glorified' and 'lifted up.'

The 'lifting up' reveals Jesus to be the true representative of God (Jn 8.28).
Only after Jesus is glorified do the disciples receive the Spirit (Jn 7.37-39;
20.22) and correctly understand Jesus as the fulfillment of Scripture (Jn
12.16). That is, Jesus is revealed as the mediator of heavenly things
through his exaltation on the cross.17 Jesus' promise in Jn 1.51 is thus
fulfilled when the hearers recognize that Jesus is the ladder of Jacob, the
chariot of Ezekiel that bears God's glory.18
The promise in Jn 1.51 may also be fulfilled in the giving of the Spirit,
closely associated with the 'glorification' in John. When Jesus promises the
disciples that they will see the great theophanies, this is an implicit claim
that they will receive the spirit of prophecy. Although John does not allude
to Joel 2.28, that prophecy is perhaps relevant. Joel associates the
outpouring of the Spirit with the gift of prophecy: 'And it will happen after
these things that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and
daughters will prophesy, and your old men will dream dreams, and your
young men will see visions' (opaoeig 6i|/ovTai; Joel 3.1 LXX). To 'see visions'
was standard language used by the prophets (Ezek. 1.1; Isa. 1.1; Nah. 1.1;
Obad. 1.1). Thus, Jesus' promise to the disciples may imply a fulfillment of
Joel's prophecy, the gift of prophecy through God's Spirit.19
As we saw in Chapters 2 and 3, Ezekiel's throne vision influenced several
Second Temple writings: Testament of Levi, 1 Enoch, and Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrifice. The twelfth Song of the Sabbath Sacrifice describes God,
his angels, and his heavenly courts in terms derived from Ezekiel 1 and 10
(see pp. 44-46, 79-86). Song 12 uses Ezekiel's vision as part of liturgical
worship. The participants envisioned themselves as present with the angels,
worshiping God. None of the allusions to Ezekiel's throne vision in John
or in other Second Temple literature have a liturgical purpose, but all have
God's glory and majesty as a sub-theme.20
17. 'The disciples will see Jesus' glory to the full only when they have seen the final "great
thing," the supreme work of the death, resurrection, and ascension, and it is only then that
they will fully believe.' Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 88; see also Beasley-Murray, John, p. 28.
18. 'One of John's most original and daring ideas is that the glory of God is already
revealed in the Passion of Jesus... Hence, while Jesus is still on earth, the vision of his
heavenly glory is given to those who have eyes to see it, and earth and heaven are joined.'
Lindars, John, p. 122; see also Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob', p. 204.
19. I have not seen this interpretation of the saying in Jn 1.51 in print; however, it seems
likely that such an interpretation might be found in older works. Most interpretations of Jn
1.51 see it as a promise of further insight or revelation.
20. Kanagaraj points out that one of the common elements of merkabah literature is the
goal 'to enter before the Throne of Glory' and 'to gaze on the King, on his Throne, in his
majesty and his beauty.' Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, p. 81.
John's allusion to the OT theophanies is composite, as is typical of such

allusions in Second Temple literature.21 John combines phrases from
Ezekiel 1 and Genesis 28, and later (in John 12) alludes to the theophany of
Isaiah 6. 1 Enoch's visions clearly combine elements from the visions of
Ezekiel, Daniel, and Isaiah. Song 12 primarily refers to Ezekiel's vision,
but may include a few allusions to Daniel 7 or 7 Enoch as well. The
combination of such images is not surprising. John, like most Second
Temple authors, expected coherence between the various OT theophanies.
The same God who appeared to Jacob also appeared to Ezekiel and Isaiah.
1 Enoch and the Testament of Levi merely add to that list - the God of
Jacob also appeared to Enoch or Levi. John promises that the disciples,
and therefore all believers in Jesus, will see the same God that Jacob and
Ezekiel saw - and that that vision will include the Son of Man.
Most Second Temple allusions to Ezekiel's theophany place the vision
and the visionary in heaven, in God's throne room. Song 12 envisions the
participant as present in heaven (whether this was perceived as an exercise
in spiritual imagination or a pursuit of visionary experience is debated). In
the Testament of Levi, the heavens open to allow Levi to ascend through
the levels of heaven to see God's throne room. In the visions of 1 Enoch,
Enoch ascends to heaven, and the throne room is described using allusions
to Ezekiel 1,10, Isaiah 6, and Daniel 7.22 John, on the other hand, gives no
hint that the vision is in heaven. Rather, Jesus promises that they will see a
vision like those of Jacob and Ezekiel, on earth.
1 Enoch and Testament of Levi use allusions to Ezekiel to link their
respective seers to the OT prophetic tradition, and even exalt Enoch and
Levi above the OT prophets. Ezekiel remains on earth, but Enoch and Levi
are brought to heaven. There is a slightly different emphasis in John's use
of Ezekiel and Genesis 28. 1 Enoch uses images from Ezekiel to imply that
Enoch, like Ezekiel, was a prophet who received messages directly from
God. But John does not allude to Ezekiel's vision to describe Jesus as a
seer or prophet. Instead, John uses the combined allusions to place Jesus
within the visions of Ezekiel and Jacob. The experience of the seer is
promised instead to the disciples. In other words, 1 Enoch and Testament
of Levi use the OT theophanies to exalt their respective seers as superior
prophets; John uses the same OT allusions to exalt Jesus as the object of
the OT visions.
In summary, John is like Second Temple authors in that he combines
allusions to the various OT theophanies. However, John places the visions
21. Halperin points out the tendency in apocalyptic literature to combine elements from
the Sinai revelation (Exodus 19) with the merkabah vision. Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp.
113-14.
22. Cf. also Rev. 4.1-11, in which the visionary ascends to heaven to see God's throne and
receive a revelation.
and the visionaries on earth rather than in heaven. John, like other
authors, uses allusions to the OT theophanies to make a connection to the
OT prophetic tradition. But works like 1 Enoch and the Testament ofLevi
use such allusions to describe their respective seers as observers of the OT
theophanies, while John uses his allusion to describe Jesus as the object of
the OT theophanies. John implies, not that Jesus has seen as well as Jacob
and Ezekiel, but that Jacob and Ezekiel were so fortunate as to see Jesus
(much like John's claims for Abraham and Isaiah in Jn 8.56; 12.40).
Is Jn 1.51 part of a Johannine anti-visionary polemic? A full answer is
beyond the scope of this study, since it involves analysis both of the
developing merkabah tradition and of a number of passages in John which
may be part of this polemic (Jn 1.18; 3.3, 13; 5.37; 6.46). However, a few
tentative observations must be made here in order to address the meaning
of Jn 1.51.
A number of scholars believe that there was a flourishing practice of
visionary mystical ascent in the first century AD or earlier.23 While such
mystical practices certainly existed by the third century AD, evidence for
earlier practice is equivocal. There is a tendency by some scholars to
assume that any allusion to Ezekiel's merkabah vision is somehow
connected to the pursuit of heavenly visions. However, the development in
the merkabah tradition over the centuries suggests the need for caution in
our descriptions of merkabah practice at any particular time.
There are several strands of evidence that need to be considered in order
to reconstruct the development of the merkabah tradition. First, early
23. Among the scholars who study merkabah mysticism, Kanagaraj has the most
confidence in first-century practice of visionary ascent; Gruenwald cautiously affirms its
likelihood; and Halperin suggests that it was unlikely (Gruenwald, Apocalyptic; Halperin,
Faces of the Chariot; Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John). Many Johannine scholars believe that
John's polemic is directed towards such practice. (P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An
Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo
(NovTSup, 10; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965); N.A. Dahl, 'The Johannine Church and History', in
W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder (eds), Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation (Festschrift
O.A. Piper; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), pp. 124-42; Johnson, 'Our Father Jacob', p.
203; Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology; H. Odeberg,
The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporary Religious Currents in Palestine
and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (repr., Chicago: Argonaut, 1968, Uppsala: Almqvist &
Wiksell, 1929); G. Quispel, 'Nathanael und der Menschensohn (Joh 1 51)', ZNW41 (1956); C.
Rowland, 'John 1.51, Jewish Apocalyptic and Targumic Tradition', NTS 30 (1984), pp. 498-
507; A.F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and
Gnosticism (SJLA, 25; Leiden: Brill, 1978). These views are nicely summarized in A.D.
DeConick, Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas
and Other Christian Literature (JSNTSup, 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp.
34-42; J.D.G. Dunn, 'Let John be John: A Gospel for Its Time', in P. Stuhlmacher (ed.), Das
Evangelium und die Evangelium: Vortrage vom Tubinger Symposium 1982 (WUNT, 28;
Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1983); Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, pp. 21-44.
apocalyptic literature, some of which we have examined (see pp. 44-46,

79-86), contains many descriptions of visionary ascent to heaven, usually
including elements from Ezekiel I.24 However, these visionary experiences
are given only to the heroes of Israel - Enoch, Abraham, Levi, and Moses.
There is no evidence that such experiences were available to ordinary
people. The purpose of the merkabah elements in such visions is, in a
sense, hagiographic. These heroes and their visions are placed beyond the
reach of ordinary people precisely by their experience of visionary
ascent.25 In this sense, this literature is actually evidence against an early
practice of visionary ascent mysticism. The hagiographic aspect of the
early accounts of visionary ascent is often overlooked in current
scholarship.
Second, the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is sometimes adduced as
evidence that the Qumran sect practiced visionary ascent.26 However, the
liturgy of the Songs never clearly states this. The descriptions of heavenly
worship certainly draw on Ezekiel 1 and Isaiah 6, but the Songs never
describe any sort of visionary ascent by the participants. A description of
heavenly worship does not necessarily imply visionary experience. Many of
the Psalms also describe worship of God in settings and by agents that the
speaker cannot see (e.g., Pss. 19, 29, 96, 97, 99, 104, 148, 150), and these are
not usually adduced as evidence for visionary ascent.
Third, the NT may provide some evidence aboutfirst-centurypractice of
visionary ascent. Paul describes a visionary ascent to heaven in 2 Cor.
12.1-7, and John is caught up to heaven in Rev. 4.1-4. However, neither
author describes the ascent as something to be pursued. Like the OT
prophets, Paul and John apparently receive their visions without any
instigation on their parts. At least, neither account describes any such
instigation. In other places, NT authors seem to oppose certain types of
24. For various understandings of the connection between merkabah mysticism and
apocalyptic literature, see Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 29-72; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot,
pp. 63-114; Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, pp. 116-49. Kanagaraj uses the apocalyptic
literature as evidence that 'as early as the first century, there was a tradition in Judaism that
righteous men could ascend to the highest heaven to see God on the throne' (Kanagaraj,
Mysticism in John, p. 122). Gruenwald more cautiously agrees, describing the apocalyptic
literature with terms like 'mystical preoccupation' and 'mystical speculations.' He points out
that 'lack of literary evidence makes it difficult for us to state with certainty when heavenly
ascensions were first systematically practised in Judaism... at least by the time of the
composition of the Book of Enoch, the practice was already seriously considered
(Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, p. 32).
25. Vogelgesang emphasizes the 'exaltation of the seer' common in the apocalyptic
literature. He sees the apocalyptic literature, and in particular, 1 Enoch 14, as 'an intermediate
stage between prophetic call and mystic ascent' (Vogelgesang, 'Interpretation', pp. 194-96).
26. See Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 49-55; Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, pp. 89-
98; also pp. 79-86 above.
visions, such as in Col. 2.16-19. The Gospel of John is at least reacting

against some view of heavenly ascent (Jn 1.18; 3.3, 13; 5.37; 6.46), but it
does not give clear evidence of the practice of such visionary experiences.
Fourth, evidence from rabbinic sources is sometimes used to suggest
that ben Zakkai, Akiva, and others practiced visionary ascent as early
as the first century.27 Aside from the usual difficulties with dating
rabbinic material to the first century, we have the further problem that
the proposed early references to visionary ascent are somewhat
ambiguous.28 They may represent a sort of exegetical speculation about
the merkabah, rather than attempts to experience mystical ascent.29
Some of the early material primarily serves to warn against exposition
of Ezekiel 1, and makes no clear statements about the pursuit of
visionary experiences.
Finally, the Hekhalot literature and later rabbinic literature provides
clear evidence that some Jewish mystics used a variety of rituals, including
meditation on Ezekiel 1, for the purpose of experiencing ascent to heaven
and a vision of heavenly worship.30 However, this literature begins in the
middle of the third century AD, and shows dependence on all of the above
strands except the NT.
A pattern of development in the use of merkabah material can clearly be
seen. The earliest descriptions of visionary ascent (e.g., 1 Enoch, Testament
27. Tosefta Hag. 2.1-4; PT Hag. 2.1 77b; BT Hag. 14b. For a discussion of these, see
Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 73-97; Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, pp. 11-38; Kanagaraj,
Mysticism in John, pp. 150-58.
28. Gruenwald admits, 'It is really very difficult to guess what the Merkavah speculations
of the circle of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai were like.' Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, p. 85.
29. Halperin, Schafer, and Himmelfarb are among the scholars who see the early rabbinic
references to the merkabah as exegetical and speculative (M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven
and the Christian Apocalypses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); M. Himmelfarb,
'Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the Apocalypses and the Hekhalot Literature',
HUCA 59 (1984), pp. 73-100; P. Schafer, 'The Aim and Purpose of Early Jewish Mysticism',
in Hekhalot-Studien (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1988); P. Schafer, 'Merkavah Mysticism and
Rabbinic Judaism', JAOS 104 (1984), pp. 537-54; idem, 'New Testament and Hekhalot
Literature: The Journey into Heaven in Paul and in Merkavah Mysticism', JJS 35 (1984), pp.
19-35; idem, 'Tradition and Redaction in Hekhalot Literature', JSJ 14 (1983), pp. 172-81).
Halperin suggests that the early rabbinic discussions of the merkabah were designed to 'show
the wondrous greatness of the ancient sages' (Halperin, Faces of the Chariot, p. 15).
Gruenwald, although affirming that early practice of visionary ascent is likely, agrees that
most of the early rabbinic evidence suggests 'mystical escapism' or 'interest in, and
preoccupation with, mystical speculation,' rather than 'mystical experience.' He finds it clear
that 'the Ma'aseh Merkavah speculations of the Tannaim basically were of a midrashic nature'
and that there was 'a clear distinction... between the midrashic speculations about the
Merkavah and its mystical perception' (Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 82-83; cf. 75-77, 85, 90-
91, 96-97).
30. For a description of this literature, see Gruenwald, Apocalyptic, pp. 98-123; Halperin,
Faces of the Chariot, pp. 359-87; Kanagaraj, Mysticism in John, pp. 80-86.
of Levi) are limited to OT saints, and are instigated by God, not by any
human action. The experience of heavenly ascent is described in order to
put the seer at least on the level of the OT prophets, far beyond the reach
of ordinary people. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and early rabbinic
material suggest a strong interest in the idea of visionary ascent, but may
have been limited to speculative meditation on merkabah passages of
Scripture. Only later rabbinic literature and the Hekhalot clearly indicate
that heavenly ascent was something to be desired. Only this later literature
suggests that the seer could initiate the heavenly ascent, and that such
ascent was open to anyone who knew the mysteries.
The first century comes somewhere in the middle of this development. It
is possible, as many scholars claim, that there was already widespread
practice of visionary ascent, and that John was opposed to such practice.
But John's polemic could have been addressed against something less than
fully developed merkabah mysticism. It could have been addressed against
the sort of speculative exegesis of merkabah found in early rabbinic
material, or even against the heavenly ascent ascribed to the great heroes in
the Pseudepigrapha. John is reacting against at least a speculative theology
of visionary experiences, but he may be reacting more specifically against
claims of the sort found in 1 Enoch, or even against the pursuit of such
visions.
Thus when Jn 1.51 makes the claim that the disciples will see 'the
heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the
Son of Man,' he is at least describing Jesus as the true source of revelation
from God. By keeping the visionary on earth, John may be specifically
opposing some of the ideas of mystical ascent found in apocalyptic
literature. If there already was a widespread pursuit of merkabah visions
by the end of the first century, then Jn 1.51 may be seen as part of a
polemic against such practices.
2. The Dry Bones

a. The Resurrection (Ezekiel 37.4, 9, 12; Daniel 7.14; 12.2; John 5.25-28)
John makes two allusions to Ezekiel's oracle of the dry bones. The first of
these allusions, found in Jn 5.25-28, is less clear than the later allusion, but
is still a likely allusion.
Jn 5.25 Truly, truly I say to you, Ezek. 37.4 And he said to me,
that the hour comes and now is, 'Prophesy on these bones and say to
when the dead will hear the voice of them, "Dry bones, hear the word of
the Son of God (ol veKpol the Lord (ctKovoaze Aoyov Kupiou).'"
(kouoouaiv rfV; tyuvr^ TOD uiou toi) 9 . . . Thus says the Lord, 'Come
0€ou), and those who hear will live from the four winds and breathe on
(CT|OOI)OLV). these dead (TOIX; veKpoug), and let
28 Do not be amazed at this, that them live (Crpazuoav).'
the hour comes in which all who are 12 Thus says the Lord, 'Behold, I
in the tombs ([ivipeioK;) will hear will open your tombs (jivrpaToc), and
his voice and will come out . . . I will lead you out from your tombs
and lead you into the land of
Israel.'
The two passages have several words and synonyms in common, but they
are spread out over several verses in both passages, making the allusion
faint. Both passages describe the dead (veKpog) hearing (ctKOua)) from God
through the prophet, coming alive ((aco), and leaving their tombs
(|ivr||i€Lov/|ivf||ia).31 The prophet who mediates the revivification is called
the 'son of man' in Ezek. 37.3, 9, 11, and both 'Son of Man' and 'Son of
God' in Jn 5.25, 28.
There are also some fainter connections between the two passages. The
discourse in Jn 5.19-47 is response to a challenge by the 'Jews' over Jesus'
Sabbath-breaking and apparent claim to equality with God (Jn 5.16-18).
This dispute begins with the healing of the lame man by the pool of
Bethesda on the Sabbath. As is often the case in John, miraculous signs
lead to discourses, and there are often important ties between the sign and
the discourse.32 Here, there are several connections between the healing of
the lame man and the ensuing discourse.33 It is perhaps possible to view the
healing of the lame man (Jn 5.1-15) as a prophetic action, which leads to
its explanation in the following discourse (Jn 5.19-48). The great crowds of
the sick around the pool are like the dead (Jn 5.1-3, 21, 25);34 Jesus, the
31. The two words are synonymous in both the LXX and NT (cf. Lk. 24.1, 2). John only
uses livrpelov (14 occurrences); the translator of Ezekiel favored \ivfpu. (four out of five
occurrences).
32. E.g., the feeding of the 5,000 leads to the Bread of Life discourse (John 6); the healing
of the blind man leads to the Good Shepherd discourse (John 9-10).
33. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction with Commentary and
Notes on the Greek Text (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978), p. 260.
34. Is there a faint echo of Ezekiel 37 in John's description of the sick crowds? Jn 5.3
describes 'a multitude (iTA.fieo<;) of the sick, blind, lame, and withered (£r|pwv),' which sounds
faintly like Ezek. 37.2, 'there were very many (ITOMA oôSpa) in the valley, and they were very
dry grpa o(J>66pa).'
Son of God, calls one of them as if from his tomb (Jn 5.5-6, 25, 28), and
tells him to rise up (Jn 5.8; note the use of eyeLpco).35 In the discourse, Jesus
explains that he has the authority to heal this man, even on the Sabbath,
because he is acting completely on his Father's behalf (Jn 5.17, 19-20). But
more than that, Jesus the Son has the authority to raise people from the
dead and to exercise judgment, again in total submission to the Father
(5.20-30). The lame man's healing is thus like a resurrection,36 and serves
as a prophetic act and stimulus for the ensuing discourse.
John's understanding of Ezekiel 37 is suggested by the way in which he
modifies the image of the dry bones. As many commentators have pointed
out, Jn 5.21, 25-26 describes the giving of life in the present, and Jn 5.27-
29 describes the final resurrection.37 Jn 5.25 describes the new life as
already beginning ('the hour is coming and now is'); thus 'the dead' are the
spiritually dead, and those who live are those who listen to the Son of
God.38 Jn 5.28 describes the final resurrection ('the hour is coming'), in
which both righteous and wicked are called from their tombs for
judgment.39 The Father gives the Son the authority to give life now (Jn
5.21, 25-26), as well as to raise the dead and pronounce judgment on
judgment day (Jn 5.27-29).
This pairing of new life and final resurrection is one way in which John
reveals his understanding of Ezekiel 37. The image of revivification (Ezek.
37.1-10) symbolizes several related ideas: purification, the restoration of
Israel's hope, return to the land, and the giving of God's Spirit (Ezek.
37.11-14). John uses language drawn from Ezekiel 37 to discuss both the
immediate gift of new life to believers, and the future resurrection. The
addition of the idea of a future resurrection (Jn 5.27-29) may represent
35. Beasley-Murray, John, pp. 73-74

36. Dods describes the healing of the blind man thus: 'but accepting the life that was in
Christ's command, he passed then and there from death to life.' M. Dods, The Gospel of St.
John (Expositor's Bible, 43; 2 vols; New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1903), p. 740.
37. M.M. Thompson compares the two ideas thus: 'While the promises regarding life in
5.25 envision a time that is coming and is now here, the promise regarding resurrection in
5.28-29 envisions a time that is coming but is not here.' M.M. Thompson, The God of the
Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001), p. 84. For similar views, see, e.g.,
Barrett, John, pp. 261-63; Beasley-Murray, John, pp. 76-77; Brown, John, vol. 2, pp. 219-20.
Schnackenburg suggests that the idea of two views of the resurrection may have come from
Ezekiel 37. Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 106.
38. Barrett points out that these 'dead' differ from those of Jn 5.28 in that they are not in
the tombs, and that 'the aorist participle uKovoavzec; suggests those who at the time of writing
have been vivified by the word of Christ.' Barrett, John, pp. 262, 263.
39. Grassi suggests that the phrase 'the hour comes' is a reference to the events of Ezek.
37.12. J. Grassi, 'Ezekiel XXXVII. 1-14 and the New Testament', NTS 11 (1964), pp. 162-64
(164).
normal Second Temple understanding of Ezekiel 37,40 or it may also

be related to John's allusions to Daniel in the passage. Jn 5.29 and
Dan. 12.2 describe similar fates for the righteous and wicked at the final
resurrection.
Jn 5.29 those who did good will Dan. 12.2 And many of those who
come forth to the resurrection of sleep in the dust of the earth will
life (eic, avaomoiv (G)f|<;), and those arise (avaoTr\oovTai), some to eternal
who practiced evil to the life (dq (cofiv alwvaov), some to
resurrection of judgment reproach and some to eternal shame
(dc; avaomoiv Kpujeax;). (elc; 6veidio\xov . . . icai aloxuvr|v
Jn 5.29 and Dan. 12.2 share the common theme of judgment and
resurrection for righteous and wicked, and share a parallel phrase (el;
avaatacnv (wf|<;/dvaaTr|oovTai elg (G)f|v alcoviov). The fact that John alludes
to both Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 12 within a few verses of each other (Jn 5.25,
28; Jn 5.29) suggests that he combined the two allusions around the
common theme of final resurrection.
John's use of the oracle of the dry bones also suggests that he saw Jesus
as the fulfillment of Ezekiel's expectations of new life for God's people.
The dry bones oracle does not have explicit messianic references, but there
are two reasons why John sees the passage as referring to Jesus. First, the
dry bones oracle is the second of three related oracles about the coming
restoration of Israel (Ezek. 36.16-38, the 'new heart'; 37.1-14, the 'dry
bones'; 37.15-28, the 'two sticks'). The third oracle (Ezek. 37.15-28)
includes a description of the role of 'my servant David' in the restoration
(Ezek. 37.22, 24-25). John has clearly meditated on this oracle, since he
alludes to it in Jn 11.51-52.41 Thus, as John considers Ezekiel's vision for
the future, he naturally connects elements from these two related oracles,
and sees a role for the messiah in all three oracles.
Second, John's messianic understanding of the oracle of the dry bones is
likely related to his understanding of Ezekiel's role as 'Son of Man' in that
oracle. Ezekiel the prophet is a model of John's view of Jesus. Ezekiel is
able to serve as the agent of revivification, but only because God gives him
the power and instructs him to use it (Ezek. 37.3, 7, 10). Ezekiel's power to
raise the dead bones is exercised only in entire submission to God. This is,
of course, exactly how John portrays Jesus' relationship with the Father
throughout the Fourth Gospel, and especially here in John 5. The Son only
does what he sees the Father doing (Jn 5.17, 19-20), he raises the dead as
40. See pp. 96-97, 171.

