Chapter 24 is a turning book in the book of Ezekiel. After Ezekiel’s call (Ch. 1-3), the book has, to this point, been a series of gloom-and-doom pronouncements to the exiled Jews in Babylon subverting their expectations that Jerusalem, the temple, and their friends and loved ones back in Jerusalem were safe from divine judgment. Chapter 24 announces the judgment of the city of Jerusalem and what’s left of Israel has begun—Ezekiel is to mark the very day he received the oracles which constitute this chapter.
The episode is now live.
In this pivotal episode of the Naked Bible Podcast, Dr. Michael Heiser takes listeners through Ezekiel 24—one of the most emotionally intense and symbolically rich chapters of the book. Marking the start of the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, this chapter functions as a theological and literary turning point, signaling a shift in Ezekiel’s prophetic message from oracles of doom against Israel to coming judgments on the surrounding nations.
Dr. Heiser breaks down the “Parable of the Rusty Cauldron,” a vivid sign-act that portrays Jerusalem and its corrupt inhabitants as meat boiling in a corroded pot. He dives into interpretive debates over whether the pot or its contents represent the source of corruption, ultimately siding with the interpretation that aligns corruption with the people themselves—those who had once been God’s "choice cuts."
In one of the most personal and shocking moments in prophetic literature, Ezekiel’s wife dies suddenly, and God commands the prophet to refrain from mourning—a command meant to reflect the stunned, speechless grief the exiles will feel upon hearing that the temple, their city, and their families are gone. Dr. Heiser connects this moment to the theme of divine justice and covenant betrayal, and shows how this silent grief becomes a powerful prophetic sign.
Also addressed is a detailed treatment of the biblical date formula in Ezekiel 24:1, including the challenges it poses to chronology and how it reveals editorial layers within the biblical text—offering insight into a more realistic view of divine inspiration that accounts for human agency in Scripture’s formation.
The episode concludes by framing this chapter as a hinge point: Ezekiel's muteness ends, the siege has begun, and soon the prophetic lens will turn outward—from God’s people to God’s enemies. A haunting but illuminating journey through one of the Bible’s darkest days.
Dear Mike,
After listening to this podcast on Ezekiel 24, I am confused as to
why Daniel Block advocates that the siege of Jerusalem took 18 months.
Where is he getting this from? As you read from his commentary, he states: “one may assume that in this instance
the editor of Ezekiel’s oracles diverged from the prophet’s otherwise
consistent practice of dating oracles on the basis of the exile, and
followed the official Jewish system of reckoning based on the king’s
regnal year.”
However, I have a commentary titled “Concordia
Commentary: Ezekiel 21–48” by Horace Hummel, and he states:
“Block argues that Ezekiel has deviated from his
usual system of reckoning. The time span between the beginning of the
siege (24:1) and Ezekiel’s awareness of its end (33:21–22) is just short
of three years if we assume that both of these Ezekiel passages give
dates based on the same calendar. If, as Block advocates, the siege of
Jerusalem lasted eighteen months, that leaves about a year and a half
for the news of the fall to travel from Jerusalem to Ezekiel in exile.
However, a פָּלִיט (“survivor,” 24:26–27) bringing the dreaded news
might reasonably have taken up to six months (cf. Ezra 7:6–9, where
returnees after the exile take four months to make the trip). To resolve
this apparent conflict, Block argues that in 24:1 Ezekiel has abandoned
his customary system of reckoning in favor the one used by 2 Ki 25:1,
based on the regnal years of Zedekiah. However, if the siege of
Jerusalem lasted two and a half years (see the discussion in figure 1),
the apparent discrepancy between 24:1 and 33:21–22 disappears: the siege
of Jerusalem begins in January 588 (24:1); the city falls two and a
half years later in July 586; and a survivor arrives to tell Ezekiel the
news in January 585 (33:21–22), about six months after the city fell
and five months after it was burned in August 586. Even though the
wording of Ezekiel’s date notice in 24:1 agrees with that in Jeremiah
and 2 Kings, this does not require that Ezekiel changed his system of
reckoning (for this date only) and instead used the system that prevails
in those other books. As Greenberg notes: “By a fortunate coincidence
the date [in our modern calendrical system: January 588] is the same
whether one follows the Tishri-Elul regnal year of Kings or the
Nisan-Adar year of ‘our exile’ [e.g., 1:2] in Ezekiel.” Ezekiel’s
precision certainly must have had the effect of authenticating his
message. When word came to the exiles of the city’s collapse (33:21–22), the date Ezekiel had predicted in 24:1 easily could have been compared
with the date reported by the surviving eyewitnesses and confirmed as
true. Critical commentators usually posit that the date in 24:1 is the
result of some type of later editorial revision, added to authenticate
Ezekiel’s prophecy. However, the date appears in 24:1 in all the ancient
versions, and so it must have been part of the traditional text from
very early on. Many critics suppose that originally no date appeared in
the word-event formula, partly because the oracle (מָשָׁל, 24:3) in
24:3–14 does not seem to be concerned with the question of date at all.
Some unknown glossator allegedly noted the concern with “this very day”
in 24:2 and copied the text of 2 Kings into the margin of Ezekiel,
whence it eventually found its way into the prophetic text. For some
earlier, more radical scholars, the precision of the date counted as
major evidence that Ezekiel’s ministry was really in Jerusalem rather
than in the exile, but I doubt if anyone takes such a position today.
Rejecting that speculation, then, we must conclude that the date was
part of the original text of 24:1 and was given to Ezekiel by “direct
supernatural revelation.” Taylor observes that this “appears to be so
much more in keeping with Ezekiel’s characteristic God-consciousness and
would be yet another authentication of his prophetic gifts.” This verse
certainly highlights the biblical doctrine of the divine inspiration of
the Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 1:19–21; see also the commentary
on Ezek 1:1).”
So, is it possible for you to respond to this in the next Q&A? Your commentary on Ezekiel has and continues to be a blessing!
You’d have to ask Block. His email is on the Wheaton site. I’m sure he’d answer you.