John Calvin Commentary Ezekiel 3:4-7

"And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them. For thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of a hard language, but to the house of Israel; not to many peoples of a strange speech and of a hard language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, if I sent thee to them, they would hearken unto thee. But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel are of hard forehead and of a stiff heart." — Ezekiel 3:4-7 (ASV)

Now God explains at greater length why He wanted His servant to eat the scroll which He held out in His hand: namely, that when instructed by it, he could approach the children of Israel. For he should not come empty, and we know that man by himself can bring forward nothing solid; therefore, Ezekiel must receive from God’s hand what he is to deliver to the Israelites.

Let us then preserve this order, as the scroll is first given to the Prophet and then transferred to the people. God orders him to offer or speak His own words, which is worthy of note as having the same meaning. But if Ezekiel should bring forward nothing but what he had received from God, this rule should prevail among all God’s servants: that they should not heap up their own comments, but pronounce what God teaches them as if from His mouth. Lastly, that passage of Peter should guide us: He who speaks in the Church should speak the words of God (1 Peter 4:11).

Now He adds, I do not send you to a people of obscure speech and difficult language, but to the house of Israel. Some think that the prophet is here encouraged in his duty because God was not asking anything of him that was too difficult. For if he had been sent to remote nations with whom there was no common language, he could object that a burden greater than he could bear was being placed on him.

The difficulty would then have been a complete obstacle. They think that remote and foreign nations are here compared with the people of Israel, so that he might carry out his duty eagerly, as if it had been said, “I do not send you to strangers. For they could not understand you, and they also would be barbarians to you; but because you are familiarly acquainted with your own people, you cannot turn your back when I send you to them.” But I do not agree with this opinion, because I read these three verses in the same context, as they are connected.

It is by no means doubtful that, by this comparison, God aggravates the impiety of the people. For this sentence is first in order: that the Israelites would be deaf, although the Prophet should use among them the common and everyday language. This is the first point. Now He shows the reason: because they were a rebellious people. Here God signifies that nothing prevented the Israelites from obeying the Prophet's doctrine but their malice and impiety.

For this reason He says, I do not send you to a people profound in speech. I do not know how some have surmised that this description means learned or clever; for being a people of strange speech is the same as being a people of a hard language.

For what is a 'hard language' but a barbarous language? Now we perceive the true meaning: that the Prophet is not sent to men of an unknown language because he would have been a barbarian to them and they to him. I do not send you to them, therefore, but to the house of Israel.

Now He adds, not to many peoples. Those who translate 'many' as 'great' do not understand the Prophet’s meaning, for God had spoken in the singular about all people, but now He uses the plural, as if He had said, "I send you neither to Egyptians, nor to Chaldeans, nor to any other remote nation, since the world on all sides of you is inhabited by peoples whose language you do not understand; to those, therefore, I do not send you."

The particle 'if not' follows, and Jerome translates, “If I had sent you to them,” although the negative particle is inserted—literally, 'if not'. But because this phrase appears harsh, some have supposed אם-לא (am-la) to have the sense of swearing, and interpret it affirmatively as כאמת (cameth), 'truly,' or 'surely.' But if we accept it so, the passage will be defective, for they understand אם (am) as 'again,' 'afterwards;' for these two words, אם-לא (am-la), have the force of an interposed oath.

What sense then shall we extract from the words, “Truly I will send you to them, and they shall hear you”? We see then this sense to be too forced. Some explain the passage thus: “If I had not sent you to them, they would have heard you,” as if God here blamed the disposition of the people, because they sought vain and foolish prophecies rather than submitting to the truth; just as if He had said, if any impostor should pour darkness upon them, they would immediately embrace his fables and lies, since they are so prone to foolishness.

“Therefore, since I send you, they do not hear.” But this explanation does not suit, because a little afterwards we shall see it in its own place. To me, therefore, this context is most probable: "If I had not sent you to them, these also would have heard you," as if it had been said, unless a difference of speech had intervened, I would rather have used your assistance with reference to foreign nations.

In this way God signifies His displeasure when He says that He would rather send His Prophet here and there than to the Israelites, except for the lack of a common language; for this difference of language presented the only boundary to the Prophet, so that he was confined to his own people.

In this sense, there is nothing forced. I do not, therefore, send you to many peoples, profound in speech and strange in tongue, because you would not understand their language. But if this had not been an obstacle, I would have sent you, and they would have heard you. We see then what I have just mentioned: that the Israelites are compared to foreign or uncircumcised tribes because they rejected the instruction offered them, not through ignorance of the language, but through the hardness of their heart.

Isaiah also says (Isaiah 28:11, 13) that the word of God would be deep and obscure even to the Jews themselves, but in another sense. He also compares his prophecies to a sealed book, since God had blinded them as they deserved (Isaiah 8:16; Isaiah 29:11). Since, therefore, they were so given over to a reprobate mind and were lacking sound understanding, Isaiah says that his teaching would be like a closed and sealed book. Then he says that he would be a barbarian, as if he were using an unknown language.

So God in this place clearly shows that the house of Israel was suffering no impediment in benefiting from His word, except their own unwillingness to hear. For He says that the pagans would be obedient if they could share in such a benefit. Unless, therefore, the Prophet's language had been unknown to the profane and uncircumcised pagans, he would have found attentive and obedient disciples there, as God testifies. How then does it happen that the house of Israel cannot hear?

It now follows: But the house of Israel is unwilling to hear you, because it will not hear Me, He says.

Now, therefore, we clearly see the people's sloth assigned as a reason why they purposely rejected the Word of God and hardened themselves in obstinacy. He also goes further and says that the people were not only disobedient to the Prophet but to God Himself, as Christ also does when He exhorts His disciples to perseverance in teaching.

Therefore, He says, they will not hear you, because they will not hear Me; and why are My teaching and I hated by them, unless because they do not receive My Father? (John 15:18, compare to John 15:23). For this stumbling block is likely to break the spirits of the devout when they see their teaching so proudly rejected.

This reproach alone, therefore, often tempts the servants of God to turn from their course; but this admonition is proposed to them: that God Himself is despised. Why then should they be offended that they are held in the same estimation as God, who is Himself rejected?

They think themselves undeserving of such contempt and arrogance shown towards their labor. But is God not worthy of being listened to before all angels? Since, then, they are proud and unbelieving towards God Himself, it is not surprising that they do not reverently receive what is proposed to them by mortal man.

Now, therefore, we see what God's intention is when He says, the house of Israel will not hear you, because they do not hear Me. This is so that it would not be distressing to the Prophet to see his labor unfruitful, indeed, even the children of Israel rising against him, because he should bear it patiently if he should suffer the same censure which they did not hesitate to display against the Almighty Himself.

It follows: Because the whole house of Israel is of a bold or a daring aspect, and of a hard heart. He repeats what we saw before, but in other words—namely, that the people’s hardness of heart was untamable, and that they were not only obstinate in heart but brazen-faced, so that they abandoned all modesty. Lastly, He implies that their obstinacy was hopeless when He joins a brazen countenance with a hard heart.