41. Seep. 125.
the Father does (Jn 5.21, 25-26), and he judges all people in accordance
with the Father's will (Jn 5.22, 27, 30). These parallels between the roles of
Ezekiel and Jesus are made even more striking by the fact that they are
both called 'Son of Man' (Ezek. 37.3, 9, 11).
John's description of Jesus as the agent of new life and the final
resurrection is thus rooted in the work of Ezekiel, the 'son of man' in Ezek.
37.1-14. However, the description of Jesus as the agent of the final
judgment does not come from Ezekiel. John's allusion to Daniel 7 suggests
a source for the idea of the Son's role in the final judgment.
Jn 5.27 And he [the Father] gave Dan. 7.13 one like a son of man
him authority (ox; ulo<; ai/OporiTou) came... 14 and
authority was given to him
(e£oi)oiav e8a)K€v atktp) to exercise (€6o0r| autco e£ouaia).
judgment 7.22 [The Ancient of Days] gave
(KpLotv Troieiv), for he is the Son of judgment (rf]v Kpioiv €6a)Ke) to the
Man (XAQQ dvGpoSiTou). saints of the Most High.
The allusion is quite strong. Jn 5.27 and Dan. 7.13-14 have in common the
term 'son of man' and a phrase consisting of three words (k&voiav e6a)K€v
ai)T(p/4666r) aired) e£ouaia). Thus, the idea of Jesus as the agent of judgment is
closely related, in idea and wording, to the 'one like a son of man' in Dan.
7.13-14, 22. Interestingly, in both allusions, John has focused on the vision
of the prophet rather than its interpretation. That is, he focuses on
Ezekiel's image of the revivification (Ezek. 37.1-10) rather than its
interpretation as national restoration (Ezek. 37.11-14);42 and he focuses on
Daniel's son of man as a single heavenly figure (Dan. 7.13-14) rather than
on its interpretation as 'the saints of the Most High' (Dan. 7.15-18, 22, 27).
As is often the case with John's use of allusions to the OT, the
modifications to the OT material are suggestive of John's view of the
people of God. In Ezekiel, the dry bones coming to life symbolizes a
national restoration and the giving of God's Spirit, and is offered to 'the
whole house of Israel' (Ezek. 37.11). Likewise, Daniel's rewards of final
judgment and resurrection are given to 'the saints of the Most High' (Dan.
7.18), 'your people' (Dan. 12.1). John, however, makes it clear that both
new life and the final resurrection are only available to those who follow
Jesus. The present gift of new life is limited to those who 'hear my word
and believe the one who sent me' (Jn 5.24, cf. 25). Likewise, the final
resurrection and judgment, inaugurated by the voice of the Son of Man, is
42. Later, John reverses this and focuses more on the interpretation than the vision; see
below.
presented on the basis of deeds (as often in both testaments), but the
context suggests that belief in Jesus is the crucial criterion for the final
judgment as well.
In Jn 5.21, Jesus says that 'the Son makes alive ((cpomnei) whom he
wishes.' This suggests both the present gift of life and the future
resurrection. Those he chooses are his followers, who hear his voice and
believe in the sender (Jn 5.24). While this language has a predestinarian
tone consistent with John's description of Jesus' followers elsewhere (see Jn
6.37-40; 10.26-29), the primary point seems to be that the people of God
are limited to the followers of Jesus. Perhaps the claim to 'make alive
whom he wishes' also explains Jesus' action in healing only one of the sick
from the multitude (Jn 5.5-9). Both Jesus' action in healing only one
person, and his discourse on new life, emphasize that the promises of
Ezekiel and Daniel are limited to those who follow Jesus.
Some also see the raising of Lazarus as a fulfillment of the promise in Jn
5.21 to bring the dead to life;43 thus, it may also faintly allude to the 'dry
bones' of Ezekiel 37.
Jn 11.38 Jesus came... to the tomb Ezek. 37.12 Thus says the Lord,
(TO \ivr[[xelov)... 39 Jesus said, 'Take 'Behold, I will open your tombs
away the stone.' 43 . . . He cried out (xoL[ivr\\xaxa), and I will lead you up
with a loud voice, 'Lazarus, come (dva^co) from your tombs and lead
forth!' 44 The one who had died you into the land of Israel.'
came forth
The parallel is primarily conceptual, since the two passages only share one
word in common. In both passages, the tomb is opened, and the dead come
forth. In Ezekiel, the dead arise at the command of Ezekiel (Ezek. 37.10);
in John, Lazarus comes forth at the command of Jesus. However, it seems
best to see the raising of Lazarus as a partial fulfillment of the promises of
John 5. As Jesus promises, the dead come forth at the voice of the Son of
God (Jn 5.25). It is possible that John intends the raising of Lazarus to
demonstrate that Jesus will also be the agent of the final resurrection.
When Martha confesses her belief that Lazarus will rise 'at the resurrection
on the last day,' Jesus responds, 'I am the resurrection and the life' (Jn
11.24-25). This response, as well as the act of raising Lazarus, recalls some
of the words of John 5, rather than any specific details of Ezekiel 37.
b. The Giving of the Spirit (Ezekiel 37.9-10; Genesis 2.7; John 20.22)
John returns to Ezekiel's oracle of the dry bones at the end of his gospel.
His allusion there has much in common with his allusion to the same
43. Barrett, John, p. 260.

material in John 5, but now he focuses on Ezekiel's interpretation of the

oracle of the dry bones as the giving of the Spirit.
Ezek. 37.9 Prophesy, son of man,

prophesy on the breath (TTveOjia) and
say to the breath, 'Thus says the
Jn 20.22 And after saying this, he Lord, "From the four winds come
breathed (eveûoipcv) on them and and breathe (k\i$\)or\oov) on these
said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit dead, and let them live
Gen. 2.7 And God formed the man

of dust from the earth, and he
breathed into (kvefyvorpev) his face
the breath of life (TTVOTJV (oofjc;), and
the man became a living being
(\\f\)Xr\v Cory;).
The verbal parallel between John and the earlier works extends to two
words. Jn 20.22 and Ezek. 37.9 have in common the verb e|i(|)uoaa) and the
noun iTV€i)|ia. Gen. 2.7 also uses 4|i(j)i)oa(D, but uses the similar TTVOT) instead
of nveOiia.44 The parallel is strong, however, because 6|i4>uoao) is such a
distinctive word.45 It occurs only six times in the LXX, and only here in Jn
20.22 in the NT. Besides the above uses in Gen. 2.7 and Ezek. 37.9, it is
used to describe Elijah breathing life back into the widow's dead child (1
Kgs 17.21 LXX) and in three other passages with different metaphorical
senses.46
John's allusion to Gen. 2.7 is quite natural, since Ezekiel 37 itself
strongly echoes the language of the creation of humanity in Gen. 2.7. In
Genesis, the first human life results from God breathing into the lifeless
body.47 This breath makes the man a 'living being' (rrn ES^/elg i|/uxf}i>
Cciooav) like the animals, but also seems to 'constitute humankind as the
image of God.' 48 For both Ezekiel and John, the language of breathing into
44. The difference between the LXX rendering of the two passages represents the
difference between the Hebrew: n«©3 = irvori (breath) in Gen. 2.7, and n n = m/eGâ (breath,
spirit, wind) in Ezek. 37.9.
45. See p. 10 for the criterion of distinctive wording.
46. It is also used to describe God stirring up the fire of his wrath (Ezek. 21.36) or ending a
life with his breath (Job 4.21 LXX), and is used to describe the panting of the messenger in
Nah. 1.15 (LXX only). In these cases, it seems closer to the meaning of (Jwoao) or eKcjwaau) in
the LXX (see, e.g., Isa. 54.16; Ezek. 22.20-21; Sir. 28.12; 43.4).
47. Brown suggests that Jesus' act is 'evocative of God's creative breath in Gen ii 7.'
Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1022.
48. A.P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988), pp. 122-23; see also Skinner, who sees the expression as
the first human thus suggests the theme of new creation. For Ezekiel, it is
Israel that is re-created by God's power and Spirit; for John, it is the
followers of Jesus who are re-created by that same power and Spirit.49
Jesus' action in breathing on his disciples may thus be described as a
prophetic action, much like those performed by some OT prophets. A
prophetic action is a performance by the prophet intended to communicate
God's present or future action. Here, Jesus' act of breathing is portrayed as
a prophetic action that announces the giving of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus' act of breathing is closely tied to his commissioning of the
disciples as his messengers (Jn 20.21-22). This commissioning fits into the
Johannine theme of God sending Jesus: 'As the Father has sent me, I also
send you' (Jn 20.21; cf. 3.17; 5.36; 17.18). However, the commissioning is
loosely tied to the creation account. In Genesis, the newly created humans
are commissioned as rulers over creation (Gen. 1.26-30; 2.19-20). Perhaps
a more striking implication of John's allusion to the creation account is
that Jesus takes God's role; in Genesis 2, God breathes on the man, while
in Jn 20.22, Jesus breathes on the disciples. Jesus' role in the new creation
thus echoes his role in the original creation: 'All things came to be through
him; and apart from him, not even one thing came into being which has
come into being. In him was life, and the life was the light of men' (Jn 1.3-
4). Perhaps this forms an inclusio; John begins and ends with Jesus as the
source of life, the agent of the first creation and the new creation (see also
Jn 20.31).50
The allusion in Jn 20.22 to Ezekiel 37 is at least as important as the
allusion to the creation account.51 Besides the verbal parallels (see the chart
above), a few other pieces of evidence can be brought to bear to
demonstrate the strength of John's allusion to Ezekiel 37. The criterion of
repeated allusion52 is relevant: John has already alluded once to the dry
bones oracle in Jn 5.25-28 (above), as well as to the 'two sticks' oracle
which follows in Ezekiel (Jn 10.16; 11.52/Ezek. 37.19-25).53 The material in
the preceding oracle (the 'new spirit' and sprinkling of water, Ezek. 36.25-
28) seems to have influenced John's use of water symbolism.54
T s equivalent for the "image of God.'" J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Genesis (ICC, 1; repr., 1956, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2nd edn, 1930), p. 57; see also G.J.
Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC, 1; Waco: Word Books, 1982), pp. 60-61.
49. Brown, John, vol. 2, pp. 1022, 1037; Morris, John, p. 747, fn 58.
50. 'Symbolically, then, John is proclaiming that, just as in the first creation God breathed
a living spirit into man, so now in the moment of the new creation Jesus breathes his own
Holy Spirit in the disciples, giving them eternal life.' Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1037.
51. Beasley-Murray, John, pp. 380-81; Morris, John, p. 747, fn 58; Schnackenburg, John,
vol. 3, p. 325.
52. See p. 12.
53. Seep. 115.
54. See pp. 172-73.
Both Ezekiel 37 and Jn 20.22 are concerned with the giving of God's
Spirit. Ezekiel explains the meaning of the raised dry bones in Ezek. 37.13-
14, 'You will know that I am the Lord when I open your graves... and I
will give my Spirit in you, and you will live, and I will place you in your
land.' Ezekiel pictures the despairing exiles as dead, in the tomb of
Babylon.55 The restoration of Israel is pictured as the restoration of life,
God's breathing life back into the dead body. Ezekiel takes the image of
the creation in Genesis 2 and re-creates it. In Genesis 2, God breathes the
breath (nBtttt/Trvori) of life into the lifeless man, making him a living being
(rrn ED^/elc; i(ruxV (oooav). In Ezekiel 37, after the bodies are
reconstructed, God (through the prophet) commands the winds to bring
breath (mi/-rrv€U|ia) into the lifeless bodies and make them live (rrn/
€Cr|oav). By using the broader term for breath (rm/TTvetyia), Ezekiel is able
to carry on an extended word-play (using all three of the meanings of m i /
TTveujia)56 and connect the image to his 'new heart' theology. Ezekiel teaches
that with the restoration from exile would come a new ability to obey God,
empowered by God's Spirit (cf. Ezek. 11.19-20; 36.27; 39.29 (MT only)).
The connection between the image of revivified dry bones and Ezekiel's
theology of the new spirit can be seen in the parallel phrasing in the
following chart:
Ezekiel Translation of MT MT LXX
37.6 I will put breath m i a m nnn2i 6G5GO) TTveOjia jiou elg

into you \)[i6LQ57
37.14 I will put my Spirit m i DD2 viroi SaSaa) TO nvevyux jiou
into you €l<; fyiag
11.19 I will put a new ]DK rrcnn mm TTveujia KOLIVOV 6C5OG)
spirit into them araipu kv ai)Tot<;
36.27 I will put my Spirit D: TO iTveu|ia jiou SGOGG)
into you
55. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, p. 510.

56. See also J. Breck, The Spirit of Truth: The Holy Spirit in Johannine Tradition, Vol. 1:
The Origins of Johannine Pneumatology (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1991),
p. 25.
57. The idea of God giving his Spirit has even influenced the LXX translator, so that
Ezek. 37.6 becomes 'I will place my tTveiJ(ia (Spirit) in you' rather than the simpler 'I will put
TTveO(ia (breath) in you.'
The parallel phrasing makes it clear that Ezekiel composed his image with
the 'new spirit' theology clearly in mind.
Ezekiel's image of the dry bones is thus a prophecy of national
resurrection. The nation is currently dead in its despair: 'Our bones have
dried up, our hope has perished, we are completely cut off (Ezek. 37.14). But
Ezekiel promises that the nation will be physically and spiritually restored.58
God will not only return Israel to their land; he will also restore the covenant
and ensure its permanence by giving his Spirit on his people. They will no
longer break the covenant, because God's Spirit will be within them (Ezek.
11.19-20; 36.24-29; 37.23, 28). This giving of God's Spirit will permanently
reverse their current state of moral and ritual defilement in a pagan land.59
John's allusion to the oracle of the dry bones allows him to proclaim a
fulfillment of prophecy. Jesus was now giving the expected Spirit (Jn 7.37-
39). Jesus' prophetic action of blowing, combined with the uttering of the
words 'receive the Holy Spirit,' seems intended to announce the fulfillment
of Ezekiel's prophecy. There are several elements in John's account that
are suggestive of Ezek. 37.1-14. The fear of the disciples is perhaps parallel
to the despair of Israel (Jn 20.19; Ezek. 37.11). The reversal of the state of
the disciples seems also to echo Ezekiel 37 - their fear was turned to joy
when they encountered their Lord, as God promised to turn Israel's
despair into hope (Jn 20.19-20; Ezek. 37.11-12). John, like Ezekiel, plays
on the meanings of Trv€ij|ia as breath and spirit - Jesus puts his breath and
58. Breck, Spirit of Truth, pp. 23-24.

59. The theme of impurity in the dry bones oracle is overlooked in most scholarship on
Ezekiel, but was not overlooked by the LXX translator. His translation of Ezek. 37.1 'he
placed me in the middle ofa field (iTe8iou), and it was full of human bones (ooxewv avGpooiTivcov)'
is conformed (against the MT) in two places to the words describing the incurring of impurity
in Num. 19.16, 'whoever touches, in the open field (TT^LOU), a slain or dead body, or a human
bone (6OT€OD &V6PG)TTLVOU), or a tomb, will be unclean for seven days.' Thus the translator saw
the image of dead bones as implying the unclean condition of Israel in exile. The translator's
observation is likely correct. The oracle of the dry bones closely parallels the previous oracle,
which begins by ascribing to Israel the 'uncleanness of a woman in her impurity' (Ezek. 36.17,
alluding to Lev. 15.19-31). In both cases, the Law warns against God's wrath for allowing
such impurity into the Temple (Lev. 15.31; Num. 19.20). This theme of ritual defilement likely
also represents the actual situation during the exile. The ritual of cleansing for one exposed to
a dead body involved water mixed with the ashes of the sin sacrifice, and could be prepared
only in the Temple (Num. 19.17-19). With the loss of the Temple and the cleansing water,
there was no hope of cleansing; any ritual defilement was permanent and brought separation
from God's people (Num. 19.20). This explains part of the despair we hear in the saying, 'Our
bones are dry, our hope has perished, we are cut off.' Perhaps 'we are cut off (laitw) is related
to the ritual defilement and resulting separation; note the use of the nifal perfect of this verb
elsewhere to describe separation from God or the assembly (Ps. 88.6; Isa. 53.8; see esp. 2
Chron. 26.21). The solution offered for this uncleanable impurity, in each of the three
restoration oracles, is God's personal cleansing by his Spirit (Ezek. 36.25-27; 37.14; 37.23).
the Holy Spirit on the disciples as one action.60 Perhaps most striking,
Jesus acts as the agent of God in bringing God's Spirit on the disciples, just
as Ezekiel, called the 'Son of Man,' acts as God's agent to bring breath and
life on the dead bodies (Jn 20.21-23; Ezek. 37.4^10).61
Although John does not explicitly describe the disciples here as being
resurrected in any sense, the giving of the Spirit implies the theme of new
life.62 Although the role of the Spirit in restoration is not described in this
passage, no description is needed; the giving of the Holy Spirit fulfills the
expectations that are raised within the Gospel of John from the beginning
of Jesus' ministry.63 Jesus was the one on whom the Spirit permanently
remained, which would allow him to baptize others with the Holy Spirit
(Jn 1.32-33; cf. 3.34). Thus when Jesus says 'Receive the Holy Spirit,' the
reader knows that this is the Spirit that brings new birth (Jn 3.3-8), and
allows true worship (Jn 4.23-24), genuine understanding (Jn 6.63), and
communion with the Father and Son (14.16-20, 25-26; 16.13-15).
Thus, John allows the culmination of Ezekiel's hopes to be the
culmination of Jesus' ministry. For Ezekiel, the ultimate hope is that
God will give his Spirit, cleansing his people and giving them the ability to
obey (Ezek. 36.25-29; 37.14, 23). After the glorification of Jesus, Jesus
announces the inauguration of Ezekiel's new spirit. This proclamation has
perhaps the same function as the Lukan announcement of the 'new
covenant in my blood' (Lk. 22.20). Luke uses language from the giving of
the Mosaic covenant (Exod. 24.8) and from Jeremiah's prophecy of a new
covenant (Jer. 31.31-34) to announce the inauguration of a new covenant
between God and his people.64 John uses language from the creation
accounts and from Ezekiel's prophecy of a new covenant for essentially the
same purpose.
John's understanding of Ezekiel is typical of some of his other uses of
the OT that we have seen. First, John's allusion to Ezekiel 37 implies a new
constitution of God's people. Ezekiel promised God's restoration and the
60. Brown notes that this is similar to the play on words between spirit and wind in Jn 3.8.
Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1030.
61. 'In the impressive vision of the valley of the bones, Ezekiel (xxxvii 3-5), addressed by
God as "son of man," was told to prophesy to the dry bones... Now, another Son of Man,
himself fresh from the tomb, speaks as the risen Lord and causes the breath of eternal life to
enter those who hear his word.' Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1037.
62. Schnackenburg, John, vol. 3, p. 325.
63. Breck, Spirit of Truth, pp. 23-24, 137; T.R. Hatina, 'John 20,22 in Its Eschatological
Context: Promise or Fulfillment?' Bib 74, no. 2 (1993), pp. 196-219 (214); R.W. Lyon, 'John
20:22, Once More', AsbTheolJour 43, no. 1 (1988), pp. 73-85; J. Swetnam, 'Bestowal of the
Spirit in the Fourth Gospel', Bib 14, no. 4 (1993), pp. 556-76.
64. Although Jeremiah describes the 'new covenant' (Jer. 31.31) and Ezekiel describes the
'new heart' and 'new spirit' (Ezek. 36.25-29), both ideas are essentially the same. Eichrodt,
Ezekiel, p. 502.
giving of the Spirit to 'the whole house of Israel' (Ezek. 37.11). John,
however, limits the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy to the disciples of
Jesus. This matches John's use of Ezekiel 37 in John 5: there, the gift of
new life is limited to those who listen to the Son. As with John's use of the
shepherd and vine, here John suggests that God's people are now limited
to those who believe in Jesus.
Summary of John's Use of the Vision of Dry Bones. John alludes to

Ezekiel's oracle of the dry bones twice. In the first instance, the language of
the Son calling the dead from their tombs evokes Ezekiel's vision (Jn 5.21-
29; Ezek. 37.1-10). John sees Ezekiel's oracle as both about the gift of life
that believers in Jesus experience now, and also about the final resurrection
of all people. In John's second allusion to Ezekiel's oracle of the dry bones,
John uses the language of breathing out the Spirit to evoke Ezekiel's
interpretation of the vision (Jn 20.22; Ezek. 37.11-14). Here, John focuses
on Ezekiel's prophecy of the giving of the Spirit, not the image of
revivification. In both cases, John presents Jesus as the fulfillment of
Ezekiel's prophecy. John sees Jesus as bringing new life through the giving
of the Spirit - as he will also bring about the final resurrection.
John's use of this oracle can be usefully compared to the use of the same
oracle in other works of the Second Temple period. Pseudo-Ezekiel, 4
Maccabees, and perhaps Sirach and 1 Enoch all understand Ezekiel's
oracle of the dry bones as a description of the final resurrection.65 While
the authors of those works were likely aware that Ezekiel interpreted the
vision as a prophecy of the restoration of Israel and the giving of God's
Spirit, they did not choose to focus on that interpretation. 4 Maccabees in
particular seems to see the vision as primarily about the final resurrection.
The Life of Ezekiel, however, has an understanding of the dry bones oracle
that is similar in some ways to John's understanding. The author of the
Life explains it thus: Ezekiel 'used to say this to them: "Are we lost? Has
our hope perished?" And in the wonder of the dead bones he persuaded
them that there is hope for Israel both here and in the coming age' (L/v.
Proph. 3.12).66 Like John, the author of the Life thought that Ezekiel's
vision referred to both the restoration of God's people and the final
resurrection. Perhaps both John and the author of the Life of Ezekiel saw
the vision itself as a reference to the final resurrection, and the
interpretation of the vision as a reference to the restoration of God's
people.
65. 4Q385 frag. 3 2.5-8 (see p. 70); 4 Mace. 18.17 (see p. 96); Sir. 49.10; 1 En. 90.4-5
(see p. 98).
66. Seep. 97.
3. Water and the Spirit

John's connection of water with the Spirit is perhaps the most difficult
material in John for which to establish OT parallels. The main reason for
this difficulty is that water in John is more of a symbol derived from the
OT than an allusion to particular OT passages. Allusions are intended to
recall particular passages of Scripture. When a particular image or phrase
has been the subject of allusions by several other authors, that image or
phrase begins to cross over to the realm of symbol rather than allusion.
Symbols are known more widely than the texts (or settings) from which
they originally arose. Symbols may become part of ordinary, non-literary
conversation, and may enter into religious ritual. In some cases, the symbol
is used long after its original literary or religious setting is forgotten.67
It is difficult to pin down the precise source of John's use of 'water'
because water is a symbol, not merely an allusion. Water had a symbolic
function in Judaism (as it does in most religions) that would have been
apparent even to an observer unfamiliar with the OT. For those familiar
with the OT and literature of the Second Temple era, water could be a
symbol for many ideas: life, cleansing, restoration, wisdom, God's Spirit,
God's word, and God's provision.68 However, John does not draw on all of
these possible meanings for water. Most of the symbolic occurrences of
'water' in John refer to cleansing, life, or the Holy Spirit. Thus, although
John's uses of water symbolism do not show clear verbal parallel to
particular OT passages, they do show affinities to passages in the OT that
use water as a symbol for cleansing, life, or God's Spirit. To put it another
way, the parallels between water in John and water in certain OT passages
are often more conceptual than verbal.
We will begin by analyzing the reference to water and the Spirit in Jn
7.37-39, then step from there to an analysis of water symbolism in Jn 3.5;
4.10-15; and 19.34. It seems best to begin with Jn 7.37-39 because it
explains its water symbolism, claims an OT source, and seems to explain
some of John's other references to water. A few other symbolic uses of
water (Jn 2.7-9; 5.7; 13.3-17) will not be analyzed, since they show no
direct connection to Ezekiel's use of water symbolism.
a. The Tabernacles Saying (Ezekiel 47.1-12; John 737-39)

There are a number of thorny exegetical problems in Jesus' summons to
the thirsty at the Feast of Tabernacles. Two in particular, the placement of
punctuation and the referent of the pronoun autoO in 7.38, must be
67. See Koester, Symbolism, pp. 1-21; W.-Y. Ng, Water Symbolism in John: An
Eschatological Interpretation (StudBL, 15; New York: P. Lang, 2001), pp. 5-21.
68. See NIDNTT, s.v. 'Water' by O. Bocher, vol. 3, pp. 985-91; TDNT, s.v. 'uScop' by L.
Goppelt, vol. 8, pp. 314-33.
addressed before we analyze the use of water symbolism. The various

options for these two problems have an impact on the search for a possible
OT source for Jesus' saying.
First, there are two possible ways to divide the first part of Jesus' saying,
found in Jn 7.37b-38: edv TIQ 6u|/a epxeoGco TTpog \xe KOCI TTIV€TG) 6 TTIOT€IJG)V elg €|ie
KtxGax; e!TT€V t] ypa^ri... Punctuation A, as it is typically called, places a period
after iriveco), resulting in the translation, 'If anyone is thirsty, let him come to
me and drink. The one who believes in me, as the Scripture s a i d . . . ' This
makes 6 irioxeuGov a pendent nominative, the topic (but not the grammatical
subject) of the following KCCGGK clause. Punctuation B places a period after etc;
4|i€, resulting in the translation 'If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and
let the one who believes in me drink. As the Scripture s a i d . . . ' With this
punctuation, 6 TTIGTCUQV is the subject of mveua).
On the whole, there seem to be more textual, grammatical, and stylistic
reasons in favor of punctuation A. Punctuation A is supported by the
earliest mss,69 as well as by patristic evidence both early and widely
distributed.70 Punctuation A is more grammatically defensible, since it
presents a standard usage of the KaGcog quotation formula, while
punctuation B would require a use of that formula virtually unknown in
the NT. 71 Punctuation A is also more in accord with John's style: the
nominative absolute it requires is typical of John;72 it matches his tendency
69. $ 66 (AD 200) ^ 75 (AD 175-225) divide the lines in accordance with punctuation A,
according to J.B. Cortes, 'Yet Another Look at John 7:37-39', CBQ 29 (1967), pp. 75-86 (77);
Morris, John, p. 423 fn.; see also Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 153. In contrast, punctuation
B has only the support of the Old Latin mss e and d (5th century). K.H. Kuhn, 'St. John VII.
37-8', NTS 4, no. 1 (1957), pp. 63-65 (64); C.H. Turner, 'On the Punctuation of St. John VII
37, 38', JTS 24 (1922-23), pp. 66-70 (69).
70. Origen, Athanasius, Didymus, Cyril of Alexandria, Ammonius of Alexandria,
Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Emesa, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa,
Gregory of Nazianzus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome,
Augustine, according to Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 153. Most Coptic texts also favor
punctuation A, according to Kuhn, 'John VII. 37-8', p. 65. The patristic evidence for
punctuation B is mostly limited to translations of the fathers; for a listing, see Kuhn, 'John
VII. 37-8', p. 64; Turner, 'Punctuation', p. 69. Some proposed witnesses to punctuation B
only attest to the christological interpretation without giving clear evidence of either
punctuation (e.g. Letter from Lyons, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus; used by F.J. Badcock, 'The
Feast of Tabernacles', JTS 24 (1922-23), pp. 169-74 (174); E.B. Nestle, 'The Earliest
Quotation of John 7:38, 39', ExpTim 23 (1911-12), p. 331).
71. Of the 62 NT uses of KaGwg quotation formulae, only one appears to begin a sentence,
as punctuation B would require. This single exception (Rom. 8.26) is also the only instance
where it is the response to a rhetorical question, which might explain its unusual word order
(contra Lindars, John, pp. 298-99).
72. The normal parallels presented are Jn 1.12; 6.39; 8.45; 15.2; 17.2; see also Rev. 2.26;
3.12, 21 (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p.
325; Cortes, 'John 7:37-39', p. 79; Freed, Old Testament Quotations, p. 24; Z.C. Hodges,
'Rivers of Living Water - John 7:37-39', BSac 136 (1979), pp. 239^8 (241)). Some of these
to start clauses with 6 TTioieuGov,73 and the use of 6 TTUTOIW to state the
results of belief (rather than to place further demands on believers) is more
consistent with John's use of 6 TTioieiW.74
The second problem in the Tabernacles saying is the referent of auxoO
in the Scripture quotation, KaGcag dvav r| ypoufy(\, wcqioi 4K xf|<; KOikiaQ
auxoO peuoouaiv u6atog (GOVTCX; ('As the scripture said, "Rivers of living
water will flow from his belly'"). 75 Does the 'belly' belong to Christ or the
believer? It may be more obvious to see the atkou as referring to the
believer, since 6 TTLoieucov is the immediate antecedent,76 but the
peculiarities of nominative absolutes may allow Christ to be the
antecedent. A nominative absolute or pendent nominative is normally
resumed by a pronoun in the proper case later in the sentence. However,
M. Menken offers a number of examples of pendent nominative
constructions in which there is no resumption, 77 and even an example
in which the nearest pronoun clearly does not resume the pendent
nominative.78 Thus it is possible that 6 TrioieuGw in Jn 7.38 is a pendent
nominative, and that auiou does not resume the pendent nominative but
refers to Christ. The context of an OT quotation makes this explanation
more credible: quotations often disrupt syntax, especially pronoun
are pendent accusatives, and thus only give support for John's use of resumptive pronouns (Jn
8.45 may be merely a OIL clause with unusual word order, and does not help). The passages in
Revelation are the most similar, containing nominative absolutes resumed with aircog.
73. Aside from the contested passage, 6 luoieutov never ends a clause, and most often is at
or near the beginning (with the obvious exception of the rare oblique cases in prepositional
phrases). There is also a Johannine tendency to start sentences with other substantival
participles, as is pointed out by Carson, John, p. 324; Lindars, John, p. 299; M.J.J. Menken,
'The Origin of the Old Testament Quote in John 7:38', NovT 38 (1996), pp. 160-75 (164).
74. J.B. Cortes points out that 6 iTLoieuwv is used primarily to state the rewards of belief or
to give confirmation of belief. Cortes, 'John 7:37-39', p. 81; see also Menken, 'John 7:38', p.
164.
75. A number of modern commentators assume that punctuation A must assign auiou to
the believer, while punctuation B may assign auroi) to Christ. However, there are some ancient
commentators who reversed this: Caesarius of Aries, Cyprian (Menken, 'John 7:38', p. 163),
and the Coptic text M 604 (Kuhn, 'John VII. 37-8', p. 65). In addition, some modern scholars
have also suggested alternate combinations. See J. Blenkinsopp, 'John VII. 37-9: Another
Note on a Mysterious Crux', NTS 6, no. 1 (1959), pp. 95-98 (96); idem, 'The Quenching of
Thirst: Reflections on the Utterance in the Temple, John 7:37-9', Scr 12 (1960), pp. 39-48
(46); Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 321; Carson, John, p. 324; Hodges, 'Rivers of Living Water'; S.H.
Hooke, 'The Spirit Was Not Yet', NTS 9, no. 4 (1963), pp. 372-80 (373); Menken, 'John 7:38',
pp. 160-75; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 154.
76. Fee suggests this and several other reasons for seeing the believer as the antecedent of
afaou. G.D. Fee, 'Once M o r e - J o h n 7:37-39', ExpTim 89, no. 4 (1978), pp. 116-21 (116-18).
77. Lk. 21.6; Acts 8.7; 1 Sam. 20.23; Isa. 19.17; Sir. 34.18; Philostratus, Vita Apolonii2.24.
Menken, 'John 7:38', p. 166.
78. Xenophon's Historia Graeca 4.1.24. Menken, 'John 7:38', p. 167.
referent.79 Thus the sense of the quotation may be something like, '[For]
the one who believes in me, as the Scripture said, "Rivers of living water
will flow from his [Christ's] belly.'"80 Furthermore, Johannine theology
makes it likely that OCUTOU refers to Christ. The immediate context suggests
Jesus as the source: 'come to me and drink' (Jn 7.37), and 'those who
believed in him were about to receive' the Spirit (Jn 7.39). Throughout
John, Jesus is the source of the living water and the Spirit (Jn 1.23; 3.34-
35; 4.13-14; 15.26; 16.7; 19.34; 20.22), suggesting that here also, Jesus is
the source of the water.81
This conclusion, that Jesus is the primary source of the living water, may
help us in dealing with an even more difficult problem, the source of the
quote. Elsewhere in John (as well as throughout the NT), introduction
formulae such as 'As the Scripture said' always introduce recognizable
quotations, usually of passages in the OT. In many cases, those quotations
are somewhat different from the forms we currently have in the LXX or
MT; but the source is usually still recognizable. Here, however, there is no
known passage that Jn 7.38 quotes.
Although numerous passages have been proposed,82 none of these
passages has the same wording as Jn 7.38b. None have more than three of
the five important words that Jesus uses (TToioqioi, KoiAia, peco, \J6GOV Can/).
None have the phrase 'rivers of living water,' although some use 'living
79. The desire to quote with some accuracy led NT authors to maintain the original
pronoun even when it did not fit its new context. For example, Jn 2.17 uses a second person
pronoun to refer to Jesus, although the context calls for third person. In 6.45, the quote is
plural, but Jesus' explanation uses a singular pronoun. In 10.34-35, the OT quote is a second
person pronoun, and Jesus' explanation is in the third person. In 12.38-40, John uses 'our' to
refer to Jesus. This phenomenon is not limited to John: cf. Mt. 26.31; Lk. 7.24; 19.46; 20.17,
41-43; 22.37. Similarly, Revelation contains numerous examples of misused cases, possibly
because the 'author alludes to the LXX, retaining the same case-form (even though it now
lacks concord in its new context), to signal his audience that he is quoting from the OT.' D.B.
Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 61 fn. This tendency for quotations to disrupt pronoun
referent answers one of Fee's strongest objections to seeing Jesus as the antecedent of aircou
(Fee, 'Once More - John 7:37-39', pp. 116-18).
80. Oepke offers a similar paraphrase, although he favors the believer as a referent.
TDNT, s.v. 'Kpijimo' by A. Oepke, vol. 3, pp. 957-1000.
81. A number of scholars support the 'christological interpretation': Brown, John, vol. 1,
pp. 320, 328; Carson, John, pp. 323, 324; Cortes, 'John 7:37-39', pp. 76-77; J.D.G. Dunn,
Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the
Spirit in Relationship to Pentecostalism Today (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), p. 187;
Hatina, 'John 20,22', pp. 212-14; Hodges, 'Rivers of Living Water', p. 242; Ng, Water
Symbolism, pp. 77-81; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 154; J.E. Somerville, 'The Invitation to
the Thirsty', ExpTim 15 (1903-04), pp. 77-79 (77-78); Swetnam, 'Bestowal of the Spirit',
pp. 565-66.
82. My survey of literature on this passage yielded at least 29 proposed sources from the
OT or other literature of the Second Temple period.
water' or 'rivers of water.' Many of the passages that share some words
with Jn 7.38 seem conceptually distant, suggesting that the verbal parallels
are misleading. This difficulty results in a lack of scholarly consensus; it is
difficult to find more than two or three scholars who agree on the source of
John's 'quotation.'
However, although there is no passage that Jn 7.38 quotes or even to which
it clearly alludes, it is possible to see some connections between the use of
water symbolism here and in some OT passages. In Jn 7.38, water symbolizes
the Spirit, comes from Christ, and brings ultimate satisfaction to all who
receive it. Thus we should look at OT passages in which water symbolizes the
Spirit, comes from a messianic figure, and provides ultimate, perhaps even
eschatological, blessings to those who receive it. Of course, it may not be that
simple. Knowing John's tendency to describe Jesus with terms and images
originally ascribed to God (for example, Jn 1.1; 10.14), we also need to
consider passages that describe God as the source of the water or Spirit. And
knowing that John often alludes to promises originally directed to Israel and
appropriates them for the followers of Jesus, we will obviously look for OT
passages that describe Israel as the recipient of the water or Spirit. Thus, OT
passages that show the greatest affinity to Jn 7.38 are those in which God, or a
messianicfigure,promises to give water, symbolizing the Spirit, to Israel.
The setting of the saying at the Feast of Tabernacles may also help to
identify the OT passages or ideas to which Jn 7.38 refers. Most agree that
the summons to the thirsty should be understood in light of the water
ceremony at the Feast of Tabernacles.83 The water ceremony likely had
several meanings, as revealed by some of the traditional readings at
Tabernacles.84 Some readings recalled the miraculous water from the rock
83. Primary sources on the Feast of Tabernacles and the water ceremony include Sukk.
1.1-2.4; 4.9; 5 . 3 ^ ; b. Sukk. 5.48b; 5.53a; 5.55a; Peshikta Rabbati 52.4.6; b. Megillah 31a;
Josephus, Ant. 3.245-47; 8.100, 123; 11.154-57; 13.241-47, 372-73; 15.50; Philo, Spec. Leg.
11.213. The meaning of the ritual and its connection to Jn 7.37-38 have been discussed
extensively: Badcock, 'The Feast of Tabernacles', pp. 169-74; Brown, John, vol. 1, pp. 321-27;
A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1993, New York: Longmans, Green, 1896), pp. 582-91; Freed, Old Testament Quotations, p.
30; B.H. Grigsby, '"If Any Man Thirsts...":? Observations on the Rabbinic Background of
John 7,37-39', Bib 67 (1986), pp. 101-08 (102-07); ISBE, s.v. 'Booths, Feast of by R.K.
Harrison, p. 535; Hatina, 'John 20,22', pp. 214-15; Hodges, 'Rivers of Living Water', p. 247;
ODJR, s.v. 'Hosha'na' Rabbah'; 'Shemini 'Atseret'; 'Simhat Beit Ha-Sho'evah'; 'Sukkah';
H.M. Knapp, 'The Messianic Water Which Gives Life to the World', HBT 19, no. 2 (1997),
pp. 109-21 (111); Ng, Water Symbolism, pp. 77-78; IDB, s.v. 'Booths, Feast of by J.C.
Rylaarsdam; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, pp. 138-39, 152-56.
84. b. Megillah 31 a and /. Sukk. 3 list traditional readings for Feast of Tabernacles, as well
as Scriptures that were commonly associated with the Feast: Exod. 33.12; Lev. 23.33^4;
Num. 29.12-34; Deut. 14.22-15.18; 33; 1 Kgs 7.2; 8.22, 54; Ezekiel 38; Zechariah 14. Other
passages may have been synagogue readings during the festival.
in the wilderness (Exod. 17.1-6; Psalms 78, 105). Other readings recalled
the promised eschatological waters (Isa. 12.1^4; 44.3). Especially
important are the passages that describe the river coming forth from the
Temple (Ezek. 47.1-10; Zech. 13.1; 14.8), since the pouring out of the
water on the altar was thought to symbolize God's promised river.85 These
passages, and others like them, have conceptual parallels with Jn 7.37-39.
As many scholars have pointed out, there is no need to select only one
of these meanings for the water symbol.86 The fact that the water ritual
was associated with both the water from the rock and the water from the
Temple87 suggests that John may intend more than one meaning for the
water symbolism. That is, John sees both the water in the wilderness88
and the river from the Temple as symbols for the Holy Spirit. Other OT
uses of water symbolism may be significant as well: water as wisdom, the
rivers of Eden, and the cleansing water of purification rituals. However,
since the focus of this work is on the use of Ezekiel in John, we will focus
our attention on the passages that describe a river coming from the
Temple.
Thus, although the saying at Tabernacles may be related to water
symbolism throughout the OT, we can say with some confidence that Jn
7.37-39 includes, as part of its symbolic meaning, a reference to the
cleansing and life-giving river from the Temple. That image originally
comes from Ezekiel, but the language in Jn 7.38 is likely also influenced by
the wording in the versions by Zechariah and Joel.
85. T. Sukk. 3.3-12; see B.H. Grigsby, 'Gematria and John 21:11 - Another Look at
Ezekiel 47:10', ExpTim 95 (1984), pp. 177-78; Grigsby, 'If Any Man Thirsts', pp. 105-06;
Knapp, 'Messianic Water', pp. 116-17; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 155.
86. D.C. Allison, 'The Living Water', St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary Quarterly 30,
no. 2 (1986), pp. 143-57 (144-45); Beasley-Murray, John, p. 116; Carson, John, p. 328;
Fowler, 'Influence', p. 149; Koester, Symbolism, p. 174; Menken, 'John 7:38', p. 168; Ng,
Water Symbolism, pp. 77-78; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 122.
87. T. Sukk. 3.3-10 describes the water from the libation flask as water from the river of
Ezek. 47.1-12, and links this with the fountain of Zech. 13.1, the river of Zech. 14.8, and the
waterlands of Isa. 33.21 (t. Sukk. 3.3-10). Then t. Sukk. 3.11-12 compares the water for the
libation with the water from the rock in the wilderness (Numbers 21; Ps. 78.20; 105.41). T.
Sukk. 3.13 then explicitly links the two ideas by combining a description of the Temple river
with a passage on God's provision in the Exodus (Deut. 2.7). Finally, t. Sukk. 3.18 connects
the water libation with the promises for rain in Zech. 14.17-18.
88. Although many passages about the water from the rock are proposed as the source of
the wording in Jn 7.38, the description of the water from the rock in Isa. 48.21 LXX has some
striking similarities. The LXX translator renders the description in the future tense, making it
into a prophecy: 'And if they are thirsty (&i4npwoiv), he will lead them through the wilderness.
He will bring out water from the rock for them; the rock will be split, and water will flow
i u6wp), and my people will drink.'
Ezek. 47.1 . . . water was coming

out from the threshold of the
Temple.
47.9 every living creature...
Jn 7.38-39 As the scripture said, wherever the river/s (o^m/6
'Rivers of living water will flow m)Toqi6<;) go, will live,
from his belly.' Zech. 14.8 . . . living waters will
(myuoqiol €K if|<; KOiAiac; ctuiou flow (QeXevoemi u6a)p (cov) from
peuaouaiv uoauoc; (COVTCX;) This he Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea
said about the Holy Spirit, whom and half to the western sea... 8 9
those who believed in him were Joel 3.18 . . . all the stream beds of
about to receive; for the Spirit was Judah will flow with water
not yet, for Jesus was not yet (purioovToa uoara), and a fountain
glorified. will come forth (eEtkevoexai) from
the house of the Lord and water the
valley of Shittim.
The verbal parallels are not strong, but the idea of the river from Jesus
clearly is related to the idea of the river from the Temple in Ezekiel,
Zechariah, and Joel. In addition, the use of 'living water' and 'rivers'
suggests some verbal parallel between Jn 7.38 and the OT passages.
John's use of m)Ta|iol (rivers) may reflect an old tradition that Ezekiel's
river split into two or more branches. The tradition may be based on the
unusual use of the dual form D^ra in Ezek. 47.9 (not represented in the
LXX).90 Ezek. 47.8 describes one river heading first 'to the eastern region'
(ruimpn rrârr^K) and then south to the Arabah and the Dead Sea. The
phrase 'to the eastern region,' however, was somewhat ambiguous, since
Tib^b} could refer to 'Galilee' or 'a region.'91 Thus the LXX translator saw
the river as going to 'eastern Galilee' (d<; TTJV rcdiAmav TT]V 7Tpo<; avauoAac)
and to Arabia, suggesting that the river split into two. Perhaps Zechariah
understood Ezekiel as describing two rivers for one of the above reasons;
when he abbreviated Ezekiel's vision, he described the waters as going to
two seas (Zech. 14.8, LXX and MT). 1QH 16.17, alluding to Ezek. 47.8-9,
describes the waters going to 'seas' (see p. 56), suggesting that the author of
Hodayot also interpreted Ezekiel's river as branching into two. T. Sukk.
3.9-10, describing the connection between the water ritual and Ezekiel 47,
89. LXX: 'half to the first sea and half to the last sea.'
90. Allen suggests that the MT dual form D^m may be a corruption of D^m, 'their river'
(i.e., the river from the waters) or that the text may have been influenced by the two rivers of
Zech. 14.8 (Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 2, pp. 271, 274). The LXX translator did not render it as a
plural, but seems to have seen it as branching into two rivers (Ezek. 47.8).
91. The LXX translator of Joel 4.4 similarly renders the phrase rwbs niWa bzi ('all the
regions of the Philistines') as moa FodiAxua aXlofyvkuv ('all Galilee of the Philistines').
makes it explicit that Ezekiel's river goes to the Sea of Galilee, the Dead
Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea.92 According to Levey, a few late rabbinic
sources also describe the river of Zechariah and Ezekiel as going to the
same three seas.93 Likewise, Targ. Ezek. 47.8 describes the river as going to
both the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. With this array of evidence
that Ezekiel's 'river' was interpreted as 'rivers,' it is not surprising that
John's allusion to the Temple river would use the plural.94
The setting of the saying at the Feast of Tabernacles makes it likely that
Jn 7.38 is supposed to recall (among other things) the river from the
Temple. First, Zechariah 13 and 14 were part of the scripture readings at
Tabernacles; thus, Zechariah's 'living waters' seems to be a likely source of
inspiration for Jn 7.38. Second, the water ritual was perceived to be
symbolic of the river coming from the Temple in Ezek. 47.1-12. T. Sukk.
3.5-9 explains that the Water Gate was so named because of its role in the
water ritual, and because the river of Ezekiel and Zechariah wouldflowout
through that gate (Ezek. 47.2).95
There are a number of important conceptual connections between Jn
7.38 and the three passages prophesying a river from the Temple. In order
to understand those connections, we must explore the meaning of Ezekiel's
vision, as well as its abbreviation in Zechariah 14 and Joel 3. The vision of
the river falls in the middle of Ezekiel's description of a restored Israel,
between the visions of a restored Temple and a restored land. Chapters 40-
42 describe the restored Temple. God returns to the holy place on his
chariot (Ezek. 43.1-5), confirms his 'new covenant' with his people (Ezek.
43.6-12), and describes the affairs of the new, purified Temple (Ezekiel 43-
46). Ezek. 47.1-12 describes the river, springing from the inner courts of
the purified Temple, and going out into the rest of Israel, transforming the
land into a new Eden. Ezek. 47.11-48.35 then describes the tribal
boundaries, in Jerusalem and throughout the Land, of the reconstituted
92. T. Sukk. 3.9-10 translates rbb* as 'east,' but it strangely interprets 'Arabah' as 'the
Sea at Tiberias' (Galilee) and 'the eastern region' as the 'Sea at Sodom' (Dead Sea). It also
describes the freshening of water in the Great Sea, not only the Dead Sea. The interpretation
may represent an attempt to harmonize Ezekiel's account with Zechariah's.
93. Pirq de Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 51; Yalkut Simeoni on Ezek. #383 (47). Levey, The Targum
of Ezekiel, p. 127, n. 8.
94. As far as I am aware, these pieces of data have not previously been gathered together.
A few of the pieces have been analyzed separately. Brownlee pointed out the significance of
the dual form of 'rivers' in Ezek. 47.9; Grigsby observed that t. Sukk. interpreted the river as
going to Galilee; and Levey observed the connection between the interpretation of the river in
the Targum and in other rabbinic material. W.H. Brownlee, 'Whence John?' in J.H.
Charlesworth (ed.), John and Qumran (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972), pp. 166-94 (186);
Grigsby, 'Gematria'; Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel, p. 127, n. 8.
95. Grigsby, 'Gematria', pp. 177-78; Grigsby, 'If Any Man Thirsts', pp. 105-06;
Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 155.
nation. This placing of the vision of the river is crucial to EzekieFs

message. The restoration of the people to their land comes only after the
Temple is purified and God brings his glory back to the Temple.96 The
defilement of the Temple - in Ezekiel, one of the causes of the exile (Ezek.
8-9, 22.26; 43.7-12; 46.6-14) - is now cleansed by the presence of God.
The priesthood and the Temple cult are restored to their correct practices
(Ezek. 43.6-9; 46.6-14). Only then does God's river come from the inner
court of the Temple, through Jerusalem, and out into the land of Israel.97
As the land is physically restored, the people are also restored. The just re-
allocation of land to the tribes (Ezek. 47.11-48.35) is a picture of that
restored society. No longer will they dispossess one another from the land
that God has given them.
Part of the inspiration for Ezekiel's vision is the creation account in
Genesis. The renewing work of the river brings new life in the same fashion
as God brought life to the world. Ezekiel 47 contains several clear allusions
to the creation accounts:
Ezek. 47.9 And it will be that every Gen. 1.21 And God created...
living creature that swarms every living creature with which the
water swarms
(psriioK mn rasrb::)98 in every (ITVO IBK ... mn rarte)
place where the rivers go, will
live...
10 ... their fish will be very many
according to kind (nrnb), like the after their kinds (»nr»*?).
fish of the Great Sea... Gen. 2.9 And from the ground the
12 And on both banks of the river Lord God made grow every tree
(^mn) will grow every tree for (fybs) that is... good for eating
eating (tewrp-te). (bmnb)... 10 A river (inai) flowed
out of Eden to water the garden.
96. 'All the preparation of the sacred place... is meant in the last resort to serve God's
intention to allow life and healing to flow out from here into the land. This life and healing are
to be effective precisely where unnatural disease and hostility to life are most obviously
operative.' Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 516; see also W. Zimmerli, T h e "Land" in the Pre-
Exilic and Early Post-Exilic Prophets', in J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad, and B.C. Ollenburger
(eds), Understanding the Word (Festschrift B. Anderson; JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1985), pp. 246-62 (258).
97. K. Stevenson points out that the river of Ezek. 47.1-12 and the altar of Ezek. 43.13-27
serve a similar function: 'The Altar cleanses the House of the effects of chaos, while the stream
heals the land.' K.R. Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of
Ezekiel 40-48 (SBLDS, 154; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), p. 142.
98. The verbal parallels between the two passages are not as strong in the LXX, perhaps
because the translator of Ezekiel was not familiar with the LXX of Genesis.
The river itself is reminiscent of the rivers of Eden, although there is little
verbal parallel between the two descriptions of the rivers.
Observing this parallel to the creation account is useful, because it
allows us to observe that this vision has essentially the same meaning as the
oracle of the dry bones (Ezek. 37.1-14). In both cases, Ezekiel uses imagery
from the creation account to describe new life coming from God. Like the
oracle of the dry bones, the vision of the Temple river is not primarily
about physical restoration, but God giving his healing Spirit to his people.
The theme of healing and life is clear in the vision: when the river reaches
the stagnant water, the water 'is healed' (iznn/vyiaoti; Ezek. 47.8, 9). For
water to 'be healed' means to become fresh, but the secondary meaning
becomes more noticeable in this passage because 'will be healed' (1KDT1) is
juxtaposed with 'live' (vn). 'The water will become fresh; so everything will
live (TH iKB-n/Kai uyiaoci KCCI £r\oemi) wherever the river goes' (Ezek. 47.9).
Since Greek does not use the same idiom for making water fresh, the LXX
of Ezek. 47.8-9 appears to be entirely about waters that heal and make
alive (i)Yidco€i TO uoorca... TO u6a)p TOUTO, Kal uyuxaei Kod
Furthermore, the river teems with 'living creatures' (rrn WB3/*A | >X<n
CGXDV), and the leaves of the trees that grow there are 'for healing'
elg liyLeiav; Ezek. 47.12). Ezekiel's play on the word KB"! (heal/make fresh)
in Ezek. 47.8, 9, and 12 thus makes it clear that healing is an important
theme in the passage.
The vision of the Temple river is the final picture used in Ezekiel for
God's promised restoration of his people. Thus, it has affinities with all of
the previous images of restoration: the restored cedar (Ezek. 17.22-24), the
shepherd restoring his flock (Ezekiel 34), the sprinkling of water (Ezek.
36.25-27), the raised dry bones (Ezek. 37.1-14), and the joining of the two
sticks (Ezek. 37.15-28)." Ezekiel's vision of restoration is multi-faceted,
but it includes three major elements: the people returned to their land; the
reversal of the sins that caused the Exile; and a new ability to keep God's
commandments. This new ability to keep God's commandments is
described in various ways: the giving of one heart, a new heart, a new
spirit, a heart of flesh, God's Spirit (Ezek. 11.19-20; 18.31; 36.25-27; 37.14;
39.28). Each of Ezekiel's oracles of restoration communicates all three of
these elements: physical restoration to the land, the reversal of past
patterns of sin, and a new ability to obey God. Thus the account of the
river from the Temple, although lacking an explanation of its contents, is
clearly about the complete restoration of God's people.
The image of the cleansing river from the Temple also has connections
with Ezek. 36.25-27, 'I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be
clean... I will give you a new heart and a new spirit... I will put my Spirit
99. It is interesting to note that John alludes to all of these oracles of restoration.
within you...' In this image, Ezekiel describes the restoration of Israel as a

ritual purification. Israel was like 'a woman in her uncleanness' (Ezek.
36.17; see Lev. 15.19ff); thus the restoration is pictured as a cleansing
ritual. To 'sprinkle clean water' (Dmntt D'tt .. .Tip-in; Ezek. 36.25) alludes
to the ritual sprinkling of 'holy water' to remove various types of impurity
(Lev. 14.5-7, 49-52; Num. 8.5-7; 19.9, 17-22). The phrase 'you will be
clean' (Ezek. 36.25) is similar to the normal pronouncement in the Law for
one who has finished the purification ritual (e.g., Num. 19.19). The fact
that the Law usually describes this water as 'flowing' or 'living' water
(D-D D"n/u6a)p C^v) is perhaps significant. Ezekiel does not use the phrase,
but he clearly associates water with life in his description of the river from
the Temple. Zechariah describes the river from the Temple as 'living
waters,' suggesting that he saw the connection between Ezekiel's river and
the purifying waters. Thus, Ezekiel used water as a symbol for the coming
purification of his people; like Isaiah, Ezekiel associated that cleansing
water with God's promise to give his Spirit (Ezek. 36.25-27; 39.29; Isa.
44.3; 32.15).100
Thus, Ezekiel has a somewhat consistent use of the symbol of water. For
Ezekiel, water used in the Temple cult came to symbolize moral and
spiritual cleansing, and thus God's promise to give his Spirit. Water was
also a symbol of God's abundant provision, and especially of his ability to
re-create and heal, as in the river from the Temple. The image of the river
from the Temple appears to combine these ideas: water comes from God's
presence, purifying, healing, and bringing life to the land and its people.
Like Ezekiel's other symbols, water communicates both outward physical
restoration of the land as well as a spiritual transformation of the people.
When Zechariah and Joel make brief references to Ezekiel's river, they
seem to include some of the same meaning. Zechariah describes a fountain
that God will open 'for sin and for impurity' (Zech. 13.1), which seems to
be the same as the 'living waters' that will flow from Jerusalem to the two
seas (Zech. 14.8).101 Joel's vision also describes the presence of God in his
Temple, and the resulting sanctification of Jerusalem and watering of the
land (Joel 3.17-18). The water ritual at the Feast of Tabernacles also draws
100. As Ng points out, the connection between water and Spirit in Ezekiel 47 is not as
strong as in other passages such as Ezek. 36.25-27 or Isa. 4 4 . 3 ^ ; but she also points out that
the river only comes after God enters the Temple, suggesting the connection with God's gift of
his Spirit. Ng, Water Symbolism, p. 168.
101. It is significant that John quotes from another passage in Zechariah that uses pouring
language to describe the Spirit. When Jn 19.37 briefly quotes Zech. 12.10, 'they will look on
him whom they pierced,' this is probably supposed to recall the beginning of the verse, 'And I
will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and
supplication, so that they will look on me [or him] whom they have pierced...'
on the hopes of God's promised physical and spiritual blessings, including

the outpouring of his Spirit.
Once the OT meaning of the river from the Temple is explored, the
parallels to Jn 7.38 are clear. Jesus proclaims himself as the fulfillment of
God's promise. The river from the Temple was God's promise to cleanse
his people, bring them healing, new life, and a new creation. This promise
would be accomplished through the pouring out of God's Spirit, pictured
as a river of lifeflowingfrom God to all his people. John describes Jesus as
the one who brings that renewing Spirit from God.
John's transformation of the image fits what we have come to expect.
First, John has made a close connection between Jesus and God by
describing Jesus as the source of water. In the OT passages, God is the
implied source of the river, and God is the one who gives his Spirit. In
Ezekiel 47, the water only begins when God has returned to his throne
in the Temple. By making Jesus the source of the living waters, John
connects Jesus closely with God's work. Jesus is the agent who carries
out God's promise of the living water from the Temple.102 This close
connection between the work of God and Jesus is similar to the
description of Jesus' role as God's shepherd in John 10 (see pp. 117-
18).
There may be another, more elusive connection between Jesus and the
source of the water in Ezekiel 47. The river begins as a trickle of water
from the ]nsn of the Temple. This ]nen, normally translated 'threshold' or
'podium'103 is somewhat mysterious.104 The LXX translator of Ezekiel
apparently read nnsft for ]nsa, and thus translated it as aT0pio<; (open
place). The English translation 'threshold' may be influenced by the
Vulgate limen.
Whatever the word means, in Ezekiel, the ]ns?: is only occupied by 'the
glory of YHWH' (Ezek. 9.3; 10.4, 18) and the 'prince' during his worship
(Ezek. 46.2). We cannot be sure of how John interpreted the Temple vision
in Ezekiel 47, but we might speculate that he saw the ]nSD, the source of the
river, as the place for the glory of God and for the 'prince.' There are hints
elsewhere in John that Jesus is the 'glory of God,' seen in the visions of
102. See also Koester, Symbolism, p. 161.

103. Eichrodt sees some significance in the source of the water from the podium, 'where
the authorized representative of the invisible God took his stand'; Eichrodt, Ezekiel, P- 582;
see also Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 224 (citing A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebrdischen
Bibel 5 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912); although see Allen, Ezekiel, vol. 1, p. 122 for opposing
views.
104. "jnSQ only occurs in Ezekiel's description of the Temple (Ezek. 9.3; 10.4, 18; 46.2;
47.1), once in Zeph. 1.9, and in the description of the temple of Dagon (1 Sam. 5.4-5). In none
of these occurrences are there enough clues to allow a description or even a definition of the
Jacob, Isaiah, and Ezekiel.105 Ezekiel's future 'prince' is David (Ezek.

34.24; 37.25), although that fact is not mentioned in the descriptions of
him in Ezekiel 44-48. John's two allusions to Ezekiel's 'Prince David' (Jn
10.1-30/Ezek. 34.34; Jn 11.51-52/Ezek. 37.25) suggest that John sees Jesus
as Ezekiel's prince.106 Thus, John may have seen a messianic element in the
source of the Temple river, since the ]nsn was reserved only for the glory of
God and the prince of Israel - descriptions that John finds appropriate for
Jesus. These connections are admittedly tenuous and speculative; but it is
quite possible that a messianic or christological approach to Ezekiel would
yield such connections.107
John's reasons for describing the water coming from Jesus' KOIAIOC (belly)
are unclear. The difficulty of finding any Old Testament source for 'water
from the belly' has led scholars to propose a variety of conjectural
emendations, either of Jesus' words or of parallel OT passages, based on
the Hebrew, Aramaic, or even Syriac.108 Although some of these are
attractive,109 none have garnered wide support. It may be best to offer only
some general observations. The use of 'belly' makes it clear that the life-
giving waters from the Temple come directly from Jesus, not from the altar
where the water libation was poured out. Furthermore, the idea of water
coming from Jesus' belly allows John to picture the fulfillment of this
promise when the soldier 'pierced his side... and blood and water came
forth' (Jn 19.34). This is probably intended to symbolize the connection
between the giving of the Spirit (water) and Jesus' death (blood);110 the
same connection that is made in Jn 7.39: 'For the Spirit was not yet, for
Jesus was not yet glorified.' John's use of the water to symbolize the Spirit
here is also verified by his citation of Zech. 12.10, which connects the
105. See comments on Jn 1.51, pp. 153-54, above.

106. See above, pp. 117-18.
107. John elsewhere hints at a connection between Christ and the Temple (Jn 1.18; 1.51;
2.21; 4.23-25). Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John, pp. 210-17.
108. See, for example, C.F. Burney, 'The Aramaic Equivalent of eK XV\Q KOIXIOLC, in Jn. VII
38', JTS 24 (1922-23), pp. 79-80; C.F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922), p. 110; J.R. Harris and V. Burch, Testimonies (2 vols;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916-20); A.S. Lewis, 'John vii. 38, 39', ExpTim 23
(1911-12), pp. 235-36; J. Marcus, 'Rivers of Living Water from Jesus' Belly', JBL 117, no. 2
(1998), pp. 328-30; Menken, 'John 7:38', p. 162; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 2, p. 156; C.C.
Torrey, Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence (New York/London: Harper &
Brothers, 1936), pp. 109-11.
109. For example, Joel Marcus repoints niy^'Ti wsnn ('from springs of salvation,' Isa.
12.3) as njJiErn "TI7QQ ('from the belly of Jesus'). Marcus, 'Rivers of Living Water from Jesus'
Belly', p. 329-30.
110. Carson, John, p. 624; Ng, Water Symbolism, p. 84; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 3, p.
294; see also Brown, John, vol. 2, pp. 949-50; Koester, Symbolism, pp. 181-83.
pouring out of God's Spirit with the one 'whom they have pierced' (Jn
19.37).111
Several scholars see John's use of Ezekiel's Temple river as an implied
claim that Jesus is the new Temple.112 That is, since the river comes from
the Temple in Ezekiel, and from Jesus in John, Jesus points to himself as
the Temple. This is certainly possible, especially since John refers to the
'temple of his body' in Jn 2.19-21. John's interpretation of the river as a
reference to the Spirit produces slightly more of an emphasis on the water
than the source; nevertheless, seeing Jesus as the Temple, the dwelling
place of God, is a valid way to understand the saying in Jn 7.37-39.
John's modification of the recipients of the water is typical of the
changes to OT imagery that John makes elsewhere. In Ezekiel, the river
comes from God's presence and restores the Land; likewise, most of the
passages that associate the giving of the Spirit with water describe Israel as
the recipients (Neh. 9.20; Isa. 32.15; 44.3; Ezek. 36.25-27; 39.29; Zech.
12.10; for the exception, see Joel 2.28-29). In John, only the thirsty who
come to Jesus receive the river of living water. John now appropriates the
promise originally given to the nation of Israel for the disciples of Jesus.
Ezekiel's life-giving water from God would be available only to those who
believe in Jesus (Jn 7.37). If Ezekiel's river is a metaphor for the new
covenant, then the Tabernacles saying claims the new covenant only for
those who believe in Jesus.
Unlike the Good Shepherd discourse, John gives no hint here that the
living water is available to Gentile believers. However, some scholars have
seen a hint of such universalism in the setting of the Feast of Tabernacles
and in the water ritual itself.113 Some understand the sacrifice of seventy
bulls during the festival as a reference to the seventy Gentile nations, Israel
sacrificing on behalf of the nations.114 Zech. 14.16-19, a reading at the
Feast (t. Sukk. 3.18), looked forward to the day when every nation would
send pilgrims to Tabernacles and thus receive the blessing of rain from
God. Some even saw the river from the Temple as bringing life to the
111. John's description of the moment of Jesus' death in Jn 19.30, iTape8o)Kev TO nveuiia ('he
handed over the spirit') may be a play on words, also designed to connect Jesus' death with the
giving of the Spirit.
112. Busse, 'Die Tempelmetaphorik' p. 400; Grigsby, 'Gematria', pp. 177-78; Grigsby, 'If
Any Man Thirsts', pp. 105-06. Hodges, using a more convoluted argument, sees the
implication that the believer will become a part of the Temple. Hodges, 'Rivers of Living
Water', pp. 245-46.
113. Morris, John, p. 123.
114. b. Sukk. 5.55b: 'R. Eleazar stated, To what do these seventy bullocks correspond? To
the seventy nations.' Peshikta R. 52.7: 'The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: "My
children, I know that during all seven days of the Feast of Tabernacles you have been
occupied with offerings on behalf of the nations of the earth.'"
whole world, because of the interpretation that the river would go all the
way to the Mediterranean.115
In summary, the saying in Jn 7.37-39 draws on two dominant uses of
water symbolism found in the OT: the water from the rock in the Exodus;
and the water that would come from the Temple. The wording and
meaning of the saying is influenced by both images; here, we explored only
the influence of the passages about the Temple river (Ezek. 47.1-12; Zech.
14.8; Joel 3.18). John's interpretation of that river as a reference to the
outpouring of the Spirit may have resulted from meditation on the
significance of water as the Spirit in several passages (Isa. 44.3; Ezek.
36.25-27; Zech. 12.10). In addition, EzekiePs river, when compared with
Ezekiel's other restoration oracles, serves the same role as the giving of
God's Spirit. John transforms the image by making Jesus the source of the
water and believers in Jesus the sole recipients; this modification matches
John's pattern of modifying OT images elsewhere (for example, the vine,
the shepherd, and the manna).
b. Born of Water and the Spirit (Ezekiel 36.25-27; Isaiah 44.3; John 3.5;
4.13-14)
Our understanding of water as the Spirit in Jn 7.37-39 allows us to explore
the related symbolism in Jn 3.5 and 4.13-14. In neither passage is it clear
that water symbolizes the Spirit. However, John's clear explanation in Jn
7.39, that water from Jesus is the Holy Spirit, suggests that the water of Jn
3.3 and Jn 4.13-14 should be interpreted as the Holy Spirit. Once the 'key'
of Jn 7.39 is applied to the earlier water passages, it becomes more
apparent that water in John 3 and 4 makes the most sense as a symbol for
the Spirit.
In Jn 3.5, Jesus lays out the conditions for entering God's kingdom:
'Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit (u6aiog KOCL Trveunaucx;), he
cannot enter the kingdom of God.' There have been a variety of
interpretations of the phrase 'water and the Spirit'; Wai-Yee Ng gives an
excellent summary of those views in her monograph on Johannine water
symbolism.116 The epexegetical view holds that the phrase is a hendiadys;
thus, water is the Spirit, and the birth spoken about here is birth by the
Spirit. While the traditional translation 'water and Spirit' is acceptable, the
epexegetical view suggests the paraphrase 'water, even the Spirit.' This
view is the most likely for a number of reasons. First, the combination of
the terms in one prepositional phrase, without distinct articles, suggests
one birth, not two. Second, John's clear water symbolism elsewhere,
115. Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel, p. 127, n. 8; note also that 1QH 16.17 describes the
river as going to 'seas without end.'
116. Ng, Water Symbolism, pp. 70-75.
especially in Jn 7.37-39, suggests that water should symbolize the Spirit.

Finally, such a view has a long history of interpretation,117 and is
commonly held by Johannine scholars today.118 This understanding of Jn
3.5 does not exclude the possibility of a reference to baptism; as Ng points
out, the fact that symbols are often polyvalent allows water to refer to both
the Spirit and the baptism by water that is associated with the Spirit.119
As with the use of water symbolism in Jn 7.37-39, the symbol of water in
Jn 3.5 does not contain a clear allusion to any single passage in the OT.
Instead, it uses water as a symbol for the Spirit in a fashion similar to water
symbolism in several OT passages. As we have seen above, water is used as
a symbol for the eschatological outpouring of God's Spirit in a number of
OT passages. The two passages that make this connection the clearest are
Isa. 44.3 and Ezek. 36.25-27.
Jn 3.5 Unless someone is born of Isa. 44.3 I will give water on the
water and the Spirit, he cannot thirsty... I will pour out my Spirit
enter the kingdom of God. on your offspring.
Ezek. 36.25-27 I will sprinkle clean
water on you, and you will be
clean... I will give you a new
heart... I will put my Spirit in you.
The 'new covenant' theme of Ezek. 36.25-27 has already been explored
above (pp. 168-170, 179); it is clear that Ezekiel uses a picture of the
purification ritual to describe a new and total purification, not only from
ritual uncleanness, but also from the tendency to disobey God's law.120 In
John, this giving of God's Spirit may be associated with purity, but the
primary reference is to 'the kingdom of God.' In John 3, birth by water
and the Spirit is the prerequisite for entering the kingdom of God. Like
other aspects of Jn 3.5, the meaning of this birth is debated. The full scope
of this debate need not be retold here;121 what is important is that water
and Spirit are related to the coming kingdom. The combination of the
117. Ng cites Origen (Comm. Io., Fragment 36) and Calvin (Commentary on John 1.109-
12) as earlier commentators who saw water as the Spirit in John 3.6. Ng, Water Symbolism,
pp. 71-72.
118. G.R. Beasley-Murray, 'John 3:3, 5: Baptism, Spirit, and the Kingdom', ExpTim 97
(1986), pp. 167-70; Lindars, John, p. 152; Morris, John, p. 191, fn 30; Ng, Water Symbolism,
pp. 74-75; Schnackenburg, John, vol. 1, pp. 370, 371, fn 75.
119. Ng, Water Symbolism, pp. 72-74.
120. Ezekiel's view of cleansing influenced the Qumran view of ritual baptisms, especially
as seen in 1QS 3.7-9; 4.20-22; see pp. 51, 195-96.
121. See the commentaries for the various views: Barrett, John, pp. 208-10; Beasley-
Murray, John, pp. 48-49; Brown, John, vol. 1, pp. 140-44.
eschatological hope of God's kingdom with the birth by 'water and Spirit'
is intended to remind Nicodemus (or the reader) of the expectation of the
outpouring of the Spirit.122
As usual, John modifies the OT image. The expectation of many Jews
would have been that one aspect of the coming messianic kingdom would
be the outpouring of the Spirit, and all Israel would receive the blessing.
However, Jn 3.5 makes the reception of the Spirit a prerequisite for entry
into the kingdom. It suggests that when the messianic kingdom comes,
many will be excluded; only those who receive water and Spirit will be
admitted. Even Nicodemus, 'the teacher of Israel,' may be excluded if he
does not experience the new birth.
The idea of birth by the Spirit is also new with John; the OT passages
describing the outpouring of the Spirit do not describe it as a new birth. In
John 3, the topic of new birth has already been introduced (Jn 3.3); Jn 3.5
attaches the idea of the giving of the Spirit to the conversation by using the
birth metaphor. Furthermore, the concept of new birth by the Spirit is
consonant with the idea of new creation by the Spirit in Jn 20.22 (and
hinted at in Jn 7.37-39).
Water symbolism is resumed in John's next scene, the conversation with
the woman of Samaria. There, Jesus promises 'living water' that will
permanently quench thirst and become 'a spring of water flowing up to
eternal life' (Jn 4.10, 13-14). In John 4, the connection between water and
the Spirit is subtle. The water is associated with the coming age when God
will seek those who worship 'in Spirit and in truth,' but the context does
not make it clear that John is describing the outpouring of the Spirit.
However, the use of 'living water' makes this passage strongly connected
with Jn 7.37-39, where 'living water' is explicitly a reference to the Holy
Spirit. There, as here, Jesus is the source of the Spirit; he gives 'living
water' to the thirsty, and their thirst is quenched. In both places, the gift is
limited to those who will drink the water. Furthermore, the phrase 'the
hour is coming' (Jn 4.21; cf. 4.23) suggests that Jesus' promise of living
water is tied to eschatological expectations, which would include the
expectation of the outpouring of the Spirit.
The three passages complement each other in their use of water to
symbolize the Spirit. In John 3 and 4, the connection between water and
Spirit is hinted at; in John 7, the symbolism is made explicit. John 3 and 4
describe the water as a prerequisite to entry into the kingdom (Jn 3.5) or
for eternal life (Jn 4.14). In John 4 and 7, it is clear that Jesus is the source
of the living water, while John 3 leaves it a mystery. Finally, John 3 seems
to offer the new birth by the Spirit immediately; John 4 hints that it will be
122. Breck describes the OT understanding of water and Spirit as 'co-agents of the final
purification and blessing.' Breck, Spirit of Truth, p. 152, fn. 50.
available soon ('I will give'; 'the hour is coming and now is'); and John 7
makes it clear that the Spirit will only be available when Jesus is glorified.
The three passages also work together in describing the new messianic
community. John 3 hints that many may be excluded from the kingdom,
including the spiritually elite. Only those who receive the outpouring of the
Spirit, and thus are reborn, will be admitted to the kingdom. In John 4,
Jesus' offer of living water to the Samaritan woman suggests that many
outsiders, including Samaritans and sinners, will be recipients of the Spirit,
and thus members of the new worshiping community. Both John 4 and
John 7 teach that only those who are spiritually thirsty, and who recognize
in Jesus the source of the living waters, will have their thirst quenched.
John's use of water to symbolize the Holy Spirit in John 3 and 4, as
mentioned before, does not constitute an allusion to any single OT
passage. Instead, it is part of John's overall use of water to symbolize the
Spirit. This symbolism has affinities with the use of such symbolism in
Ezek. 36.25-27 and Ezek. 47.1-12. In Jn 7.37-39 in particular, the image of
the river from Jesus is related to Ezekiel's image of a river from the
Temple. John 3 and 4 seem to primarily foreshadow the proclamation in Jn
7.37-39, and the fulfillment in Jn 19.34 and 20.22; their connection to
Ezekiel is mediated through the central use of water in Jn 7.37-39.
c. Many Fish (Ezekiel 47.9-10; John 21.1-11)

The theme of water from the Temple is resumed on one other occasion in
John, in the miraculous catch offish in Jn 21.1-11. Here, the allusion is not
to the river itself, but to the many fish that swarm wherever the river goes.
Since the time of Augustine, the 153 fish of the miraculous catch have
been the subject of speculation. Augustine pointed out that 153 is a
triangular number - the sum of the successive whole numbers from one to
seventeen.123 Augustine suggested that seventeen signified the sum of ten,
the number of commandments, and seven, the number of gifts of the Spirit
{Homilies on the Gospel of John 7.10). Over the centuries, many other
meanings for the numbers seventeen and 153 have been proposed. When J.
Emerton wrote in 1958, he reported that a quick survey had uncovered
eighteen previous symbolic interpretations.124 Emerton was the first
123. The Pythagoreans are usually credited with the discovery of triangular numbers,
which they associated with mystical properties. However, triangular numbers were also
studied in Babylon as early as the second millennium BC. Thus, it is possible (although not
necessarily likely) that the triangular connection between 17 and 153 was known even by John
and his audience. C.B. Boyer, A History of Mathematics (repr., 1991, New York: John Wiley
& Sons, 2nd edn, 1968), pp. 34^37, 54-55.
124. J.A. Emerton, 'The Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes in John XXI.ll', JTS 9 (1958),
pp. 86-89. All of these early interpretations, like Augustine's, relied on number symbolism,
not gematria. Some church fathers saw the number as symbolic of the Trinity, or of the
modern interpreter125 to propose instead the application of gematria, or

number coding, to the numbers seventeen and 153.126 One name that has
the numerical value seventeen is En-Gedi, •na (a = 3 , 1 = 4, *• = 10). A name
that has the numerical value of 153 is En-Eglaim, Dâtf (17 = 70, a = 3,
h = 30, - = 10, B = 40). Proponents of this view thus hold that the '153 fish'
is a reference to the prophecy of abundant fish in Ezek. 47.9-10, There will
be very many fish... everything will live where the river goes. And it will
happen that fishermen will stand beside it; from En-Gedi to En-Eglaim
there will be a place for the spreading of nets; its fish will be of many kinds,
like the fish of the Great Sea.'
Although at least eight other gematriacal explanations have since been
proposed,127 Emerton's is the only one that has gained any acceptance. B.
Grigsby wrote two articles supporting Emerton's idea, although his
various states of marriage or singleness, or of other topics unrelated to the context. Jerome
cited the poet Oppian (incorrectly) as claiming that there were 153 species of fish in the world;
thus the fish symbolize the world mission. Ross still sees this as the most likely meaning of the
number (J.M. Ross, 'One Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes', ExpTim 100 (1988), p. 357. See
H. Kruse, 'Magnum Pisces centum quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', VD 38 (1960), pp. 129^8 for
the most complete description of patristic views; see Brown, John, vol. 2, pp. 1074-75 for a
summary. Guilding is usually credited with the proposal that the number was an allusion to
the 153,000 laborers who built the Temple in 1 Kgs 5.5 (Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and
Jewish Worship, pp. 226-27), but that interpretation apparently existed at least by the 17th
century, according to F. Pole, Synopsis Criticorum Aliorumque Scripturae Sacrae Interpretum
et Commentatorum, vol. 4 (1712), col. 1311 (cited in Emerton, T h e Hundred and Fifty-Three
Fishes', p. 87).
125. Emerton's work was independent, but Kruse discovered one obscure medieval use of
gematria. Theophanes Cerameus (1129-52) used Greek gematria to connect the number 153
with PePeKxa. Kruse, 'Magnum Pisces centum quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', p. 140.
126. 'Gematria' is a Hebrew word, perhaps derived from the Greek ypa\i\iMTeia, Yewfiecpux,
or y a p ipia. Kruse, 'Magnum Pisces centum quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', p. 139.
127. Ackroyd suggested that it rendered variant spellings of the Greek, not the Hebrew,
for En-Gedi and En-Eglaim. Cardwell suggests a solution for the number 154 (including the
extra fish on the fire!) that renders the word r||iepa, an early title for Christ. Kruse suggests
Hebrew phrases meaning 'assembly of love' and 'children of God,' either of which adds up to
153. McEleney proposes a combined Greek-Hebrew code that rendered the word L%9, an
acrostic for 'Jesus Christ, God.' Owen sees the solution as 'Pisgah,' the place of Moses'
departure (thus connecting Jesus' departure with Moses'). Eisler (Orpheus - the Fisher, 1921,
pp. 11 Off.; cited in Emerton, 'The Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes', p. 88) sees it as a
combination of 'Simon' and 'fish.' Owen cites a theory, without identifying the author, that
combined the words 'Passover' and 'lamb.' P.R. Ackroyd, 'Gematria', JTh n.s. 10 (1959), pp.
153-55; K. Cardwell, 'The Fish on the Fire: John 21:9', ExpTim 102 (1990), pp. 12-14; Kruse,
'Magnum Pisces centum quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', pp. 144-45; N.J. McEleney, '153 Great
Fishes (John 21,11) - Gematriacal Atbash', Bib 58, no. 3 (1977), pp. 411-17; O.T. Owen, 'One
Hundred and Fifty Three Fishes', ExpTim 100 (1988), pp. 52-54; J.A. Romeo, 'Gematria and
John 21:11 - The Children of God', JBL 97, no. 2 (1978), pp. 263-64; P. Trudinger, 'John 21
Revisited Once Again', Downside Review 106 (1988), pp. 145—48; see also Brown, John, vol. 2,
p. 1075; Bultmann, John, p. 549.
arguments primarily support the idea that Ezek. 47.1-12 is the source of
the imagery, without clearly adding support for the use of gematria.128
More recently, G. Brooke has written a persuasive article that finds
support for the connection of the numbers seventeen and 153 in the DSS.
4Q252 reworks the chronology of the flood in order tofiteverything into a
364-day year, matching the Qumran lunisolar calendar.129 The author
adjusts the dating so that the ark comes to rest on the 153rd day of the
year, which is the seventeenth day of the seventh month - in the middle of
the Feast of Tabernacles.130 Brooke suggests that this is evidence for a
connection between the two numbers in Second Temple Judaism.131 It is
important to note, however, that 4Q252 does not mention the number 153;
rather, it mentions the number 150, then describes the ark coming to rest
on the third day after that, the 'seventeenth day of the seventh month.'
Perhaps, Brooke suggests, there is some connection between the security of
the ark, the waters of the flood, baptism (as in 1 Pet. 3.20-21) and the
mission theme of Jn 21.1-11.132 Brooke also points out, in defense of
Emerton's interpretation, that triangular numbers (and thus the mathe-
matical connection between seventeen and 153) may have been studied by
some Jews. Aristobulus, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher of the second
century BC, used mathematical arguments that revealed his familiarity
with Pythagorean mathematics, and possibly with triangular numbers.133
Although there are likely some connections between Ezekiel 47 and John
21, it is important to note the problems with all gematriacal interpretations.
First, solutions based on gematria are notoriously difficult to verify. As
Koester points out, a number like 153 could be merely a detail to clarify how
big the catch was, much as John gives the time of the lame man's illness as 38
to emphasize the severity of his affliction.134 When Jesus meets the woman of
Sychar at the sixth hour, is this supposed to remind us of the time of Jesus'
128. Grigsby, 'Gematria', pp. 177-78; Grigsby, 'If Any Man Thirsts', pp. 101-08.
129. G. Brooke, '4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:1', in B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold,
and A. Steudel (eds), Antikes Judentum und fruhes Christentum (Festschrift H. Stegemann;
BZNW, 97; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), pp. 253-65 (254).
130. Brooke, '4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:1', pp. 255.
131. Brooke also reminds us that one possible solution to the dating problem in John's
Passion week may be due to the use of the lunisolar calendar. Thus, he suggests that John may
have known the calendrical connection between the two numbers. Brooke, '4Q252 and the 153
Fish of John 21:1, p. 264.
132. Brooke, '4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:1', p. 257.
133. Brooke, '4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:1', pp. 261-62. Brooke also cautiously
points out that Josephus saw connections between the Essenes and the Pythagoreans, and
suggests that the use of number symbolism in the DSS may have been somewhat similar to
Pythagorean number symbolism.
134. Koester, Symbolism, p. 120. Brown similarly points out that the use of the number
provides 'an emphasis on the authentic eyewitness character of what has been recorded.'
death, the time that Jacob met his bride at the well, or merely emphasize the
woman's status as an outcast?135 Second, interpretations based on gematria
should always be suspect, because any number of names can have the same
numerical value. That is, the number 153 could refer to any Hebrew or Greek
name whose letters add up to the value of 153 (as the numerous recent
suggestions testify!). Third, there are no other clear examples of gematria
anywhere else in John. For example, no modern scholar has proposed a
meaning based on gematria for the '200 cubits' in the immediate context (Jn
21.8).136 Furthermore, in the NT, gematria is rare. The only passage for which
there is general agreement on a gematriacal solution is the '666' of Rev. 13.18
- and there, the author draws attention to the number symbolism.137
With all these caveats, however, there is a grain of credibility in the idea
that the catch of fish is intended to recall the fish of Ezekiel's river. As we
discussed above (pp. 178-179), several ancient traditions concur that the
river in Ezek. 47.8 goes to the Sea of Galilee. The LXX translates 'to the
eastern region' as 'to East Galilee,' which would seem to describe the Sea
of Galilee.138 In a different approach, t. Sukk. 3.9, interpreting Ezek. 47.8,
concludes 'to the eastern region - this refers to the sea at Sodom... into the
Arabah - this refers to the sea at Tiberias.' This interpretation is also found
in some later rabbinic commentaries.139 Thus, the miraculous multi-
plication of fish predicted by Ezekiel was believed by many to include the
Sea of Galilee.
Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1076. Of course, some have seen number symbolism in the 38 years:
Augustine saw the number as 'the perfection of the Law' (40), minus the 'twin precepts of
grace.' Kruse, 'Magnum Pisces centum quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', p. 132.
135. Koester, Symbolism, pp. 266-77.
136. Emerton was admirably cautious with his proposal, as revealed by some of his
closing words: 'the other numbers in the fourth gospel are not, as far as I can see, to be
interpreted by gematria.' Emerton, 'The Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes', p. 89.
137. However, proponents of various gematriacal solutions in Jn 21.9 point out that
gematriacal interpretations were common in the ancient world. Ep. Barn. 9.7-9 explicitly uses
gematria to interpret Abraham's 318 men (Gen. 14.14) as a reference to Jesus and the cross.
Irenaeus objected to the way in which the Valentinians used the number 888 to refer to Jesus
(Adv. Haer. 2.24). Some also point to various examples of Jewish and Christian gematria in
the Sibylline Oracles. Some scholars also suggest other passages in the Bible that use gematria,
but these are not widely accepted: the use of 'fourteen' in Mt. 1.17 may be related to the value
of the name 'David'; in Mk 13.14, 'abomination of desolation' may be equivalent to 'Titus';
and Jer. 25.26; 51.1, 41 may use gematria to conceal references to 'Babylon' and 'Chaldeans.'
Cardwell, 'The Fish on the Fire: John 21:9', pp. 12-14; Kruse, 'Magnum Pisces centum
quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', pp. 139-40; McEleney, '153 Great Fishes', pp. 411-12; Owen,
'One Hundred and Fifty Three Fishes', pp. 52-54.
138. Considering the number of articles published on this topic, it is surprising that none
have mentioned the destination of the river in the LXX.
139. Pirq. d. R. El. ch. 51 and Yal Sim. on Ezek. 383 (47) Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel,
p. 127, n. 8.
Did John know about this tradition? It is a curious, although perhaps

coincidental fact, that John is the only NT author to call the Sea of Galilee
by the name used in the rabbinic literature, the Sea of Tiberias.140 It is
called that in the immediate context (Jn 21.1).141 The only other time it is
used is in John's version of the feeding of the 5,000 (Jn 6.1, 23) - by a
startling coincidence, the only other place in John where fish are
miraculously multiplied (Jn 6.9-11). It is quite reasonable, therefore, to
conclude that John saw the miracle of the fish in Jn 21.1-11, and possibly
the miracle of the fish in Jn 6.9-11, as a fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy.
The particular connection between the number 153 and Ezek. 47.1-12
remains doubtful, however. Brooke's work with 4Q252 makes the
hypothesis slightly more believable, but further evidence is needed to tip
the scales from 'faintly possible' to 'likely.'
There are a few smaller verbal parallels between Jn 21.1-11 and Ezek.
47.1-12 that might add weight to the conceptual parallel between the two
passages.
Jn 21.3 Simon Peter said, 'I am Ezek. 47.10 And fishermen

going fishing (aAieikiv).' 6 Then will stand there; from En-Gedi to
they cast, and they were not able to En-Eglaim there will be a drying-
haul it in, because of the great place for nets; and its fish (ot
number of fish (TOU T^GOIX; TQV I X ^ O will be like the fish of the
ixeiW). 11 Then Peter went aboard Great Sea, very many (irtfl9o<; noXb
and drew the net onto land, full of o(t>66pa).
great fish (\xeoxbv IXGUGJV \xtyaXutv),
153.
Obviously, some of the verbal parallels are trivial. The two accounts share
words for fish, fishing, and an emphasis on the quantity of fish caught;
both accounts describe pulling nets onto land.142 Probably little should be
made of these parallels; any two fishing accounts would likely use words
for fish, fishing, and nets. The significant parallel is thus conceptual: both
140. Brown and Neirynck both suggest that John used Tiberias' to be more accessible to
his Greek audience; but the use of the name in the rabbinic material suggests that Tiberias was
also a Jewish designation. Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1067; F. Neirynck, 'John 21', NTS 36 (1990),
pp. 321-36 (327).
141. Grigsby first pointed out the connection between John's use of 'Tiberias' in Jn 21.1
and the name used in the Tosefta. Grigsby, 'Gematria', pp. 177-78.
142. As if there weren't enough speculative suggestions for interpreting Jn 21.1-11, here is
another:
'Jesus stood on the shore' (eorn'Iriooix; el<; xbv alyi-odov)
'fishermen will stand from En-Gedi to En-Eglaim' (ourioovTai eKel uleelc, CCTTO AivyaSiv t^c,
AivaYaA.i[i) where alyiaXov sounds like AivaYodifi. Thus, Jesus is the predicted fisherman!
Ezekiel's river and Jesus miraculously produce fish where there were none
before. This adds to the picture of the river of living water in Jn 7.37-39.
There, Jesus was the source of Ezekiel's promised river (among other uses
of water symbolism), providing the Spirit to his followers. In Jn 21.1-11,
we have a further reference to Ezekiel's image. The fish predicted by
Ezekiel are provided by Jesus, the source of the miraculous river.143 In both
John and Ezekiel, the fish serve as a display of power; in Ezekiel, the fish
are proof of the power of the river from the Temple, while in John, the fish
serve as an example of Jesus' power. If the reader is intended to recall
John's last allusion to the Temple river (Jn 7.37-39), then Jesus' power
here is a manifestation, or perhaps a symbol, of the power of the Spirit.
That is, if the rivers from Jesus symbolize the Holy Spirit, then the fish
produced by those rivers are a result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
As usual, however, John's image is limited to the followers of Jesus.
Only Jesus' disciples - not the throngs of fishermen depicted by Ezekiel -
see and eat the miraculous catch offish (Jn 21.13). Furthermore, in John,
the fish seem to acquire symbolic meanings not derived from Ezekiel.
Many have seen the act of fishing in John 21 as symbolic of the mission of
the church, much like the Lukan 'fishing for people' (Lk. 5.10). The
disciples eat one of the fish with bread provided by Jesus; this at least
symbolizes restored fellowship with him, and may also have eucharistic
overtones.144 None of these symbolic senses is derived from Ezekiel.
4. Summary of the Use of Water as Spirit in John

As I have emphasized before, John's use of water symbolism cannot be
firmly connected to any one source in the OT. However, John primarily
uses water to symbolize the giving of the Spirit through Jesus. Thus, John's
use of water symbolism is related to, and perhaps dependent on, OT
passages that use water as a metaphor for the 'new covenant' or for the
giving of God's spirit (for example, Isa. 44.3; Ezek. 36.25-27; 47.1-12).
John explains that his primary meaning for 'water' is the Holy Spirit in Jn
7.39; this meaning can probably be applied to other passages that use
143. Some early Christians may have seen the connection between Ezekiel 47 and John 21,
even without the use of gematria. As Brooke points out, Jerome's comments on the 153 fish
are found in his commentary on Ezekiel 47, suggesting he saw some connection (Brooke,
'4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:1' p. 258). J. Danielou reports that some early Christian
art depicted Peter and John fishing at a stream that comes from the Temple. Such a painting
suggests that the artist saw a connection between Ezekiel's river and the miraculous catch of
fish. J. Danielou, Etudes d'exegese judeo-chretienne (Paris: Beauchesne et ses fils, 1966), p. 136,
quoted in Brown, John, vol. 2, p. 1075.
144. Brown gives some evidence from early Christian art that fish was associated with the
Eucharist. Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 247; vol. 2, p. 1100.
water symbolism, such as Jn 3.5; 4.10, 13-14; and 19.34. In John 3, new
birth through 'water and Spirit' is the prerequisite for entry into the
kingdom, suggesting that only those who received God's promised
outpouring of the Spirit would be eligible for membership in the messianic
kingdom. This association of water with the promised Spirit is reminiscent
of the promises in Isa. 44.3 and Ezek. 36.25-27. In John 4, Jesus promises
to give this water; his description of a new worshiping community,
empowered by this living water, again suggests the fulfillment of the 'new
covenant' promises of Isa. 44.3 and Ezek. 36.25-27. Jn 7.37-39 uses the
imagery of the life-giving river from the Temple, in words drawn from
Ezek. 47.1-12; Joel 3.18; and Zech. 14.8, to describe the outpouring of the
Spirit on all who believe in Jesus. In the last two of these occurrences of
water symbolism in John, it is clear that the water, the Spirit, will be
available only after the death of Jesus. The fulfillment of this promise is
seen, at least symbolically, in the flow of blood and water from Jesus' side
in 19.34. The miraculous catch offish (Jn 21.1-11) may also symbolize the
power of the river from the Temple, and thus of the giving of the Spirit
through Jesus. Thus, the use of water to symbolize the Spirit in John is
closely tied to Ezekiel's use of water to describe God's plans to purify and
restore his people (Ezek. 36.25-27; 47.1-12).
The DSS also use these two passages in Ezekiel, allowing for some useful
comparisons between John's use of the water metaphor from Ezekiel and
its use in the DSS. Hodayot makes several allusions to the 'new heart'
covenant in Ezek. 36.22-32 (see pp. 48-50). The Hodayot allude to the
words of Ezek. 36.22, 'not for your sake... I will act,' three times, each in
order to describe God's motives in restoring his people (1QH 12.38; 14.10;
21.6-7). The use of the phrase suggests that the author believed that
Ezekiel's 'new spirit' prophecies were beginning to be fulfilled, but only
among the members of the Qumran Community. Shortly after the last use
of the phrase, Hodayot makes a stronger allusion to Ezekiel 36 by
describing the 'heart of stone' (1QH 21.10-11, 12-13; Ezek. 36.26). The
author describes himself as having a heart of stone; since Ezek. 36.26
describes the replacement of the heart of stone with a heart of flesh, it is
possible that the author of the Hodayot saw Ezekiel's promise as yet
unfulfilled (see p. 50).
The Community Rule seems to have a similar view of Ezekiel's promise
in Ezek. 36.25-27 (see p. 51).145 1QS 3.7-9 describes the baptism of initiates
into the Community using language drawn from Ezek. 36.25-27. The
145. Several scholars have pointed out similarities between the use of water in Community
Rule and in John. Beasley-Murray, 'John 3:3, 5: Baptism, Spirit, and the Kingdom', p. 49;
Breck, Spirit of Truth, p. 162; Brown, John, vol. 1, p. 140; Koester, Symbolism, p. 161;
Lindars, John, p. 152.
cleansing with water was associated with the purifying work of the 'Holy
Spirit of the Community.' However, Community Rule alludes to the same
words of purification in Ezek. 36.25-27 to describe the coming
eschatological cleansing (1QS 4.20-22). The allusion to Ezekiel's 'new
spirit' both for initiation into the Community and for its eschatological
cleansing suggests that the author of Community Rule, like the author of
Hodayot, saw Ezekiel's prophecy of restoration as already begun in the
Community, but not yet completed.
Clearly, both John and these two DSS authors believed that they were
seeing the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy. John's Gospel portrays the
promise as partially completed during the life of Jesus; the Spirit 'remains'
on Jesus (Jn 1.32-33), but that Spirit will only be available once Jesus is
glorified (Jn 7.39; 19.34; 20.22). John suggests an intermediate stage
between the times when Jesus receives the Spirit and gives the Spirit: 'the
hour is coming and now is' (Jn 4.23). This is similar to the intermediate
view of the giving of the 'Spirit of the Community' in some of the DSS.
One important difference between the use of water symbolism in John and
the DSS is that the DSS focus on the purifying aspect of water and the
Spirit (much like Ezekiel). In the passages we have examined in John,
water is used as a metaphor for the Spirit, with less emphasis on the
resulting purity.146 In John, the Spirit brings new life, like the river of
Ezekiel 47.147
A more important similarity between John and the DSS can be seen in
their use of the image of the Temple river. Hodayot 16 alludes to a number
of OT passages that use water symbolism; one important allusion describes
the Community as a plantation of trees, watered by a river (1QH 16.4-13/
Ezek. 47.12; see p. 56). The water from the river is described as 'living
water', 'the fountain of life', and 'the waters of holiness' (1QH 16.7, 12, 13).
Such titles suggest the same themes found in John's allusion to the Temple
river (Jn 7.37-39). Both John and the author of the Hodayot viewed the
river as God's life-giving power. However, in John, the river clearly refers
to the Holy Spirit (Jn 7.37-39), whereas in Hodayot 16, the river seems to
be associated with correct teaching (1QH 16.16, 21-22). In John, the river
comes from Jesus and is available only to his followers; in Hodayot 16,
146. In Jn 13.3-17, water is used to symbolize moral cleansing. However, the meaning
given for the washing (Jn 13.12-17) makes no mention of the Spirit. The use of water in John
13 seems to be somewhat distant from the uses in the other passages we have examined (Jn 3.5;
4.10-14; 7.37-39; 19.34); and it is perhaps more difficult to see connections to the use of water
symbolism in Ezekiel.
147. Thompson points out that both Ezekiel 36 and 1QS 4.20-22 primarily compare the
Spirit to waters of purification, whereas Isaiah 44 describes the Spirit as life-giving.
Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John, pp. 166-67. The river of Ezekiel 47, perhaps
somewhat dependent on Isaiah 44, also describes water as life-giving.
God places the source of the river, described as a 'spring of living waters' in
the author's mouth (1QH 16.16). God also uses the author to dig out the
path for the river and keep it clear of weeds (1QH 16.21-26). Thus, for
both works, the river goes from the founder and to the followers. For both
works, access to the river requires belief: 1QH 16.14 excludes the one who
'has not believed in the spring of life,' as Jn 7.39 promises the Spirit only to
'those who believed in him.' Finally, both works suggest the hiddenness of
the river.148 Hodayot describes the 'secret spring' (1QH 16.5) and the
'hidden planting of truth' (1QH 16.10-11). In John, this theme is not
explicit, but the river will only be perceived and enjoyed by those who
come to Jesus.
To summarize, both John and two of the DSS allude to Ezekiel 36 and
47 to describe God's promised restoration of his people. Both works
modify Ezekiel's image of the giving of water and Spirit. Most notably,
John and Hodayot both see the promise of Ezekiel as being fulfilled
through a particular person, and only available to the followers of that one
person.
148. As does Ezekiel: Zimmerli suggests that the growth from a trickle to a flood suggests
'the mystery of divine hiddenness.' Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 2, p. 516.
Chapter 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I will summarize myfindingson the use of Ezekiel in John

and in literature of the Second Temple era, and attempt to synthesize some
conclusions about how these later works make use of Ezekiel. I will begin
with a short summary, then expand below with examples of each tendency.
John and the various works of the Second Temple era share some
common tendencies in the form of their allusions. Most widespread in the
literature surveyed is the tendency to combine related allusions. Most of
the allusions are found in close proximity to thematically or verbally
related allusions. That is, John and other authors of his period tend to use
successive allusions to OT passages that share similar theology or wording.
In many cases, related allusions are connected by distinctive 'catchwords'
common to both passages. Similarly, many of the works examined have a
tendency to resume allusions later in the same work. That is, the author
makes an allusion to an oracle in Ezekiel (for example), and then later in
the work, makes another allusion to the same oracle (although not
necessarily to the same image or sentence).
Another common tendency in form is the modification of language in
allusions. Although this can be seen in some Second Temple works, it is
clearest in John. In many cases, John modifies the wording from the OT
passage in accordance with changes in the language (both lexical and
grammatical). In other cases, John modifies the language of his allusions in
accord with his own style of writing. Conversely, in some cases, John
leaves allusions in septuagintal language, perhaps to draw attention to the
source of his allusion.
Allusions in John and in literature of the Second Temple era also have
commonalities in how they interpret the OT. Most of the allusions
examined demonstrate resonance - thematic similarities between the OT
context of the allusion and the context of the allusion in its new setting. In
most cases, allusions are intended to recall the entire passage from which
the allusion is drawn. The author implies, but does not explain, thematic
connections between the OT passage and his own material. The later
author expects the readers to know the OT passage and make the
connections. To put it another way, most of the allusions, in John and in
6. Summary and Conclusion 199
other works, demonstrate the author's attention to the context of the OT

passage.
Most of John's allusions to Ezekiel are intended to show how Ezekiel's
restoration oracles, especially those involving the Messiah or the giving of
the Spirit, are fulfilled through Jesus to his followers. The OT promises are
thus redirected from Israel to the followers of Jesus. A similar tendency
can be seen in some Second Temple literature. Most of the allusions to
Ezekiel's restoration oracles suggest that these oracles will be fulfilled
through a particular figure (such as Judas Maccabee or the Righteous
Teacher), and that the blessings of such oracles will only be available to a
particular group within Israel (such as the Community, the Maccabean
supporters, or Jews who resist Hellenization).
While John's allusions to Ezekiel have many parallels with allusions to
Ezekiel in other literature, John's allusions have a few unique aspects. John
alludes to a variety of oracles in Ezekiel, whereas most Second Temple
works tend to allude to just one or two oracles. John's allusions strongly
focus on Ezekiel's themes of life and the giving of the Spirit, themes that
are mostly overlooked by Second Temple authors (the Community Rule is
one exception). Finally, in several cases, John's allusions to Ezekiel suggest
that Ezekiel was a sort of window on the rest of the OT for John. That is,
John sometimes chose imagery from Ezekiel to communicate themes that
can be found throughout the OT.
1. Tendencies in the Form of Allusions

The most common tendency in the form of allusions, in John and in
Second Temple literature, is the combination of allusions around common
themes and words. In almost every case that we examined, it was possible
to distinguish allusions to two or more OT passages. The OT passages are
always connected thematically; in some cases, it was also possible to
identify possible catchwords. The Good Shepherd discourse in John 10
combines material from the appointment of Joshua in Numbers 27 and the
shepherding metaphor of Ezekiel 34. In both cases, the OT passage
establishes the legitimacy of Israel's leader using shepherding language. It
is possible that these two passages are also connected around the
catchwords e^dcyw, eloaYO), upopaia, and m)i|ir|v (p. 111). In John 15, the
image of the vine draws on ideas and language from Isaiah 5, Jeremiah 2,
and Ezekiel 15, 17, and 19. All of these passages describe fruit-bearing (or
its lack) and judgment on a vine; most also mention pruning and fire. It is
possible that John connected Isaiah 5 and Jeremiah 2 by the catchword
'Soreq,' although that connection can only be seen in the Hebrew (p. 136);
other possible catchwords include qiTreAxx; and KArôc ([4 fn 104]). Jn 1.51
combines allusions to the theophanies of Gen. 28.12 and Ezek. 1.1; no
certain catchwords can be identified, although the angels in both visions

ascend and descend (pp. 150-52). The description of new life, resurrection,
and judgment in Jn 5.19-29 includes allusions to the 'dry bones' image of
Ezekiel 37 (pp. 160-62) and to the judgment and resurrection language of
Daniel 7 and 12 (pp. 163-64). The giving of the Spirit in Jn 20.22 primarily
alludes to Ezekiel 37, but an allusion to the creation account in Genesis 2
may also be intended; epûoao) may be the catchword (pp. 165-67).
Although the 'living water' saying in Jn 7.37-39 has connections to many
OT passages, I argued that Ezekiel 47 and Zechariah 14 were likely sources
for the image of a river from Jesus (pp. 179-80); wording from both
sources can be identified in the saying.
The combination of related texts was apparently a common tendency in
Second Temple Jewish literature. Combination of texts or allusions is most
noticeable in the DSS. CD 1.3^ combines Lev. 26.40 with Ezek. 39.23
using a phrase they share, ••m^KO -NBK ('[the treachery] which they
committed against me'). Here, as in some other cases, the Damascus
Document does not cite the catchwords with either allusion (p. 26). CD
19.33-35 combines allusions to Jer. 17.13 and Ezek. 13.9 with the phrase
'they will be written down'; the two passages describe judgment on the
apostate, applied in the Damascus Document to those who leave the
Community (pp. 63-64). Florilegium combines quotations of Psalm 1; Isa.
8.11; and Ezek. 20.18 (?), apparently using the catchword "]Sn, to admonish
the readers to turn away from 'the ways of the fathers' (p. 33). Sabbath
Songs primarily uses images from the throne vision of Ezekiel 1 and 10, but
occasionally, related elements from Daniel 7; Isaiah. 6; or 1 Enoch 14 are
included (pp. 45-46). Probably the most expansive combinations of
allusions can be found in Hodayot 14 and 16. There, allusions to almost
every OT image of water and agriculture are skillfully combined into
psalms of thanksgiving. Positive images of plants and water are applied to
the Community, and negative images are applied to the enemies of the
Community (pp. 52-58).
On a few occasions, the DSS combine images from Ezekiel with similar
passages in the Law. For example, Community Rule's description of ritual
cleansing combines elements of the promised eschatological cleansing from
Ezek. 36.25-27 with terms used for ritual cleansing from Numbers 19 ([2 fn
50]). The Benediction combines elements from the covenant blessings of
Deuteronomy 11 with elements from Ezekiel's description of the restored
kingdom in Ezekiel 34 (p. 52). In both of these examples, the combination
of the two passages in the DSS points to the connection that already
existed between Ezekiel and the earlier passage. Other examples of
combined allusions in the DSS could be given (see, for example, p. 66, 69).
The tendency to combine passages can also be found in other Second
Temple literature, although it is not as noticeable as in the DSS. The
clearest example is the combination of OT theophanies in apocalyptic
visions. The visions of 1 Enoch 14, 39, and 71 use imagery from the
theophanies of Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, 10, and Daniel 7 (pp. 82-85). The
Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch 89-90 develops the sheep imagery of Ezekiel
34, but seems to include elements from the shepherding imagery of
Zechariah 11 (pp. 89-96). Likewise, the description of the coming Davidic
king in Psalms of Solomon 17 alludes to the descriptions of David as
shepherd in Ezekiel 34 and Micah 5 (pp. 93-94). In its defense of the
resurrection, 4 Maccabees 18 quotes from Deut. 32.29; Prov. 3.18; and
Ezek. 37.3 (pp. 96-97).
John's tendency to combine passages is thus typical of Second Temple
literature. Like the Hodayot, John 15 combines agricultural imagery from
a variety of passages; like 1 Enoch and Psalms of Solomon 17, John 10
combines pastoral imagery from two passages. The DSS seem to have a
slightly more formal method of combination by catchwords; it is usually
more difficult to identify particular catchwords in John and other Second
Temple literature.
This tendency to combine various Scriptures by means of common
themes or words is consistent with the authors' views of the OT. All of the
works that we have examined treat the Scriptures as authoritative words
from God. Thus, although they were aware that various books were
written at different times by different authors, all Scripture could be
treated as the voice of God. They expected the voice of Scripture to be
consistent, since it all came from God. When John combines the visions of
Jacob and Ezekiel (Jn 1.51), he is demonstrating his belief that one God
was the source of both visions and both books. Likewise, it was quite
normal for John to combine images from Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 7 (Jn 5.19-
29); both visions came from God, and thus must have a consistent view of
'last things.'
Another tendency we observe in the form of John's allusions is the
tendency to return to an earlier allusion - to allude to the same oracle or
passage more than once in his Gospel. John alludes twice to Ezekiel's 'dry
bones' oracle (Ezek. 37.1-14), in Jn 5.25-28 and Jn 20.22. In the first
allusion, John uses the image of revivification from Ezekiel to describe
both new life and the final resurrection. In the second allusion, John's
description of Jesus breathing out the Holy Spirit suggests a focus on
Ezekiel's interpretation of the oracle (Ezek. 37.14). The Good Shepherd
discourse in John 10 alludes to Ezek. 34; 37.19-24 (pp. 111-13); John
returns to the language of gathering the scattered in Jn 11.51-52
(pp. 125-26), and again uses shepherding language in Jn 21.15-17
(pp. 131-32). The Tabernacles saying in Jn 7.37-39 promises the Spirit
using an allusion to the Temple river of Ezekiel 47 and Zechariah 14. This
promise is fulfilled symbolically by the water from Jesus' side in Jn 19.34;
and the abundant catch offish in Jn 21.1-11 also pictures the fulfillment of
the promise offish in Ezekiel 47. Perhaps John's portrayal of the abundant
fish is intended to show a more literal fulfillment of Ezekiel 47, while the
giving of the Spirit understands Ezekiel 47 symbolically.
In two cases, John shows no clear resumption. John does not return to
the promise of the opened heavens in Jn 1.51 (alluding to Ezek. 1.1). Nor
are there any other references to the vine metaphor after John 15, although
the concept of abiding continues. Perhaps the other three metaphors are
resumed because of the importance of their themes in John's theology. The
shepherd metaphor deals with the death of the shepherd for his sheep (Jn
10.11, 17-18; 11.51-52), a prominent theme in John. John's allusions to
Ezekiel 36, 37, and 47 raise the themes of new life and the giving of the
Holy Spirit, both of which are significant themes in John.
The DSS also exhibit the tendency to return to allusions. On five
separate occasions, the Damascus Document alludes to two parallel
passages in Ezekiel 13 and 22 (CD 4.19; 6.17; 8.12-18/19.24-31; 19.35;
20.3-4). Both of these oracles use the 'wall-building' metaphor to condemn
Jerusalem and its false prophets and priests. The Damascus Document
alludes to these passages in Ezekiel to condemn the Pharisees, whom they
regarded as the false prophets of Jerusalem (pp. 61-66). Community Rule
alludes twice to the promise of eschatological cleansing in Ezek. 36.25-27.
In 1QS 3.7-8, Ezekiel's language is used to describe the purification upon
initiation into the Community; in 1QS 4.20-22, it describes a purification
yet to come (pp. 50-51, 194-95). Sometimes, allusions to the same passage
by different works in the DSS suggest that there was a continuous
interpretational tradition in the Community about the passage in question.
For example, A Sapiential Work, like the Damascus Document, alludes to
Ezekiel 13 and 22 (p. 67; for other examples, see the chart on pp. 76-77).
Besides the DSS, the only other work that exhibits this tendency is 1
Enoch. The three descriptions of God's throne room in 1 Enoch (likely by
two authors) all contain allusions to Ezekiel 1 (see pp. 82-84).
The tendency to return to an earlier allusion usually indicates the
importance of that allusion in the later writer's work. In some cases, the
repeated allusions are to the same oracle or passage in the OT book, not
necessarily to the same sentence in that oracle. This suggests, although it
does not prove, that John and many authors of the Second Temple era
read the OT by oracles or passages; that is, they understood the OT in
terms of literary units at the oracle or paragraph level. The tendency to
later allude to a different part of the same oracle suggests that the author
viewed each oracle as some sort of literary unity. The brief allusion is
supposed to recall the context of the larger narrative unit.
Finally, we observed a tendency to modify the language of the allusive
material. There are a number of cases in which John modifies language
from the LXX. In several cases, John updates septuagintal Greek in his
allusions. For example, the allusion to Numbers 27 in Jn 10.3-4 replaces
daaicoixo with aKouco; eiri TQ OTO|ion;i aikou with Tf|<; cj)G)vfi<; carcou; and npo
TTpoaohou ai)td)v with <E|iTTpoa0ev oarucov. All of these modifications are clearly
in accord with changes in Greek usage (pp. 104-05). Jn 10.16, alluding to
Ezek. 34.22; 37.19-22, replaces phrases like iroi|i€voc <EVOC and €0vo<; £v with
|ita mufivri, elg m>i|ir|v, following the typical word order found in the Greek
of the NT (pp. 112-16). The language of burning in Ezekiel 15 and 17
(KaxeoGlo), avcdloKG)) is replaced with the more typical NT KCCLG) in Jn 15.6.
In other cases, the allusion was left in septuagintal Greek, perhaps in order
to draw attention to the allusion. For example, the septuagintal phrase
elc; ev in Jn 11.52 may draw attention to the allusion to Ezek. 37.21-27
(p. 126).
In some cases, John modifies language to fit his own style rather than his
own era. For example, the dual form oupavot, in Ezek. 1.1 becomes the
singular in Jn 1.51, which is typical of John's style (p. 151). When John
alludes to the raising of the dead in Ezekiel 37, he uses the Johannine
|ivr||i€Loy instead of Ezekiel's typical |ivfp,a (p. 161). The LXX and most NT
authors describe fruit-bearing with the phrase KapiTov mHeiv, Kap-rrov
6t6ovoa, or KapiTov c|)ep€iv. John only uses the phrase KapiTov c|)ep€iv, and so
he modifies material from Ezekiel 17 accordingly (p. 143).
It is difficult to compare John's tendency to modify the language of the
LXX with modifying tendencies in Second Temple literature. For example,
1 Enoch extensively modifies the language of the shepherd metaphor, but
the fact that 1 Enoch primarily survives in Ethiopic makes it difficult to
examine the changes in the language. Psalm of Solomon 17 apparently uses
the LXX, but stylistic modifications are not apparent. The DSS, of course,
use an early Hebrew text. This study focused on the theological
modifications in the DSS; it is possible that some of the stylistic
modifications reflect an updating to later Hebrew, but that is beyond the
scope of this study.
2. Tendencies in the Method of Allusions

As discussed in the introduction, it is sometimes helpful to analyze an
author's method, or perhaps mode, of interpreting OT texts. We observed
three approaches to the OT. First, in some cases, a passage might be
understood as a promise or prophecy to be fulfilled. The fulfillment might
be pictured by the later author as already being fulfilled, or as yet to be
fulfilled. Second, an element in an account might be understood as a
model, or type, of a later event (typological interpretation). Third, a
passage from the OT might be understood sapientially; that is, the OT
passage provides categories or models for behavior or belief. Distinguish-
ing between these three is not always useful, but occasionally some of the
works that we examined give explicit cues that one or another approach is
being used.
Most of John's allusions to Ezekiel seem to fit into the category of

fulfillment of prophecy. Ezekiel's promises of a new shepherd, of the life-
giving breath of God, and of purifying water from the Temple are all
fulfilled in Jesus (pp. 133, 170-71, 195-97). Jesus' promise that the disciples
would see 'heaven opened' does not fulfill a prophecy of Ezekiel, but does
suggest the fulfillment of Joel's promise of the return of the spirit of
prophecy (p. 155). The image of Jesus as the true vine only hints at the
fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy of the restored cedar (Ezek. 17.22-24;
p. 147). For the last two, however, a case can be made for typological
interpretation: Israel as the vine was a type, of which Jesus is the antitype;
the visions of Ezekiel and Jacob were types of the visions that the disciples
would see. The ambiguity in these two cases suggests that the threefold
division of interpretational method is of limited value in understanding
John.
John's view, that prophecy was being fulfilled in Jesus, is similar to the
view found in Psalm of Solomon 17 and the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch.
Both of these works use images derived from Ezekiel 34 to express hopes
for God's deliverance of his people through his anointed leader. The
Animal Apocalypse suggests that Ezekiel's prophecy of restoration was
now being fulfilled through the Maccabees; Psalm of Solomon 17 is a plea
for God to raise up the shepherd that he promised (pp. 86-96, 132-33).
The distinction between methods of interpretation can be most clearly
seen in the DSS, perhaps because some of the DSS explain the logic behind
their interpretations. So, for example, the Damascus Document compares
the coming 'visitation' to the 'first visitation' in a typological fashion
(although none of the NT 'type' terminology is used). The present apostasy
of Jerusalem mirrored the pre-exilic apostasy of Jerusalem; the coming
judgment would recapitulate the destruction of Jerusalem. This typological
understanding of Scripture is especially noticeable in the use of allusions to
Ezekiel in CD 1.3-6; 7.14-15; and 19.11-13 (pp. 24, 27-28, 60-61). In
other cases, Ezekiel provided prophecies that were being fulfilled in the
Community. For example, the War Scroll saw Ezekiel's description of a
time of reckoning in the wilderness (Ezekiel 20) as a prophecy being
fulfilled in the Community (p. 30); and the Gog oracles (Ezekiel 38-39) as a
prophecy yet to be fulfilled (p. 34). Finally, a number of Ezekiel's oracles
were interpreted sapientially; so for example, Ezekiel's condemnation of
the Jerusalem prophets as 'builders of the wall' provided the Damascus
Document and Sapiential Work with epithets and accusations to level
against the Pharisees (pp. 61-68). In some cases, those epithets also
allowed the application of typology (p. 31).
John's emphasis on the fulfillment of prophecies from Ezekiel thus has
some parallels in Second Temple literature. The authors of 1 Enoch, Psalm
of Solomon 17, and the DSS all believed that God's promises were being
fulfilled. In most of these, the author identified particular ways that
Ezekiel's prophecies were being fulfilled, and particular people who were
prime agents in the fulfillment. Obviously, for John, Jesus is the shepherd
of Ezekiel 34, and the one who brings the prophesied Spirit of Ezekiel 36,
37, and 47. The recipients of these promises are the members of the
messianic community: those who believe in Jesus. The situation in the
Animal Apocalypse is similar: Judas Maccabee is the 'ram with the strong
horn' who fulfills messianic expectations, including those of Ezekiel 34.
The beneficiaries of his messianic reign are the 'lambs who could see,' those
who resisted Hellenization under Antiochus IV. In Hodayot 16, the river
from the Temple waters the 'eternal plantation' (the Community), which
will grow up to cover the world. And although the DSS do not view the
Righteous Teacher as the messiah, Hodayot 16 is clear that his mouth is the
'source of living waters' and that he directs the course of the river. Only
those who heed his teaching are part of the plantation; all others will be
washed away in the final judgment.
In each allusion, we searched for resonance between the allusion and its
new context. That is, we examined the use of the allusive material both in
its original setting (in most cases, Ezekiel) and in its new setting in John or
in Second Temple literature. In most cases, there were strong ties between
the two contexts. It was rare for the later author to use an allusion without
carefully considering the meaning of the passage from which the allusion
came. In most cases, the allusion was applied to a new situation, or
considered fulfilled in some person or community, but with consideration
for the meaning of the source passage. Almost any of the allusions
examined above, in John or in Second Temple literature, could serve as
examples of this tendency. The Damascus Document on several occasions
(CD 4.17-18; 8.12-18; 19.30-32, 34; 20.3-4; see pp. 61-69) alludes to the
denunciation of Jerusalem's false prophets, priests, and rulers (Ezekiel 13,
22). Although the allusions focus on a few epithets ('wall-builders' and 'the
one melted in a furnace'), the author of the Damascus Document sees
multiple connections between the religious establishment of Ezekiel's day
and that of his own. The author of Damascus Document applies Ezekiel's
accusations to the current leaders of Jerusalem (especially the Pharisees):
they mislead the people and give them a false sense of security; they fail to
teach properly about the Sabbath and purity; and they oppress the poor
and acquire their wealth. Numerous other examples could be given from
the DSS; in general, the authors of the Scrolls apply Ezekiel's oracles of
doom to the opponents of the Community, and apply Ezekiel's oracles of
hope to the Community. Psalm of Solomon 17 has an expectation of the
coming messiah that matches the expectations of Ezekiel 34 in several
ways. Both passages describe God as the ultimate king, with David as his
subordinate. The king rules over his people in entire submission to God.
Liv. Proph. 3.12 is a good example of careful reading of Ezekiel 37. The
author of the Life of Ezekiel sees the oracle of the dry bones as a reference
to 'hope for Israel both in this age and the age to come' - an interpretation
that considers both the metaphor and its interpretation in Ezekiel 37.
There are exceptions to this careful attention to the original sense of OT
passages. For example, the well-known interpretation of Amos 5.26-27 in
CD 7.14-15 uses unusual exegetical tricks to completely transform Amos'
description of judgment into a prophecy of the founding of the
Community (p. 24). 1QH 8 and 14 contain several allusions to the cursed
cedar of Ezekiel 31; the cursed elements are reversed and applied to the
Community (pp. 54-56). Ps. Sol. 17.28, 41 alludes to the re-allocation of
land in Ezek. 45.8; 47.21-22, but alters Ezekiel's meaning in order to
exclude Gentile sojourners from the inheritance (pp. 94-95). The Animal
Apocalypse alludes to the condemnation of the shepherds in Ezekiel 34, but
transforms them from the kings of Israel to the kings of the pagan nations.
John matches the general trend of Second Temple literature to pay
attention to the contexts of the oracles to which he alludes. So, for
example, John's allusion to the dry bones oracle ('he breathed on them'; Jn
20.22/Ezek. 36.9-10) is quite brief; but John clearly understands the whole
oracle, since he connects the breathing with the giving of the Spirit and new
life, as Ezekiel does. John's vine metaphor has the same central themes as
the vine metaphors to which he alludes (from Isaiah 5, Jeremiah 2, and
Ezekiel 15, 17, 19): faithlessness to God results in worthlessness and
judgment; faithfulness results in usefulness to God. The Shepherd
Discourse in John 10 first alludes to Numbers 27, using the appointment
and acceptance of Joshua as a model of how Israel ought to respond to
Jesus. John's allusions to Ezekiel 34 communicate the same message as the
oracle: the leaders of Israel have been poor shepherds, but God is now
appointing a new shepherd to restore his people. John does not use
exegetical tricks in his interpretation of these allusions; rather, he suggests
that Ezekiel's oracles are now being fulfilled in Jesus and his followers.
3. Messiah and Community

In his study of Paul's allusions to the OT, Richard Hays makes the astute
observation that Paul has more of an 'ecclesiocentric' than a 'christo-
centric' use of Scripture.1 That is, Paul often makes allusions to Scripture
for the purpose of commenting on the nature of the Christian community.
More rarely, Paul has a christocentric approach - that is, he interprets OT
passages as references to Christ or the messiah. Hays briefly mentions the
Gospel of John as an example of a more christocentric approach to the
OT. In comparison to Paul, this is certainly true. However, this study of
John's allusions to Ezekiel shows that many of John's allusions are both
1. Hays, Echoes, pp. xiii, 86.

christocentric and ecclesiocentric. In fact, in every major allusion that we

have studied, John uses material from the OT to describe both Christ and
his people.
For example, the use of allusions to Numbers 27 and Ezekiel 34 in John
10 is primarily christocentric, but has ecclesiocentric emphases as well. The
references to the legitimate appointment of Joshua (Numbers 27) and
God's promised appointment of David (Ezekiel 34) make a claim that
Jesus is the true and legitimate leader of God's people. John also uses
material from Ezekiel 34 to condemn the current leaders of Israel for their
treatment of the flock and for their rejection of Jesus (pp. 108-09, 116).
However, John 10 has much to say about the sheep as well. Numbers 27
and Ezekiel 34 focus on the leader's role in leading the sheep; but John
adds language that focuses on the need for the sheep to hear the voice of
the shepherd, to know him and follow him (Jn 10.3^4, 14, 16, 27). Thus,
those who do not believe in Jesus are not his sheep (Jn 10.26). Jesus' sheep
experience the blessings of God's flock: good pasture and deliverance from
the wolf, which are metaphors for salvation, abundant and eternal life,
assurance of the Father's keeping, and Jesus' life given on their behalf (Jn
10.9-10, 15-17, 28). As suggested above, these comprehensive details
about Jesus' flock suggest a redefinition of the people of God (pp. 124-31).
This redefinition is first suggested by the new prime criterion for
membership in the flock: belief in Jesus (Jn 10.26). The redefinition is
made clear by the exclusion of some sheep who would consider themselves
to be God's people, and by the inclusion of the 'other sheep,' which
includes Gentile believers (Jn 10.16, 26; 11.51-52). I suggested that some of
these aspects of the new flock were inspired by the descriptions of the
purified flock in Ezekiel 34, as well as by the theme of ingathering found in
Ezekiel and Isaiah (pp. 128-29). Thus, the Good Shepherd discourse uses
the OT to describe both Christ and his people.
The Vine discourse likewise has both christocentric and ecclesiocentric
uses of the OT. When Jesus labels himself as the 'true vine,' he compares
himself with what Israel ought to have been (Jer. 2.21; Isa. 5.1-5). 'True
vine' may also refer to the messianic cedar that Ezekiel contrasts with the
faithless vine, Zedekiah (Ezek. 17.22-24). But John 15 primarily uses its
OT allusions to describe God's people. In Isaiah 5, Jeremiah 2, and
Ezekiel's vine parables, God judges vines for their faithlessness and failure
to produce the expected fruit of positive moral qualities. Ezekiel 15 points
out that vine prunings (which represent faithless Jerusalem) are useful only
for firewood. John 15 uses these pictures of judgment on fruitless vines to
encourage faithfulness and fruitfulness. The passage promises that the OT
images of fruitfulness for God will be fulfilled in the disciples if they remain
in faithful communion with Jesus. In John 10, God's sheep were those who
followed Jesus, the good shepherd; in John 15, God's fruit-bearing
branches are those who remain attached to Jesus, the true vine.
The call narrative of Jn 1.35-51 is full of titles for Jesus, suggesting that
the promise of 'opened heavens' in Jn 1.51 is christocentric. Jesus' promise
in Jn 1.51 makes a very high claim for Jesus: he was the object of the
theophanies of Jacob and Ezekiel. Perhaps Jesus was the 'glory of God'
that was seen in those visions (pp. 153-55). But the promise of such visions
to the first disciples also has something to say about the people of the
Messiah. Because they have acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, the one
predicted in the Scriptures, the Son of God and the King of Israel (Jn 1.41,
45, 49), they will be given the visions that only the prophets had seen. This
at least suggests the blessings of insight given to Jesus' followers; it may
also suggest the pouring out of the spirit of prophecy predicted in Joel
2.28-29 (p. 155).
In Jn 5.19-29, Jesus is described as having the power to effect both new
life and the final resurrection. The language is reminiscent of Ezekiel's 'dry
bones' oracle: Jesus, like the prophet Ezekiel, is given the authority to raise
the dead at the command of his voice. But there is an emphasis also on
those who receive life: they are chosen by Jesus, they hear the Son and
believe, and they receive eternal life (Jn 5.21, 24-25; pp. 160-62).
Finally, John's use of Ezekiel's metaphors for the Spirit reveals both
christocentric and ecclesiocentric aims. When Jesus breathes on the
disciples in Jn 20.22, this recalls the restoration of life in Ezekiel 37 and its
promise to give God's Spirit, as well as the creation of the first human in
Genesis 2. Thus, John connects Jesus both with the prophet, who called the
dead to life at God's command, and with God himself, who breathed life
into Adam. The image of the Spirit as water that comes from Jesus (Jn 3.5;
4.14; 7.37-39; 19.34) alludes to Ezekiel's images of water in Ezek. 36.25-27;
47.1-12 (as well as several other related OT passages). There, water comes
from the presence of God and from his Temple. Thus, Jesus is proclaimed
as the one who fulfills God's promise to give the Spirit; Jesus brings God's
life to his people. But again, these two images have much to say about
God's people. Those who receive the breath are Jesus' disciples, who are
commissioned as his emissaries; those who receive the 'rivers of living
water' are the ones who are thirsty, who come to Jesus and believe in him.
Thus, every allusion that we have examined in John follows a consistent
pattern: it describes Jesus as the fulfillment of God's promises, or as the
agent of fulfillment; and it describes the recipients of those promises as the
followers of Jesus. That is, John appropriates images and promises from
Ezekiel (and others) and shows how they are fulfilled through Jesus and to
Jesus' followers. In every case, there is an implied redefinition of God's
people. Ezekiel's images are directed at Israel: the lost sheep, the dry bones,
and the withered land all symbolize the nation of Israel that God will
restore. Ezekiel has a place for Gentiles in the new order (see especially
Ezek. 47.21-23), but this element is not apparent in most of his oracles. In
John, each of these elements is interpreted to mean the followers of Jesus.
Thus, Jesus gathers only his own sheep who follow him; the only dry bones
to be raised are those who hear his voice; the only branches that bear fruit
are attached to the true vine; and the only ones to experience the rivers of
water (or the abundant fish!) are those who believe in Jesus.
Comparison to Second Temple literature reveals that this dual emphasis
on a messiah and his people is not unique; nor is it unusual for the
messianic community to be exclusive. As mentioned before, the Animal
Apocalypse predicts the coming victory of Judas Maccabee and seems to
describe him as God's anointed king. The description of judgment makes it
clear that not all Israel will be part of the coming kingdom. The 'blinded
sheep,' those who submitted to Hellenization, will be thrown into the fiery
pit, but the 'lambs who could see' come to life and dwell in a newly built
Jerusalem and Temple. The longed-for messiah in Psalm of Solomon 17 is
characterized by his inclusion of the righteous and his exclusion of Gentiles
and Hellenized Jews. His rule is one of justice and equality for the people,
and honor for God's law; these characterizations suggest the type of people
who will be in his kingdom. The DSS passages that we examined did not
have strong references to the Messiah, but the dual focus on the Teacher of
Righteousness and his followers can be observed in Hodayot 14 and 16.
The Teacher is the source of living waters, the farmer of God's plantation,
and the engineer who directs the waterways from the Temple. This
description is intended to call the members of the Community to
faithfulness to the correct teachings as revealed by the Teacher. The one
possible reference to the Messiah in the Hodayot also places him firmly
within the Community: he is the Branch who will spring from the
Plantation.
It is not surprising that John and Paul, as well as 1 Enoch, Psalm of
Solomon 17, and the Hodayot, are all interested in both the Messiah and
his community. After all, the various messianic expectations are usually
seen as a longing for a repair of the human condition. A pure focus on the
Messiah would ignore his fundamental role: to bring God's deliverance
and justice to God's people. Thus, almost every messianic interpretation of
Scripture is likely to describe both the Messiah and his people.
4. Tendencies in Johannine Allusions

We have already noted several important tendencies in John's allusions to
Ezekiel and to other OT books. John often modifies the language of his OT
material in accord with contemporary Greek or Johannine style; he usually
combines allusions to related OT passages; he resumes the topics of his
allusions later in the Gospel; and he uses OT passages with consideration
of their original sense. Furthermore, John uses his OT material to describe
Jesus as the fulfillment of OT promises, or as the agent of their fulfillment;
and the allusions always redirect the promises from Israel to those who
believe in Jesus. All of these tendencies have parallels in the use of allusions
in Second Temple literature. But John's allusions have other tendencies
that do not have a clear parallel in the allusive language of Second Temple
literature.
Many of John's allusions to Ezekiel are used to describe the giving of the
Spirit. This is not a universal tendency, since the Good Shepherd discourse
offers no hint of the giving of the Spirit. But in several of John's other
allusions to Ezekiel, we see an emphasis on Jesus' role in the giving of the
Spirit. The water from Jesus and the breath from Jesus, John's two most
vivid depictions of the Spirit, both derive from (or at least show strong
affinities with) Ezekiel's images of the giving of God's Spirit. The renewing
breath of Jesus only makes one clear appearance (Jn 20.22), but the Spirit
as water from Jesus has a sustained presence in John. The use of water
symbolism in the conversations with Nicodemus and the Samaritan
woman most likely refers to the Spirit (Jn 3.5; 4.14); the saying at
Tabernacles is clearly about the giving of the Spirit (Jn 7.37-39); and Jesus'
promise of the Spirit is likely fulfilled in the water from Jesus' side (Jn
19.34). The miraculous catch offish (Jn 21.1-11) also alludes to the river
from the Temple, although the idea of the Spirit is not clear there. Even the
promise to the disciples to see 'heaven opened' (Jn 1.51) suggests the
promised Spirit, who will give the gift of prophecy. This significant use of
imagery from Ezekiel suggests that John found in Ezekiel an under-
standing of the Spirit that was particularly suited to his own understanding
of the Spirit given through Jesus.2
A related theme found in most of John's allusions is that of life. In some
ways, this is closely related to Ezekiel's use of life. Ezekiel 37 pictures Israel
as dry bones, but God brings them to life; the river of Ezekiel 47 brings life
wherever it goes. John first alludes to the dry bones oracle in John 5 to
describe Jesus' ability to give both spiritual and physical life: The Son
gives life to whom he wishes' (Jn 5.21); those who believe in Jesus 'have
passed from death into life' (Jn 5.24). When Jesus breathes on the disciples
in Jn 20.22, this connects the giving of the Spirit with the giving of life, as
in Ezekiel 37 and Genesis 2. Ezekiel's river heals and brings life;
Zechariah's version calls it 'living water'. Jesus' giving of the 'rivers of
living water' in Jn 7.38 thus connects the Spirit with God's life-giving
power. As I suggested above (p. 180), Ezekiel also uses water to symbolize
God's life-giving power and the giving of God's Spirit. Ezekiel's account of
the restored sheep has themes of healing and restoration; in John's use of
2. Throughout this study, I have been careful to point out the important role of parallels
to Isaiah and Jeremiah, among others; here, I only suggest that John's imagery for the Spirit
has important affinities with Ezekiel's imagery of the Spirit.
Ezekiel 34, the good shepherd comes to give the sheep abundant, eternal
life.
John's limitation of Ezekiel's promises to those who believe in Jesus, and
his emphasis on the theme of life in those allusions, suggests a connection
to the purpose of John: 'these things have been written so that you may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that believing you may have life in his
name' (Jn 20.31). In each allusion to Ezekiel, John wants the reader to see
Jesus as the promised Messiah, and to see that the promised life is available
to all who believe in him.
Finally, we might offer a few comments on John's use of passages in
Ezekiel that are themselves allusions to earlier passages in the OT. John 10
alludes to Ezekiel 34, which modifies earlier pastoral imagery found
throughout the OT. Jn 11.52 alludes to Ezek. 37.21/28.25, both of which
allude to the covenant promise to gather the scattered in Deut. 30.3. John
15 alludes to the judged vine of Ezekiel 15, 17, and 19, which is itself a
modification of earlier vine imagery. The breathing out of the Spirit is an
allusion to Ezekiel 37, which alludes to the breath of life in Genesis 2. The
river of living water in Jn 7.38 alludes to Ezekiel 47, which in turn alludes
to the creation account in Genesis 1-2. The use of water imagery in John 3,
4, and 7 is also related to the cleansing waters of Ezek. 36.25-27; which
alludes to the water used in cleansing rituals in Leviticus 14 and Numbers 8
and 19.
These connections suggest that John sometimes uses Ezekiel as his
window on the rest of the Scriptures. Thus, although shepherd imagery can
be found throughout the OT, John's shepherd metaphor relies primarily
on Ezekiel 34. Although John's vine metaphor alludes to Jeremiah 2 and
Isaiah 5, important aspects of John's metaphor (such as the individual
branches and their judgment) are derived from Ezekiel 15, 17, and 19. For
Ezekiel, the breath of God in Ezekiel 37 and the river from the Temple in
Ezekiel 47 (including its fish!) are pictures drawn from Genesis and
intended to communicate God's new creation of his people. When John
uses both of those images, it suggests that he, like Ezekiel, sees the new
covenant as a new creation, life-giving water and breath from God. Ezekiel
uses the picture of ritual cleansing from the Law to describe God's
promised inward cleansing and the giving of God's Spirit (Ezek. 36.25-27).
John likewise sees water as the perfect image for the giving of God's Spirit,
although the idea of purification by water is not as apparent in John's
allusions to Ezekiel.
The breadth of John's usage of Ezekiel also suggests how important the
prophet was to the Evangelist's thought. Ezekiel has five major oracles of
restoration: the restored flock (Ezekiel 34); the purifying water (Ezek.
36.25-27), the raised dry bones (Ezek. 37.1-14), the joining of the two
nations under one king (Ezek. 37.15-28), and the new Jerusalem (Ezekiel
40-48). John alludes to all five of these restoration oracles, and may
allude to the restoration of the vine in Ezekiel 17 as well. John does not
use any other OT source so comprehensively. John's use of Ezekiel is also
more comprehensive than the use of Ezekiel in most other works of the
Second Temple period. Most of the other literature that we examined
made reference to only one or two of EzekiePs oracles. The Damascus
Document contains ten quotations from or allusions to Ezekiel, but these
come from a narrower selection of Ezekiel's oracles.3 The Damascus
Document primarily alludes to Ezekiel's oracles of judgment (especially
Ezekiel 9, 13, and 22); the only oracle of restoration that the Damascus
Document uses (not surprisingly) is Ezekiel's prophecy of a restored
priesthood in Ezekiel 44.
The fact that John uses all of Ezekiel's restoration metaphors suggests
an aspect of his christology which is otherwise muted: John saw Jesus as
the fulfillment of the promises of restoration in the OT. J.D. Huntzinger, in
his study of Synoptic allusions to OT pastoral metaphors, concluded that
the Synopticists had seen Jesus as 'the end of exile'.4 This study of John's
Jesus suggests something very similar: Jesus is depicted with images taken
from the restoration oracles of Ezekiel. John only makes a few references
to Ezekiel's message of doom (the bad shepherds and false vines) - but
these are targeted at the leaders of Israel. The fact that the Synoptic Jesus
and the Johannine Jesus depict themselves as fulfilling the OT 'oracles of
hope' is striking and suggestive. Although I have not until now considered
the historical implications of John's claims for Jesus, it seems defensible to
say that John's depiction of Jesus as the fulfillment of the 'oracles of hope'
is closely related to the self-understanding of the historical Jesus.
The study of allusions to Ezekiel in John has been fruitful in several
ways. John, like other Jewish writers of his age, saw Ezekiel as a deep
well of insight about God and his promises. Ezekiel had communicated
God's promise to send his shepherd and his Spirit; for John, this made
Ezekiel an important tool in his task of explaining Jesus. Although
John's metaphors of water, breath, vine, and shepherd can be understood
as they stand, it seems likely that John expected his readers to see that
each of these metaphors connected Jesus with the Scriptures and, in
particular, with Ezekiel's oracles of restoration. John's 'conversation'
with Ezekiel produced images of Jesus that Christians have always
treasured, images that are perhaps even more precious when their source
is discovered. When John read Ezekiel, he knew that the prophet shared
with him the experience of seeing the 'heavens opened'. Ezekiel, like
3. See p. 76.
4. J.D. Huntzinger, 'The End of Exile: A Short Commentary on the Shepherd/Sheep
Metaphor in Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophetic and Synoptic Gospel Literature' (unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, 1999).
Isaiah, had 'seen his glory and spoke concerning him' (Jn 12.41). In the
opened heavens, and in the words of Ezekiel, John saw Jesus, the good
shepherd, the true vine, the source of living water, the one who breathes
out life and Spirit.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abegg, M., 'Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls', in J.M. Scott (ed.), Exile: Old
Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (JSJ, 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp.
111-25.
Ackroyd, P.R., 'Gematria', JTS n.s. 10 (1959), pp. 153-55.
Allen, L., Ezekiel (WBC, 28-29; 2 vols; Dallas: Word Books, 1990, 1994).
Allison, D.C., T h e Living Water', St Vladimir's Theological Seminary Quarterly
30, no. 2 (1986), pp. 143-57.
—Scriptural Allusions in the New Testament: Light from the Dead Sea Scrolls (Dead
Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins Library, 5; North Richland Hills, Tex.:
BIBAL Press, 2000).
Anderson, G.A., T h e Status of the Torah Before Sinai: The Retelling of the Bible
in the Damascus Covenant and the Book of Jubilees', DSD 1 (1994), pp. 1-29.
Atkinson, Kenneth, An Intertextual Study of the Psalms of Solomon: Pseudepi-
grapha (SBEC, 49; Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001).
Badcock, F.J., T h e Feast of Tabernacles', JTS 24 (1922-1923), pp. 169-74.
Barr, J., Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments (New York:
Harper & Row, 1966).
Barrett, C.K., The Gospel According to John: An Introduction with Commentary and
Notes on the Greek Text (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978).
Beale, G.K., 'Revelation', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is
Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Festschrift B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1988), pp. 318-36.
—The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St.
John (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1984).
Beasley-Murray, G.R., John (WBC, 36; Waco: Word, 1987).
—'John 3:3, 5: Baptism, Spirit, and the Kingdom', ExpTim 97 (1986), pp. 167-70.
Berding, K., Poly carp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and Theological
Relationship in Light of Poly carp's Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Literature
(VCSup, 62; Leiden: Brill, 2002).
Bernard, J.H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St.
John (ICC, 29; 2 vols; New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1929).
Beutler, J., 'Der Alttestamentlich-judischer Hintergrund der Hirtenrede in
Johannes 10', in J. Beutler and R. Fortna (eds), The Shepherd Discourse of
John 10 and its Context: Studies by Members of the Johannine Writings Seminar
(SNTSMS, 67; London: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 18-32.
Black, M., The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP, 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985).
Bibliography 215
Blenkinsopp, J., 'John VII. 37-9: Another Note on a Mysterious Crux', NTS 6, no.
1 (1959), pp. 95-98.
—The Quenching of Thirst: Reflections on the Utterance in the Temple, John
7:37-9', Scr 12 (1960), pp. 39-48.
Borgen, P., Breadfrom Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the
Gospel of John and the Writings ofPhilo (NovTSup, 10; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965).
Boyer, C.B., A History of Mathematics (repr. 1991; New York: John Wiley & Sons,
2nd edn, 1968).
Brawley, R.L., 'An Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28-29', JBL
112(1993), pp. 427-43.
Breck, J., The Spirit of Truth: The Holy Spirit in Johannine Tradition, Vol. 1: The
Origins of Johannine Pneumatology (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary
Press, 1991).
Brooke, G., '4Q252 and the 153 Fish of John 21:1', in B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold
and A. Steudel (eds), Antikes Judentum und friihes Christentum (Festschrift H.
Stegemann; BZNW, 97; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), pp.
253-65.
—'The Biblical Texts in the Qumran Commentaries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical
Variants?' in C.A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring (eds), Early Jewish and Christian
Exegesis (Festschrift W.H. Brownlee; Homage, 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1987).
—Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTSup, 29;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985).
—'Ezekiel in Some Qumran and New Testament Texts', in J.T. Barrera and L.V.
Montaner (eds), The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International
Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991 (STDJ, XI, 1;
Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 317-37.
Brown, R.E., The Gospel According to John (AB, 29-29A; 2 vols; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1966, 1970).
Brownlee, W.H., 'Whence John?', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), John and Qumran
(London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972), pp. 166-94.
Bruce, F.F., The New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1968).
Bruns, J.E., 'The Discourse on the Good Shepherd and the Rite of Ordination',
AER 149 (1963), pp. 386-91.
Budd, P.J., Numbers (WBC, 5; Waco: Word Books, 1984).
Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John (trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray, R.W.N. Hoare
and J.K. Riches; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971).
Burney, C.F., 'The Aramaic Equivalent of k TIK KOIXIOL^ in Jn. VII 38', JTS 24
(1922-1923), pp. 79-80.
—The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922).
Busse, U., 'Die Tempelmetaphorik als ein Beispiel von implizitem rekurs auf die
biblische Tradition im Johannesevangelium', in C M . Tuckett (ed.), The
Scriptures in the Gospels (BETL, 131; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997),
pp. 395-428.
Cardwell, K., 'The Fish on the Fire: John 21:9', ExpTim 102 (1990), pp. 12-14.
Carson, D.A., The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).
—'John and the Johannine Letters', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds),
It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Festschrift B. Lindars; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 245-64.
Cathcart, K., M. Maher, and M. McNamara (eds), The Aramaic Bible
(Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1987-1992).
Vol. 1A, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, trans. M. McNamara, 1992.
Vol. IB, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, trans. M. Maher, 1992.
Vol. 6, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, trans. B. Grossfeld, 1988.
Vol. 11, The Isaiah Targum, trans. B. Chilton, 1988.
Vol. 12, The Targum of Jeremiah, trans. R. Hayward, 1987.
Vol. 13, The Targum of Ezekiel, trans. S.H. Levey, 1987.
Charles, R.H., The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn, 1912).
Charles, R.H. (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913).
Charlesworth, J.H., 'The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', in C.A. Evans and
W.F. Stinespring (eds), Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis (Festschrift W.H.
Brownlee; Homage, 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 139-52.
Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts
with English Translations (10 vols.; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),
1994^).
—The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols; Anchor Bible Reference Library;
New York: Doubleday, 1983-1985).
Chilton, B.D., The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenance of the Isaiah
Targum (JSOTSup, 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983).
Chyutin, M., 'The New Jerusalem: Ideal City', DSD 1 (1994), pp. 71-97.
Cortes, J.B., 'Yet Another Look at John 7:37-39', CBQ 29 (1967), pp. 75-86.
Craigie, P.C., P.H. Kelley, and J.F. Drinkard, Jr., Jeremiah 1-25 (WBC, 26; Waco,
Tex.: Word Books, 1991).
Dahl, N.A., 'The Johannine Church and History', in W. Klassen and G.F. Snyder
(eds), Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation (Festschrift O.A. Piper;
New York: Harper & Row, 1962), pp. 124-42.
Daise, M.A., '"Rivers of Living Water" as New Creation and New Exodus: A
Traditio-historical Vantage Point for the Exegetical Problems and Theology of
John 7:37-39' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton Theological
Seminary, 2000).
Danielou, J., Etudes d'exegese judeo-chretienne (Paris: Beauchesne et ses fils, 1966).
Davila, J.R., Liturgical Works (ECDSS; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
2000).
DeConick, A.D., Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of
John and Thomas and Other Christian Literature (JSNTSup, 157; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).
Deeley, M., 'Ezekiel's Shepherd and John's Jesus: A Case Study in the
Appropriation of Biblical Texts', in C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (eds), Early
Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals
(JSNTSup, 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 252-65.
Dimant, D., '4Q386 ii-iii - A Prophecy on Hellenistic Kingdoms?' RevQ 18, no. 72
(1998), pp. 514^30.
Bibliography 217
—Qumran Cave 4 XXI: Parabiblical Texts Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts (DJD,

30; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001).
Dodd, C.H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1965).
Dods, M., The Gospel of St. John (Expositor's Bible, 43; 2 vols; New York: A.C.
Armstrong and Son, 1903).
Dunn, J.D.G, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament
Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relationship to Pentecostalism Today
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970).
—'Let John be John: A Gospel for Its Time", in P. Stuhlmacher (ed.), Das
Evangelium und die Evangelium: Vortrdge vom Tubinger Symposium 1982
(WUNT, 28; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1983), pp. 309-39.
Durlesser, J.A., 'The Rhetoric of Allegory in the Book of EzekieF (unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1988).
Edersheim, A., The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (repr. Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1993; New York: Longmans, Green, 1896).
Eichrodt, W., Ezekiel: A Commentary (trans. C. Quin; OTL; London: SCM Press,
1970).
Emerton, J.A., 'The Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes in John XXI. 11', JTS 9
(1958), pp. 86-89.
Evans, C.A., Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of
John's Prologue (JSNTSup, 89; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).
Fee, G.D., 'Once More - John 7:37-39', ExpTim 89, no. 4 (1978), pp. 116-21.
Fikes, B.A., 'A Theological Analysis of the Shepherd-King Motif in Ezekiel 34'
(unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,
1995).
Fowler, William Glenn, 'The Influence of Ezekiel in the Fourth Gospel:
Intertextuality and Interpretation' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Golden
Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1995).
Freed, E.H., Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (NovTSup, 11; Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1965).
Fujita, S., 'The Temple Theology of the Qumran Sect and the Book of Ezekiel:
Their Relationship to Jewish Literature of the Last Two Centuries B.C.'
(unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1970).
Garcia Martinez, F., and E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (2
vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997-1998).
Goppelt, L., Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New
(trans. D.H. Madvig; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982).
Grassi, J., 'Ezekiel XXXVII. 1-14 and the New Testament', NTS 11 (1964), pp.
162-64.
Gray, G.B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC, 4; repr. 1956;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903).
Grigsby, B.H., 'Gematria and John 21:11 - Another Look At Ezekiel 47:10',
ExpTim 95 (1984), pp. 177-78.
—"If Any Man Thirsts...":? Observations on the Rabbinic Background of John
7,37-39', Bib 67 (1986), pp. 101-08.
Gruenwald, I., Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU, 14; Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1980).
Guilding, A., The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship: A Study of the Relation of St.
John's Gospel to the Ancient Jewish Lectionary System (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1960).
Halperin, D.J., The Faces of the Chariot (TSAJ, 16; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1988).
Hanson, A.T., 'John's Use of Scripture', in C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (eds), The
Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup, 104; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1994), pp. 358-79.
Harris, J.R., and V. Burch, Testimonies (2 vols; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1916-1920).
Hatina, T.R., 'John 20,22 in Its Eschatological Context: Promise or Fulfillment?'
Bib 74, no. 2 (1993), pp. 196-219.
Hays, R.B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1989).
Heil, J.P., 'Jesus as the Unique High Priest in the Gospel of John', CBQ 57, no. 4
(1995), pp. 729-45.
Himmelfarb, M., Ascent to Heaven and the Christian Apocalypses (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993).
—'Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the Apocalypses and the Hekhalot
Literature', HUCA 59 (1984), pp. 73-100.
Hodges, Z.C., 'Rivers of Living Water - John 7:37-39', BSac 136 (1979), pp. 239-
48.
Hollander, J., The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).
Holm-Nielsen, S., Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (AcTDan, 2; Aarhus: Uni-
versitetsforlaget, 1960).
Hooke, S.H., 'The Spirit Was Not Yet', NTS 9, no. 4 (1963), pp. 372-80.
Hultberg, A.D., 'Messianic Exegesis in the Apocalypse: The Significance of the Old
Testament for the Christology of Revelation' (unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2001).
Huntzinger, J.D., 'The End of Exile: A Short Commentary on the Shepherd/Sheep
Metaphor in Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophetic and Synoptic Gospel Literature'
(unpublished doctoral dissertation;*Fuller Theological Seminary, 1999).
Johnson, D.H., 'Our Father Jacob: The Role of the Jacob Narrative in the Fourth
Gospel Compared to its Role in the Jewish Bible and in the Writings of Early
Judaism' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School, 1992).
Josephus (trans. H. St. J. Thackeray et al.; LCL; 10 vols; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1926-1965).
Joyce, P.M., 'King and Messiah in Ezekiel', in J. Day (ed.), King and Messiah in
Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament
Seminar (JSOTSup, 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 323-27.
Jungkuntz, R., 'An Approach to the Exegesis of John 10:34-36', Cone 35 (1964),
pp. 556-65.
Kanagaraj, J.J., Mysticism in John (JSNTSup, 158; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1998).
Bibliography 219
Kee, H.C., 'Messiah and the People of God', in J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad and B.C.
Ollenburger (eds), Understanding the Word (Festschrift B.W. Anderson;
JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 341-58.
Kiefer, D.F., 'Ezekiel 34: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of the Shepherd
Motif with Special Reference to John 10' (unpublished masters dissertation,
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1991).
Knapp, H.M., The Messianic Water Which Gives Life to the World', HBT19, no.
2 (1997), pp. 109-21.
Koester, C.R., The Dwelling of God: The Tabernacle in the Old Testament,
Intertestamental Jewish Literature, and the New Testament (CBQMS, 22;
Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1989).
—Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1995).
Kruse, H., 'Magnum Pisces centum quinquaginta tres (Jo 21,11)', VD 38 (1960),
pp. 129^8.
Kuhn, K.H., 'St. John VII. 37-8', NTS 4, no. 1 (1957), pp. 63-65.
Lampe, G.W.H., 'The Reasonableness of Typology', in G.W.H. Lampe and K.J.
Woollcombe (eds), Essays on Typology (SBT, 22; London: SCM Press, 1957),
pp. 9-38.
Levey, S.H., The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of
the Targum (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974).
—The Targum of Ezekiel (Aramaic Bible, 13; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier,
1987).
Lewis, A.S., 'John vii. 38, 39', ExpTim 23 (1911-1912), pp. 235-36.
Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (NCB; Greenwood, S.C.: Oliphants, 1972).
Lust, J., E. Eynikel and K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (2
vols.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992, 1996).
Luzarraga, J., 'Presentacion de Jesus a la luz del A.T. en el Evangelio de Juan',
Estudios Ecclesiasticos 51 (1976), pp. 497-520.
Lyon, R.W., 'John 20:22, Once More', Asbury Theological Journal 43, no. 1 (1988),
pp. 73-85.
Marcus, J., 'Rivers of Living Water from Jesus' Belly', JBL 117, no. 2 (1998), pp.
328-30.
Marshall, I.H., 'An Assessment of Recent Developments', in D.A. Carson and
H.G.M. Williamson (eds), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (Festschrift
B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 1-21.
Mathews, S.F., 'A Critical Evaluation of the Allusions to the Old Testament in
Apocalypse 1:1-8:5' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Catholic Uni-
versity of America, 1987).
McEleney, N.J., '153 Great Fishes (John 21,11) - Gematriacal Atbash', Bib 58, no.
3 (1977), pp. 411-17.
Meeks, W.A., The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology
(NovTSup, 14; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1967).
Menken, M.J.J., Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual
Form (Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996).
—'The Origin of the Old Testament Quote in John 7:38', NovT 38 (1996), pp. 160-
75.
Metzger, B.M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart:

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2nd edn, 1994).
Meyer, P.W., 'A Note on John 10:1-18', JBL 75 (1956), pp. 232-35.
Morris, L., The Gospel According to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1971).
Moyise, S., The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (JSNTSup, 115; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).
Nash, S.B., 'Kingship and the Psalms in the Fourth Gospel' (unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2000).
Neirynck, F., 'John 21', NTS 36 (1990), pp. 321-36.
Nestle, E.B., 'The Earliest Quotation of John 7:38, 39', ExpTim 23 (1911-1912), pp.
331.
Newman, C.C., Paul's Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NovTSup, 69;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992).
Newsom, C, 'Shirot Olat Hashabbat', in J.C. VanderKam and M. Brady (eds),
Qumran Cave 4 (DJD, 11; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 173-401.
—Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (HSM, 27; Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1985).
Ng, W.-Y., Water Symbolism in John: An Eschatological Interpretation (StudBL,
15; New York: P. Lang, 2001).
Nielsen, K., 'Old Testament Imagery in John', in J. Nissen and S. Pedersen (eds),
New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives (JSNTSup, 182;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), pp. 66-82.
Nurmela, R., 'Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1-8 and
9-14' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Abo Akademi (Finland), 1996).
Odeberg, H., The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporary
Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (repr. Chicago:
Argonaut, 1968; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1929).
Olson, D.T., Numbers (Louisville: John Knox, 1996).
Owen, O.T., 'One Hundred and Fifty Three Fishes', ExpTim 100 (1988), pp. 52-54.
Paulien, J., Decoding Revelation's Trumpets: Literary Allusions and the Interpreta-
tion of Revelation 8:7-12 (AUSS, 11; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews
University Press, 1987).
Philo (trans. F.H. Colson et al.; LCL; 12 vols; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1929-1962).
Quasten, J., 'The Parable of the Good Shepherd: John 10:1-21', CBQ 10 (1948),
pp. 1-12, 151-69.
Quispel, G., 'Nathanael und der Menschensohn (Joh 1 51)', ZNW 47 (1956).
Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes
(Stuttgart: Priviligierte Wurttemburgische Bibelanstalt, 1935).
du Rand, J., 'A Syntactical and Narratological Reading of John 10 in Coherence
with John 9', in J. Beutler and R. Fortna (eds), The Shepherd Discourse of John
10 and its Context: Studies by Members of the Johannine Writings Seminar
(SNTSMS, 67; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 94-115.
Reim, Giinter, Das alttestamentliche Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums
(SNTSMS, 22; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974).
Bibliography 221
Robinson, J.A.T., The Parable of John 10:1-5', in Twelve New Testament Studies
(SBT; Naperville, 111.: Alec R. Allenson, 1962), pp. 67-75.
Romeo, J.A., 'Gematria and John 21:11 - The Children of God', JBL 97, no. 2
(1978), pp. 263-64.
Ross, A.P., Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988).
Ross, J.M., 'One Hundred and Fifty-Three Fishes', ExpTim 100 (1988), p. 357.
Rowland, C, The Influence of the First Chapter of Ezekiel on Jewish and Early
Christian Literature' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge University,
1974).
—'John 1.51, Jewish Apocalyptic and Targumic Tradition', NTS 30 (1984), pp.
498-507.
Sandmel, S., 'Parallelomania', JBL 81 (1962), pp. 1-13.
Schafer, P., The Aim and Purpose of Early Jewish Mysticism', in Hekhalot-Studien
(Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1988).
— 'Merkavah Mysticism and Rabbinic Judaism', JAOS 104 (1984), pp. 537-54.
—'New Testament and Hekhalot Literature: The Journey into Heaven in Paul and
in Merkavah Mysticism', JJS 35 (1984), pp. 19-35.
—Tradition and Redaction in Hekhalot Literature', JSJ 14 (1983), pp. 172-81.
Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel According to St. John (trans. K. Smyth, C.
Hastings, F. McDonagh, D. Smith, R. Foley, D. Smith and G.A. Kon;
HTCNT; 3 vols.; New York: Herder and Herder, 1968-1982).
Schneider, J., 'Zur {Composition von Joh. 10', ConNT 11 (1947), pp. 220-25.
Schuchard, B.G., Scripture within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and
Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in The Gospel of John (SBLDS,
133; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992).
Scott, M., Sophia and the Johannine Jesus (JSNTSup, 71; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1992).
Segal, A.F., Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and
Gnosticism (SJLA, 25; Leiden: Brill, 1978).
Septuaginta (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1939-1983).
Vol. 1, Genesis, trans. J.W. Weevers, 1974.
Vol. 3.1, Numeri, trans. J.W. Weevers, 1982.
Vol. 12.2, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, trans. J. Ziegler, 1980.
Vol. 14.1, Isaias, trans. J. Ziegler, 1939.
Vol. 15, Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae, trans. J. Ziegler, 1957.
Vol. 16.2, Ezechiel trans. J. Ziegler, 1977.
Sheehan, J.F., 'Feed my Lambs', Scr 16 (1964), pp. 21-27.
Skinner, J., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC, 1; repr. 1956;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2nd edn, 1930).
Somerville, J.E., The Invitation to the Thirsty', ExpTim 15 (1903-1904), pp. 77-79.
Soucek, J.B., The Good Shepherd and His Flock', Ecumenical Review 9 (1957), pp.
143-53.
Steudel, A., Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde (4QMi-
drEschatab): materielle Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Gattung und traditions-
geschichtliche Einordnung des durch 4Q174 ("Florilegium") und4Q177 ("Catena
A") reprdsentierten Werkes aus den Qumranfunden (STDJ, 13; Leiden: Brill,
1994).
Stevenson, K.R., The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel
40-48 (SBLDS, 154; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).
Swete, H.B., The Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint (3 vols.;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896-1912).
Swetnam, J., 'Bestowal of the Spirit in the Fourth Gospel', Bib 74, no. 4 (1993), pp.
556-76.
Thompson, M.M., The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans, 2001).
Torrey, C.C., The Lives of the Prophets: Greek Text and Translation (JBLMS, 1;
Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1946).
—Our Translated Gospels: Some of the Evidence (New York/London: Harper &
Brothers, 1936).
Trudinger, P., 'John 21 Revisited Once Again', Downside Review 106 (1988), pp.
145-48.
Turner, C.H., 'On the Punctuation of St. John VII 37, 38', JTS2A (1922-1923), pp.
66-70.
Turner, J., 'The History of Religions Background of John 10', in J. Beutler and R.
Fortna (eds), The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and its Context: Studies by
Members of the Johannine Writings Seminar (SNTSMS, 67; London: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), pp. 33-52.
Vancil, J.W., The Symbolism of the Shepherd in Biblical, Intertestamental, and
New Testament Material' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dropsie Uni-
versity, 1975).
Vander Hoek, G.W., 'The Function of Psalm 82 in the Fourth Gospel and History
of the Johannine Community: A Comparative Midrash Study' (unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1988).
VanderKam, J.C., 'Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature', in J.M. Scott (ed.),
Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (JSJ, 56; Leiden: Brill,
1997), pp. 89-109.
Vermes, G., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin Press,
1997).
Vogelgesang, J.M., 'The Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation'
(unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1985).
Wallace, D.B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).
Watts, J.D.W., Isaiah 1-33 (WBC, 24; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1985).
Wenham, G.J., Genesis 1-15 (WBC, 1; Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1982).
Winsor, A.R., 'A King is Bound in the Tresses: Allusions to the Song of Songs in
the Fourth Gospel' (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate Theological
Union, 1996).
Wise, M., M. Abegg, and E. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996).
Woods, M.W., 'The Use of the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel: The
Hermeneutical Significance for Contemporary Biblical Interpretation' (unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980).
Bibliography 223
Woollcombe, K.J., 'The Biblical Origins and Patristic Development of Typology',

in G.W.H. Lampe and KJ. Woollcombe (eds), Essays on Typology (SBT, 22;
London: SCM Press, 1957), pp. 39-75.
Yadin, Y., The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness
(trans. B.R.C. Rabin; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962).
Zimmerli, W., Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (trans.
J.D. Martin and R.E. Clements; Hermeneia; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1979, 1983).
—The "Land" in the Pre-Exilic and Early Post-Exilic Prophets', in J.T. Butler,
E.W. Conrad and B.C. Ollenburger (eds), Understanding the Word (Festschrift
B.W. Anderson; JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 246-62.
INDEX OF SCRIPTURE AND ANCIENT SOURCES
Old Testament 14.49-52 111, 182 27.16-23 13, 103-

15.19 169, 182 105
Genesis 15.31 169 27.16-22 106, 107
1.21 180 23.33^4 176 111
1.26-30 167 26.25 60 27.16 13, 103,
2 55, 167, 26.40 26, 133, 104
168, 200, 200 27.17 105
208, 210, 27.19 106, 108
211 Numbers 27.20-21 106
2.7 165-166 3.16 105 27.20 105
2.9-10 54 3.39 105 27.21 105
2.9 54, 180 3.51 105 29.12-34 176
2.19-20 167 4.37 105 31.21 51
2.24 126 4.41 105 33.2 105
3 55 4.45 105 33.38 105
7.11 151 8 211 34.5 105
8.2 151 8.5-7 182 36.5 105
14.14 192 9.18 105
17.3 85 9.20 105
28 150, 154, Deuteronomy
9.23 105 2.7 177
156 10.13 105
28.12 11 52, 55,
150-152, 13.3 105 200
154, 199 15.16 128
28.13 11.14 52,57
152 17.10 143
40.10 14.22-15.18 176
143 19 200,211
41.40 15.1-18 124
105 19.9 51, 182
49.27 16.18-20 124
122 19.13 51 17.14-20 124
Exodus 19.16 169 17.19 124
15 55 19.17-22 182 19.15 105
15.10 57 19.17-19 169 21.5 105
17.1-6 177 19.20 51, 169 24.10-22 124
19 156 21 177 30.3 126,211
24.8 170 24.17 25 31.17-18 26
26.24 126 27 4, 11, 13, 32.20 26
33.12 176 100, 104- 32.29 201
108, 111, 32.39 96
Leviticus 114, 132,
10.10 66 149, 199,
14 211 203, 206, Joshua
14.5-7 182 207 23.4 7, 12, 3<
Judges 19 158 5.7 137

12.3 119 23 11 6 46, 79, 82,
23.2 2 153, 156,
1 Samuel 29 158 158, 200,
5.4-5 183 77.20 115 201
19.5 119 78.20 177 6.1 152, 153
20.23 174 78.23 151 6.2 85
28.21 119 78.70-72 132 6.3 84
78.71 115 6.10 152, 153
2 Samuel 80 [79] 54, 55, 7.17 59
2.25 126 137, 138 8 32,33
5.2 115 80.1 [79.2] 104 8.11-13 31
24.17 104 80.8-11 136 8.11 31, 32, 58,
80.9 54 133, 200
/ Kings 80.10 53 8.14 31
5.5 190 80.11 54 10 55
7.2 176 80.14-15 10.2 66
8.22 176 [79.15-16] 137 11.1 137
8.54 176 82 7, 118 11.6 122
17.21 166 88.6 169 11.11-16 125
19.2 119 96 158 12.1-4 177
97 158 12.3 184
2 Kings 99 158 13.21 73
25.6-7 78 103.15 53 19.17 174
104 158 24.17 61
1 Chronicles 105.41 177 24.18 151
4.40 2 148 158 27 55
16.2 41 150 158 27.6 53,54
17.6 132 28.13 62
23.11 126 Proverbs 28.14 62
23.31 40 3.18 96, 201 32.15 182, 185
33.21 177
2 Chronicles Ecclesiastes 40 55
2.3 40 3.11 50 40.5 73
8.13 40 40.6 53
18.16 104 Isaiah 40.11 104
26.21 169 1.1 155 41.14 73
31.3 40 1.20 73 43.14 73
2.2-4 128 44 196
Nehemiah 4.2 137, 148 44.3-4 182
9.20 185 5 24, 55, 44.3 177, 182,
10.34 40 135-137, 185, 186,
139, 148, 187, 194,
Job 149, 199, 195
4.21 166 206, 207, 48.21 177
211 49.9 2
Psalms 5.1-7 136, 137, 53 11
1 31, 32, 33, 140, 141, 53.8 169
55, 57, 58, 148 53.10-12 118
200 5.1-5 207 5416 166
1.1 32, 133 5.2 135, 136 54.8 26
1.3 55 5.5b-6a 24 56.6-8 128
2.9 95 5.6 137 56.6-7 128
Isaiah - continued 31.7-14 125 6.10 73

56.8 128 31.31-34 170 7.11 37
56.9-11 119 31.31 27,63,170 8-9 180
58.14 73 33.5 26 8.1-18 60
59.2 26 50.6 115 8.3 82
60 55 51.1 192 8.4 153
60.2-14 128 51.7 69 8.12 60
60.21 53 51.41 192 9 59, 60, 61,
63 34,35 212
63.1-6 36 Ezekiel 9.1-2 60
63.7-14 36 1 42, 43, 44, 9.2 116
63.10 36 46, 68, 73, 9.3 60, 183
63.11 36, 104, 78, 79, 80, 9.4-7 60
115 82, 84, 9.4 59, 60, 74
63.12 35, 36 154, 155, 10 27, 42, 43,
63.14 36 156, 158, 68, 79, 80,
63.19 151 159, 200, 155, 200,
65.25 122 201, 202 201
63.12 34 1.1-3 46 10 43, 46, 47
1.1 79, 80, 81, 10.1-3 71
Jeremiah 150-152, 10.4 183
2 15, 19, 55, 155, 199, 10.6 44,82
135, 136, 202, 203 10.9 45, 82
139, 140, 1.3-4 81 10.16 44
148, 149, 1.4-28 71 10.17 45
199, 206, 1.4 45,46 10.18 183
207,211 1.5 84 10.19 152
2.1-3.4 135 1.10 71 10.22 153
2.2-3 135, 136 1.13-14 44 11 23,28
2.3 135 1.13 45, 85 11.15 23, 27, 28,
2.5 135, 136 1.15-21 85 33
2.8 136 1.15 45, 116 11.16 27,29
2.11 136 1.16 71 11.17 29
2.13 136, 148 1.19 44, 152 11.19-20 29, 168,
2.18 136 1.20 45,46,152 169, 181
2.20 136 1.21 152 11.19 29, 50,
2.21-22 140 1.22 44,82 168,
2.21 14, 135- 1.24 44, 45, 82 11.21 29
138, 148, 1.26 44,82 11.22-23 29
207 1.28 45, 82, 85, 11.22 152
2.25 136 153 11.23 29
2.32-33 136 3 122 11.24-25 29
3.15 132 3.2 79,84 12.13 78
17 55,57 3.12 153 13 61, 63, 64
17.12 63 3.14—15 79 65, 67, 68
17.13 56, 63, 200 3.22-23 81 202, 205
23 4,104,115 3.23 46,85,153 13.1-23 62
23.1^ 113, 132 4.4-6 27 13.9 12, 27, 64
23.1 115 4.4-5 27, 33 65, 200
23.3 125 4.9 116 13.9-16 61
23.4 93, 132 5.11 27 13.10 12, 61, 62
25.26 192 5.13 73 64-65, 66
30.9 [37.9] 93 6-10 150 13.12 67
13.13-16 62 19.1 139 30.3-5 69

13.14 67 19.10-14 141 31 52, 53, 54
13.15 67 19.10 139, 143 55, 57, 79.
14 128 19.11 54 146, 147,
14.7-8 128, 130 19.12-14 141 206
14.7 128, 129 19.12-13 139 31.1-6 72
15 16, 19, 55, 19.12 10, 56, 31.3-4 56
136, 140, 142, 147 31.3 54
141, 142, 19.14 139 31.4 53, 54
146, 149, 20 31,33,204 31.6 53
199, 203, 20.3-5 23 31.7 54
206, 207, 20.18-20 33 31.10 54
211 20.18 23, 32, 33, 31.13 56
15.1-8 138 58, 133, 31.14 54,56
15.4-6 142 200 31.15 54
15.4 138, 141 20.33-39 30 31.16 54
15.7 138 20.34 30 33-37 115
15.8 139, 142 20.35 30, 33, 75 33.23-29 29
17 16, 52, 54, 20.37-38 30 34 2,4,6, 11,
55, 57, 68, 20.38 30 52, 74, 78,
79, 140, 21 52, 55, 57, 86, 87, 88,
141, 142, 146 89, 91, 92,
143, 145, 21.3 56 93, 95, 96,
146, 147, 21.36 166 98, 99,
149, 199, 22 61, 65, 68, 100, 103,
203, 206, 122, 202, 104, 105,
211,212 205, 212 106, 110,
17.1-10 139, 143 22.2 75, 122 111, 112,
17.6-10 144 22.7 66, 122, 113, 114,
17.7-8 142 128 115, 117,
17.8 143 22.17-26 61 118, 120,
17.9-10 141 22.17-22 64 121, 122,
17.11-21 139 22.17-20 68 123, 124,
17.13-19 139, 145 22.19 126 125, 126,
17.13-15 141 22.20-22 65 127, 128,
17.15 142 22.20-21 166 129, 130,
17.19 139 22.20 67, 68 131, 132,
17.22 54, 72, 145 22.23-31 64 133, 134,
17.22-24 79, 143, 22.23-28 66 149, 181,
145, 148, 22.25 66, 122 199, 200,
181, 204, 22.26 65,66,180 201, 204,
207 22.27 66, 121, 205, 206,
17.22-23 144 122 207,211
17.23-24 10 22.28 65 34.1-10 92,93
17.23 53,56, 143 22.29 66, 128 34.2 120
17.24 56 23.20 88 34.3 114, 120,
18.31 181 26 55 122
19 16, 52, 54, 28.25 125, 126, 34.4 92,93,113
55, 57, 127, 128, 34.5-6 122
139, 140, 132,211 34.5 88, 121,
141, 142, 28.26 128 122
149, 199, 30 68 34.6-10 92
206,211 30.2-19 69 34.6 114, 121
Ezekiel — continued 196, 197, 37.7 163

34.7-11 88 202, 205 37.8 98
34.7-10 114 36.9-10 206 37.9-10 165
34.8 88, 120, 36.16-38 163 37.9 10, 160,
122 36.17 169, 182 161, 164,
34.10-11 88 36.22-32 48, 195 166
34.10 114, 123 36.22-27 48 37.10 163, 165
34.11-22 92 36.22 27, 48, 49, 37.11-14 70, 162,
34.11-16 123 50, 52, 195 164, 171
34.11 117 36.24^29 49, 169 37.11-12 169
34.12 92, 125 36.25-29 170 37.11 97, 161,
34.13-15 130 36.25-28 167 164, 169,
34.13 105, 106, 36.25-27 50, 51, 171
114, 122 169, 181, 37.12 98, 160,
34.14 93, 109, 182, 185, 162, 165
130 186, 187, 37.13-14 168
34.15 131 189, 194, 37.14 10, 168,
34.16 123, 125 195, 196, 169, 170,
34.17-22 92,93 200, 202, 181,201
34.17 123 208,211 37.15-28 163, 181,
34.18 93 36.25 51, 182 211
34.20-22 88 36.26 50, 195 37.17 116, 126
34.22 93, 114, 36.27 51, 168 37.19-25 167
122, 203 36.36 36 37.19-22 203
34.23-25 130 37 68, 70, 74, 37.19 115, 126
34.23-24 88, 91, 92, 78, 96, 97, 37.21-27 126, 203
93, 115, 98, 100, 37.21-26 127
126 116, 150, 37.21-22 125, 127,
34.23 2,93, 115, 160, 161, 132
116, 117, 162, 163, 37.21 126, 127,
118 165, 166, 211
34.24 52, 184 167, 168, 37.22-24 115
34.25-31 92 169, 170, 37.22 115, 127,
34.25-30 116 171, 200, 163
34.25-29 128, 130 202, 201, 37.23 32, 33,
34.25-26 52 203, 205, 130, 169,
34.25 88, 117, 206, 208, 170
122, 126, 210,211 37.24-28 116
131 37.1-14 96, 163, 37.24-25 93, 163
34.26 52 164, 169, 37.24 115, 116,
34.27-28 122 181, 201, 118, 125,
34.27 93, 131 211 127
34.28-29 93 37.1-10 70, 162, 37.25-27 131
34.28 88, 114, 164, 171 37.25 35, 116,
122, 131 37.1 169 126, 184
34.29 52,58 37.2 96, 161 37.26 131
34.30 93, 114, 37.3 96, 161, 37.28 128, 169
128 163, 164, 38-39 26, 34, 35,
34.31 114 201 37, 129,
34.34 184 37.4^10 170 204
36 36, 37, 49, 37.4 96, 160, 38 34, 35, 36,
50, 51, 161 37, 176,
150, 195, 37.6 168 204
38.8 35 44.17-20 39 Daniel

38.13 34 44.22 39 4 53
38.16 36 44.23 66 4.8-9 53
38.22 34 44.24 39,40 7 79, 82, 84
38.23 34, 36 44.25-27 39 85, 156,
39 27,35 44.28 40 164, 200,
39.7 34, 35, 36 45^8 88, 94 201
39.11 37 45-47 95 7.9 82
39.15 37 45.1-6 41 7.10 45, 82, 85
39.16 37 45.8 15,94,206 7.13-14 153, 164
39.21-29 26 45.13-25 41 7.13 164
39.21-22 36 45.17 27,40 7.14 160
39.21 26,34 46.2 183 7.18 164
39.23 23, 26, 27, 46.6-14 180 7.22 164
37, 38, 46.18 94 7.27 164
133, 200 47 57, 129, 8.17 85
39.28 36, 181 146, 150, 12 163
39.29 36, 168, 179, 180, 12 200
182, 185 182, 183, 12.1 164
40-48 37, 41, 42, 191, 194, 12.2 160, 163
43,211 196, 197,
40-47 72 200, 201, Hosea
4(M6 41, 150 202, 205, 2.8 62
40-41 41 210,211 8.9 98
40 37, 41, 68 47.1-12 39, 172, 10 55
40.1 41 177, 179, 10.1-2 57
40.46 39 180, 186, 10.1 140, 144
43-46 179 189, 191,
43 42,43 193, 194,
43.1-7 47 195, 208 Joel
155
43.1-5 44, 179 47.1-10 177 2.28 [3.1]
185, 208
43.3 80,85 47.1-7 56 2.28-29 1 7Q
43.6-12 179 47.1 178, 183 j
i /y
43.6-9 180 47.2 179 3.17-18 182
43.7-12 180 47.3-5 57 3.18 178, 186,
1iyjQC
44^*8 184 47.8-9 178, 181 A A 1 HQ
44-45 40 47.8 56, 178, 4.4 1 /O
44 38, 39, 42, 181, 192

212 47.9-10 189, 190 Amos
44.1 40 47.9 56, 178, 5.26-27 23, 24, 25
44.3 40 179, 180, 33, 59, 75
44.4 85 181 206
44.7-8 39 47.10 193 9.11 25
44.7 129 47.11-48.35 179, 180
44.9 129 47.12 56, 181, Obadiah
44.10 31, 32, 38, 196 1.1 155
39 47.13 15, 94
44.11 39,40 47.21-23 209 Micah
44.13-14 39 47.21-22 15,94,206 2.12 125
44.15-16 39 47.21 94 4.4 73
44.15 31, 37, 38, 47.22-23 129, 130 5 149, 201
39, 42, 62 47.23 95 5.1-3 2
44.17-27 39 48.8-22 41 5.4 [5.3] 93
Nahum 46.12 98 1.3-4 167

1.1 155 47.3 87 1.12-13 128
1.15 166 49.8 79 1.12 121, 173
3.8-10 69 49.10 96, 97, 98, 1.14 107, 150,
171 154
Zephaniah 49.8 79, 80, 98 1.17 107
1.9 183 50.8 143 1.18 153, 157,
2.9 57 159, 184
2 55 2 Maccabees 1.23 175
6-7 98 1.32-33 170, 196
Zechariah 1.33 107
5.1-3 97 4 Maccabees 1.35-51 208
10 104, 149 1.1 96 1.41 208
10.3 115 18 96, 201 1.45 208
11 104, 149, 18.17 96, 171 1.49 208
201 1.51 21, 150-
11.1-17 113 157, 160,
11.3 89 New Testament 184, 199,
11.15-17 2 201,202,
12.10 182, 184, Matthew 203, 208,
185, 186 1.17 192 210
13 179 1.21 107 2.7-9 172
13.1 177, 182 3.16 151 2.17-21 150
13.7-9 2 7.15 122 2.17 175
13.7 59,60, 104 9.36 11 2.19-20 154
13.8-9 60 10.16 122 2.19-21 185
14 176, 179, 19.2 126 2.21 184
200, 201 26.31 175 3 186, 187,
14.8 177, 178, 188, 189,
182, 186, Mark 195,211
195 1.10 151 3.3 157, 159,
14.16-19 185 6.34 11 188
14.16-17 128 11.17 109 3.3-8 170
14.17-18 177 13.14 192 3.5 172, 186-
14.21 95 188, 195,
Luke 196, 208,
Malachi 3.21-22 151 210
3.10 143, 151 5.10 194 3.6 187
7.24 175 3.8 170
10.3 122 3.13 157, 159
Apocrypha 19.46 175 3.34 170
20.17 175 3.34-35 175
Wisdom of Solomon 20.41^3 175 4 186, 188,
7.25-26, 153 21.6 174 189, 195,
22.20 170 211
Sirach 22.37 175 4.10-15 172
13.17 122 24.1 161 4.10-14 196
18.13 87 24.2 161 4.10 188, 195
24.12-22 146 4.13-14 107, 175,
28.12 166 John 186, 188,
34.18 174 1 137 195
43.4 166 1.1-3 153 4.14 188, 208,
44^9 79 1.1 176 210
4.21-24 150 7-10 100, 103 9-10 161

4.21 188 7-9 107, 150 9 106, 121,
4.23-25 184 7 101, 188, 123
4.23-24 170 189,211 9.14-16 107
4.23 188, 196 7.5 101 9.24 107
5 21, 134, 7.12 101 9.34 107
163, 165, 7.13 101 9.39-41 102
166, 171, 7.23-24 107 10 2, 6, 8,
210 7.24 103, 107 11, 13,
5.1-15 161 7.25-26 101 100, 101,
5.1-3 161 7.25 108 103, 104,
5.3 161 7.26-27 101 105, 106,
5.5-9 165 7.31 101 107, 108,
5.5-6 162 7.32 101, 107, 110, 111,
5.7 172 108 112, 113,
5.8 162 7.37-39 107, 150, 115, 117,
5.16-18 161 155, 169, 118, 119,
5.17-23 117 172, 177, 121, 122,
5.17 162, 163 185-189, 123, 124,
5.19-48 161 194, 195, 125, 126,
5.19-29 200, 201, 196, 200, 127, 131,
208 201, 208, 132, 133,
5.19-20 162 210 134, 145,
5.21-29 171 7.37-38 173 146, 148,
5.21 161, 162, 7.37 175, 185 149, 183,
164, 165, 7.38-39 178 199, 201,
208, 210 7.38 174^179, 206, 207,
5.22 164 183, 210, 211
5.24^-25 208 211 10.1-33 101
5.24 164, 165 7.39 175, 184, 10.1-30 20, 100,
5.25-28 160, 167, 186, 194, 111, 184
201 196, 197 10.1-9 13, 103,
5.25-26 162 7.40-43 101 106, 107,
5.25 161, 162, 7.42 117 111
163, 165 7.44-45 101 10.1-6 103, 108
5.26-27 117 7.45-52 107 10.1-2 107, 111
5.27-29 162 7.45-46 101 10.1 104, 108,
5.27 164 7.47-53 121 120
5.28 161, 162 7.47-52 101 10.2-4 124
5.29 163 7.48 108 10.3-4 203, 207
5.30-32 117 7.50-52 108 10.3 114, 115
5.37 117, 157, 8 101, 102 10.4 105
159 8.12-59 101 10.5 120
6 161 8.12-30 101 10.7-9 108
6.1 193 8.12 101 10.8-10 114
6.9-11 193 8.15 103, 107 10.8-9 110
6.23 193 8.20 101 10.8 109, 114,
6.37-40 165 8.28-29 101, 117 120
6.38 117 8.28 155 10.9-10 130, 207
6.39 173 8.37-38 101 10.9 103, 105,
6.45 175 8.45 173, 174 114, 130
6.46 157, 159 8.56 153, 157 10.10-16 111
6.63 170 8.59 101 10.10 109, 120
John - continued 11.52 114, 126, 16.13-15 170

10.11 114, 118, 127, 132, 17.2 173
202 167, 203, 18.19-21 108
10.12-13 114, 121 211 18.35 111
10.12 122, 126 12 156 18.39-40 108
10.13-14 114 12.10-11 121 19.30 185
10.14 114, 115, 12.16 155 19.34 172,175
176, 207 12.19 121 184, 189
10.15-17 207 12.24 143 195, 196
10.15 117 12.38-40 175 201, 208
10.16 110, 114, 12.40 152, 157 210
115, 116, 12.41 152, 213 19.37 182,185
122, 125, 13.3-17 172, 196 20.19-20 169
126, 127, 13.12-17 196 20.19 169
130, 167, 13.21-30 142 20.21 167
203, 207 13.36-37 132 20.21-23 170
10.17-18 - 119, 13.37 119 20.21-22 167
202 13.38 119 20.22 10, 21,
10.17 117, 126, 14.16-20 170 107, 155
130 14.25-26 170 165-168,
10.18 117 15 15, 16, 19, 171, 175
10.24 117 135, 136, 188, 189
10.25 117 137, 138, 196, 200
10.26-29 165 139, 140, 201, 206
10.26-27 110, 123, 141, 142, 208, 210
124, 127, 143, 145, 20.31 167,
130 146, 147, 211
10.26 114,207 148, 149, 21 132, 191
10.27-30 111 199, 201, 194
10.27 104, 111, 202, 207, 21.1-11 189, 191
114, 115, 211 193, 194
207 15.1-10 20, 100, 195, 201
10.28-30 132 136 210
10.28-29 117, 131 15.1-3 135, 136, 21.1 193
10.28 124, 131, 143 21.3 193
207 15.1 14, 140 21.6 193
10.29 117, 132 15.2-3 141 21.8 192
10.30 117 15.2 135, 136, 21.9 192
10.34-35 175 142, 143, 21.11 21
10.36-38 118 173 21.13 194
10.37-38 117 15.4 136 21.15-17 100, 131
10.38 118 15.5-6 136 132, 201
11 112, 131 15.5 136, 140
11.24-25 165 15.6 10, 141, Acts
11.38-44 165 142, 147, 7.56 151
11.47-50 108 203 8.7 174
11.47-48 121 15.7 136 20.29 122
11.51-52 100, 110, 15.13 119
122, 125, 15.21-25 142 Romans
126, 127, 15.22 102 8.26 173
130, 163, 15.24 102
184, 201, 15.26 175 2 Corinthians
202, 207 16.7 175 12.1-7 158
Colossians 70-71 81, 84 20 47,79

2.16-19, 159 71 79, 201 21 47
71.1-2 79,85
Hebrews 71.7 85 2 Baruch
1.3 153 71.14^16 85 10.8 109
4.8 107 85-90 87,98
10.27 141 86.4 88 3 Baruch
12.29 141 88.3 88 2 79
89-90 6, 86, 87,
1 John 90, 95, 96, 4 Baruch
1.8 102 98, 133, 4.4^5 109
3.1 128 201
3.2 128 89.14^-20 88 4 Ezra
3.10 128 89.14 87 3.14 153
3.16 119 89.17-18 89
5.2 128 89.22 87 Jubilees
5.8 126 89.28 87 44.1 40
89.36 87
Revelation 89.41-42 89 Life of Adam and Eve
2.26 173 89.42-49 91 25 79
3.12 173 89.42 87 28 79
3.21 173 89.43 87
4.1-11 156 89.45-49 89 Lives of the Prophets
4.1-4 158 89.47 87 3 97
11.2 110 89.51-53 89 3.12 96, 97,
13.18 192 89.54 87 171, 206
21-22 42 89.55 87
89.58 89 Psalms of Solomon
89.59 88,90 17 6, 15, 18,
Pseudepigrapha 89.59-90.5 89 91, 92, 93.
89.59-72 87 94, 95, 96,
1 Enoch 89.59-66 90 99, 133,
9.8-9 88 89.66 90 134, 201,
12.4^14.7 82 89.72 87 203, 204,
14 46, 47, 79, 90.1-2 90 205, 209
83, 84, 90.4-5 96,98,171 17.1-3 92
158, 200, 90.6-19 88 17.4 92
201 90.9-10 89 17.5-20 92, 93
14.8-25 79,81 90.10-12 87 17.16-18 92
14.18-20 82 90.13-14 90 17.16 92
14.21 83 90.21-27 88 17.17 92
14.8-9 82 90.21 88 17.18 92
15-36 81 90.22-25 89,90 17.21-44 86,92
39-40 79,83 90.24 88 17.21 92, 93, 94
39 201 90.25-26 90 17.22-25 93
39.2-40 81 90.28-29 88 17.22 95
39.2 79 90.30-33 90 17.23 95
39.12-40.2 84 90.30 134 17.24 95
39.12 84 90.31 87 17.25 95
40 47 90.32 90,99,134 17.26 92
40.1-2 84 17.27 93
40.3 84 2 Enoch 17.28 15, 93, 94,
61 47 20-21 79 95, 206
Psalms of Solomon - 14.14—18 52, 53, 76 7.4 41

continued 14.14-17 49, 53, 54 10.1-12.18 36
17.29 95 14.15-16 147 11.1-7 35
17.32 91, 92, 95 14.15 72 11.8-9 37
17.34 92 14.16 147 11.9-10 36
17.35 95 15.26-27 148 11.14 35,76
17.40 93 16 146, 147, 11.15-18 36
17.41 15, 93, 94, 148, 149 11.15-17 34
95 16.2-24 76 11.15 36
17.42 92 16.4-21 55 11.18 37
17.43 93,95 16.4-13 196 12.11 37
17.45 92 16.5-21 56 15.2 37
16.5-20 52 15.13 37
Testament of Levi 16.5-7 58 16.1 37
2 79 16.5 197
2.3-4 81 16.7 147, 196 lQpHab 109
2.5 81 16.9-10 147
2.7-3.6 81 16.10-11 197 IQS (Community Rule)
5 79 16.12 196 1.12 40
5.1 79,81 16.13 196 2.24 64
16.16-24 58,86 3.7-9 51, 187,
Testament of Moses 16.16 148, 196, 195
6.6 109 197 3.7-8 76, 202
16.17 178, 186 4.1 64
Testament of Zebulon 16.19 147 4.20-22 51, 76,
11.16-17 109 16.20 147 187, 196
16.21-26 148, 197 202
Apocalypsi » of Abraham 16.21-23 148 8.5 64
18 79,81 16.21-22 196 11.7-10 64
16.22-26 147
Ascension of Isaiah 16.22-24 50 2Q24 (New Jerusalem)
6 47,79 16.22 147 2Q24 76
18.12-17 86 1.1 41
18.12ff 58 fr. 3 8,41
Dead Sea Scrolls 18.21 29 fr. 8 41
20.11 50 fr. 4 41
1Q9 (Ezekiel) 22 20.32-21.18 49
21.6-7 27,49,195 3Q1, 4Q73-75
1QH (Hodayot) 21.6 50 (Ezekiel) 22
1QH 16, 48, 51, 21.10-13 76
74, 149 21.10-11 50, 195 4Q174 (Florilegium)
8 206 21.12-13 50, 195 4Q174 23,65
10.27 104 1.14-17 31
12.34-37 49 1QM (War Scroll) 1.15-16 31
12.38 49, 50, 195 1QM 29, 204 1.15 31
14 146, 148, 1.1-6 37 1.16-17 22,31
149, 206 1.1-2 30 1.16 33,77
14.3-9 49 1.2-3 23, 30,
14.5 49 33, 75, 4Q252 191
14.7-8 49 76
14.10 27, 49, 50, 2.3^ 40,76 4Q385-391 (Pseudo-
76, 195 2.4 27 Ezekiel)
14.14-19 49 3.11 41 4Q385-391 68
4Q385 69, 70, 71, 1.4-5 67,68 6.6 66

72, 77, 171 6.11-21 66
1.1 69, 72 11Q4 (Ezekiel) 22 6.15-17 66
1.2 72 6.16-17 66
1.2-3 69 4QpNah (Pesher on 6.17-19 66
2.1 73 Nahum) 6.17 65, 66, 76
2.2-3 73 1.11 109 202
2.3 70, 73 6.19 . 24
2.4 72 11Q14 (Benediction) 7.14-19 24
2.5-8 70 11Q14 52 7.14-15 23-25, 33,
2.5 72 1.7 52,77 204, 206
2.8 70,73 7.15-18 25
2.9 70 11Q17 (Songs of the 7.18-20 25
2.10 70 Sabbath Sacrifice) 7.18 24
3.3-6 73 11Q17 42 7.21 25
3.5-6 71 8.1-9 62
3.7 73 CD (Damascus 8.3 29
4.9 71 Document) 8.12-18 62, 76,
4.11 71 1.2 26 202, 205
4.12 71 1.3-2.1 26 8.13 63
10.3-4 72 1.3-6 204 8.18-19 63, 68
12.3 73 1.3-5 26 8.21 24
12.4 72 1.3-4 23, 26, 27, 10.17 39
fr. 65 72 28, 76, 11.3-4 39
4Q386 133, 200 12.11-23 39
2.1-11 71,73 1.4 38 13.14-15 40
2.1 71,72 1.5-6 27, 33, 76 19.5-6 60
2.2 72 1.14 62 19.7-14 61
3.1-3 69 3.10-20 38 19.7-11 59
4Q391 72 3.10-11 38 19.9-10 60
3.12 28 19.11-13 22, 60, 74,
4Q400-407 (Songs of the 3.16-17 23, 27, 28, 76, 204
Sabbath Sacrifice) 33, 50, 76 19.13 60
4Q400-407 42 3.17 29,38 19.16-23 62
4Q405 158, 160 3.18 28, 29 19.24-31 62, 76,
20.5-14 43 3.19 29 202
20.7-12 43-47, 77, 3.20 38 19.24 65
155, 156 3.21-4.6 22, 37, 76 19.29 63
20.7-9 46 3.21-4.2 37,38 19.30-32 63, 205
20.8-9 46 3.21-4.1 28 19.31-32 68
20.8 46 3.21 22, 28, 37, 19.31 65
20.9 46 38, 39, 42, 19.32-34 63
20.10 71 62 19.33-20.27 63
20.11 46 4.2-4 38 19.33-35 200
20.12 46 4.4 38 19.33 12, 27, 63
4.5-21 61 19.34 24, 205
4Q424 (A Sapiential 4.5 38 19.35 27, 64, 65,
Work) 4.17-18 61,62,205 76, 202
4Q424 61, 66, 68, 4.19 61,76,202 20.3^ 64, 65, 68,
202, 204 4.20-21 39 76, 202,
1.1 77 6.1 66 205
1.2 66 6.2-11 65 20.11 29
1.3 67 6.5 24 20.12 24
Masada t. Sukkah contra Faustunt

Masld (Ezekiel) 3 176 12.26 152
22 3.3-12 177
Maslk (Songs of the 3.5-9 179 Irenaeus
Sabbath Sacrifice) 3.13 177 Adv. Haer.
42 3.18 177 2.24 192
3.3-10 177
3.9-10 178, 179 Josephus
Rabbinic Writings 3.9 192 Antiquities
and Targumim 3.245-47 176
Targum on Genesis 8.100 176
b. Megillah 28.12 153 8.123 176
31a 176 10.8.3§141 78
Targum on 1 Samuel 11.154-57 176
Menahot 2.17 109 13.241-47 176
13.18-22 109 2.29 109 13.372-73 176
14.5-6 109 15.50 176
Targum on Jeremiah 20.8.8§181 109
Midrash Rabbah 23.11 109 122
44.22 153 6.13 109 20.9.2§206-07 109
49.3 154 7.9 109 122
8.10 109
Peshikta Rabbati Origen
Targum on Ezekiel
52.4.6 176 Comm. Io.
52.7 89, 17.22-24 144 Frag.
185 47.8 179 36 187
Yalkut Simeoni
Pirq de Rabbi Eleazar Philo
Ezek.
51 192 Agr.
383 (47) 192
Sukkah 4.17 79
1.1-2.4 176 Spec. Leg. II.
4.9 176 Other Ancient Works 213 176
5.3-4 176
Epistle of Barnabas Philostratus
b. Sukkah 16.5 109 Vita Apolonii
5.48b 176 2,24 174
5.53a 176 Augustine
5.55a 176 Homilies on the Gospel of Xenophon
5.55b 89, John Historia Graeca
185 7.10 189 4, 1, 24 174
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS
Abegg, M. 25,32,33,34 Calvin, J. 117

Ackroyd, P. 190 Cardwell, K. 190, 192
Allen, L. 34, 37, 87, 88, 116, 123, 129, Carson, D. 7, 17, 117, 173, 174, 175, 177,
138, 143, 178, 183 184
Allison, D. 6, 7, 177 Charles, R. 84, 89, 91, 109
Anderson, G. 24 Charlesworth, J. 83, 179
Atkinson, K. 91, 92, 93, 94 Chilton, B. 9, 10
Chyutin, M. 41
Badcock, F. 173, 176 Cook, E. 32
Barr, J. 17 Cortes, J. 173, 174, 175
Barrett, C. 161, 162, 165, 187 Craigie, P. 136
Beale, G. 6, 7,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15
Beasley-Murray, G. 4, 128, 155, 162, 167, Dahl, N. 157
177, 187, 195 Daise, M. 7
Berding, K. 10, 12 Danielou, J. 194
Bernard, J. 108, 109 Davila, J. 43
Beutler, J. 101, 104, 118 DeConick, A. 157
Black, M. 91 Deeley, M. 100, 115, 117, 121
Blenkinsopp, J. 174 Dimant, D. 70, 71, 72
Borgen, P, 157 Dodd, C. 11, 103, 106, 123
Boyer, C. 189 Dods, M. 162
Brady, M. 43 Drinkard, J. 136
Brawley, R. 12 Dunn, J. 157, 175
Breck, J. 168, 169, 170, 188, 195 Durlesser, J. 1, 87, 88
Brooke, G. 24, 31, 32, 33, 62, 70, 191,
193, 194 Edersheim, A. 176
Brown, R. 103, 107, 110, 116, 118, Eichrodt, W. 88, 114, 116, 117, 123, 138,
119, 120, 121, 124, 127, 128, 150, 151, 168, 170, 183
152, 153, 155, 162, 166, 167, 170, 174, Emerton, J. 189, 190, 191, 192
175, 176, 184, 187, 190, 191, 193, 194, Evans, C. 5, 8, 10, 14, 24, 83, 100, 103,
195 109, 133, 140, 150
Brownlee, H. 24, 83, 179
Bruce, F. 117 Fee, G. 174, 175
Bruns, J. 107 Fikes, B. 2, 87, 92, 106, 114, 117, 118
Budd, P. 106 Fowler, W. 2, 3, 5, 20, 150, 177
Bultmann, R. 4, 190 Freed, E. 2, 5, 13, 173, 176
Burch, V. 184 Fujita, S. 2
Burney, C. 184
Busse, U. 154, 185 Goppelt, L. 17, 172
Index of Modern Authors 239
Grassi, J. 162 Marcus, J. 184

Gray, G. 106 Marshall, I. 17
Grigsby, B. 176, 177, 179, 185, 190, 191, Mathews, S. 9
193 Meeks, W. 7,157
Gruenwald, I. 43, 79, 81, 83, 86, 157, 158, Menken, M. 2, 174, 177, 184
159 Metzger, B. 120
Guilding, A. 117, 190 Meyer, P. 108
Morris, L. 119, 140, 142, 167, 173, 185,
Halperin, D. 43, 45, 71, 79, 81, 83, 86, 187
156, 157, 158, 159 Moyise, S. 7, 15
Hanson, A. 133
Harris, J. 184 Nash, S. 7
Hatina, T. 170, 175, 176 Neirynck, F. 193
Hays, R. 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, Nestle, E. 173
18, 133, 206 Newman, C. 153
Heil, J. 127 Newsom, C. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48
Himmelfarb, M. 159 Ng, W.-Y. 172, 175, 176, 177, 182, 184,
Hodges, Z. 173, 174, 175, 176, 185 186, 187
Hollander, J. 3, 13 Nielsen, K. 11, 118, 133, 141
Holm-Nielsen, S. 53 Nurmela, R. 2
Hooke, S. 174
Hultberg, A. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, Odeberg, H. 157
14 Olson, D. 106
Huntzinger, J. 9, 10, 11, 88, 123, 212 Owen, O. 190, 192
Johnson, D. 6,7,154,155,157 Paulien, J. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Joyce, P. 18, 95, 116
Jungkuntz, R. 118 Quasten, J. 113
Quispel, G. 157
Kanagaraj, J. 43, 71, 79, 155, 157, 158, Du Rand, J. 100
159
Kee, H. 137, 146 Reim, G. 2
Kelley, P. 136 Robinson, A. 105, 107, 114, 120
Kiefer, D. 106 Romeo, J. 190
Knapp, H. 176, 177 Ross, A. 166
Koester, C. 103, 107, 117, 119, 132, 150, Ross, J. 190
172, 177, 183, 184, 191, 192, 195 Rowland, C. 2, 157
Kruse, H. 190, 191, 192
Kuhn, K. 173, 174 Sandmel, S. 4, 5, 14
Schafer, P. 159
Lampe, G. 16, 17 Schnackenburg, R. 2, 117, 150, 162, 167,
Levey, S. 144, 179, 186, 192 170, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 184,
Lewis, A. 184 187
Lindars, B. 7, 17, 81, 117, 154, 155, 173, Schneider, J. 107
174, 187, 195 Schuchard, B. 2, 15
Luzarraga, J. 114 Scott, J. 25,89
Lyon, R. 170 Scott, M. 139
Segal, A. 157
McEleney, N. 190, 192 Sheehan, J. 132
McNamara, M. 153 Skinner, J. 166, 167
Maher, M. 153 Somerville, J. 175
Soucek, J. 101, 103, 108 Vogelgesang, J. 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 41, 42, 79,
Steudel, A. 31, 32, 191 81, 82, 83, 84, 158
Stevenson, K. 180
Swetnam, J. 170, 175 Wallace, D. 175
Watts, J. 137
Thompson, M. 162, 184, 196 Wenham, G. 167
Torrey, C. 97 Williamson, H. 7,17,117
Trudinger, P. 190 Winsor, A. 7
Turner, C. 173 Wise, M. 32
Turner, J. 104 Woods, M. 2
Woollcombe, K. 16, 17
Vancil, J. 2,88,111,123
Vander Hoek, G. 7 Yadin, Y. 30,37,40,41
VanderKam, J. 22, 39, 40, 43, 62, 89,
90 Zimmerli, W. 27, 34, 37, 38, 39, 62, 64,
Vermes, G. 28, 31, 42, 61, 67 89, 116, 123, 129, 141, 180, 183, 197

Echoes of A Prophet: Gary T. Manning JR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Echoes of A Prophet: Gary T. Manning JR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

library of new testament studies

The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in

T&.T CLARK INTERNATIONAL

Published by T&T Clark International

The Tower Building, 15 East 26th Street,

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Typeset by Tradespools, Frome, Somerset

This book, like most worthwhile accomplishments, owes much to many

endurance and hard work. I am grateful to my parents, Gary and Karen

DSD Dead Sea Discoveries

Table of Abbreviations for Ancient Works

INTRODUCTION AND METHOD

1. Previous Work on EzekieVs Influence on John

direction between the two documents. There was a tendency to find

sayings to the detriment of the latter.14 All of these suggestions have

14. Sandmel, 'Parallelomania', pp. 10-13.

these two contexts. In many cases, an allusion provides a skillful link

Moyise, and Vogelgesang make extensive comparisons between OT

discovered, and allusions that are discovered sometimes influence the

a. Select Passages with Possible Allusions

b. Establish the Strength of the Allusion

Although quantity of parallel words and phrases is important, some

6) Finally, supporting evidence for the presence of allusion can be found

unconsciously absorbed from the source texts.46 This is clearly a valid

c. Determine the Use of the Allusion

d. Compare to other use of Ezekiel in Literature of the Second Temple

55. Compare Woollcombe's definition of typology: ' . . . the establishment of historical

interpretation, it could also be applied to narrative. Past events were seen

4. Focus of this Work

Finally, it is quite likely that there are some broad theological

6. Outline of the Book

heavens' of Jn 1.51; the resurrection imagery of John 5; the breathing out

THE USE OF EZEKIEL IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

history, identity, and eschatology of the Community.4 Section 2 shows how

1. History, Identity, and Eschatology of the Community

Amos 5.26-27a And you brought

A few allusions to Ezekiel in the Damascus Document also suggest that

Ezek. 39.23 And the nations will

10. The section title used in DSSHAG, vol. 2, p. 5.

12. See pp. 28, 63, 64.

Ezek. 11.15 Son of man, your

16. Vermes translates it 'This is our (way).' CDSS, p. 129.

18. See below, p. 50.

consisting of the historic enemies of Israel and the 'violators of the

1QM 1.2-3 The sons of Levi, the

Florilegium (4Q174) also uses Ezekiel 20 to describe the Community as

24. For a thorough discussion of Florilegium, see G. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran:

wilderness' and commands them not to 'walk in the statutes of their

1QM 11.14 Isa. 63.12 Who divided the waters

c. The New Priesthood and New Temple (Ezekiel 40-48; Damascus

34. DSSHAG, vol. 2, p. 19 fn.

similar to that in Community Rule and the Damascus Document, Ezekiel's

Allusions to Ezekiel 1, 10 in 4Q405 20.7-12 (Song 12)

and there is a roar of praise. When 1.24 like a sound of tumult

1.13-14 . . . out of the fire came

Dan. 7.10 A stream of fire

and a work of 11 radiance (nai3) in 1.28 Like the appearance of the

1.20 Wherever the spirit would go,

move continuously ( with 1.13 like . . . torches moving

12 There is a sound of blessing in 1.24 when they move (aro^a) a

58. Newsom, Songs, p. 62.

e. Restoration and the 'Heart of Flesh' (Ezekiel 36.22-27; Hodayot 14.10;