RESURRECTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: EZEKIEL 37:1-14

A Paper

Submitted to Dr. Craig Price

of the

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements of the Course

Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: BHSM5310

in the Division of Biblical Studies

Sean Christopher Hadley

M.A., Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, 2011

B.A., The University of West Florida, 2008

September 28, 2013

 Introduction

Ezekiel 37:1-14 is broken into two sections. Verses 1-10 contain a vision, given to
Ezekiel from the Lord, as pronounced in verse 1. The second section, vv. 11-14, is the
explanation of Ezekiel’s vision as is specifically relates to the people of Israel. Both sections deal
with the concept of resurrection, which will be dealt with more fully later in the paper. First, the
authorship of the book should be established, along with a brief look at the socio-political
context of his day.

The Prophet, Ezekiel

There is little doubt that the book that bears his name in the Bible was written by anyone
other than Ezekiel, son the priest Buzi.1 Based upon the first chapter of his work, Ezekiel was
likely exiled at the age of twenty-five.2 His ministry apparently lasted for twenty-seven years
based on dating within the text.3 During his time as a prophet, his wife died as a sign of Judah’s
impending judgment, and this kind of “living prophecy” would come to be the standard for
Ezekiel’s career.4 It is worth noting that the entirety of his career as a prophet was spent in
Babylon during the exile, meaning that Ezekiel never saw the return of his people to Israel
despite his prophecies to that end.5
Ezekiel stands out from his contemporaries, like Daniel, in that his expression of the
visions given to him by God is often graphic, even to the point of extreme visual imagery
through his own behaviors.6 This element of his writing makes passages such as the Valley of the
Dry Bones vision difficult to grasp fully. In spite of this impenetrability, Ezekiel is frequently
referred to in the New Testament.7 His prophecies continue to be a source of hope, as Christians
have interpreted the text in light of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the first fruits of a future
resurrection for God’s people.

The Historical Context

Bearing in mind that Ezekiel’s writings are complex, to say the least, the timeframe of his
writing helps to better understand his work. The apparent discrepancies with the Mosaic Law

1
Ezekiel 1:3
2
1:1-2; Leslie Allen, “Ezekiel” in Old Testament Survey, ed. William LaSor and others (Grand Rapids:
Eerdman’s 1996). 356. Although this idea was challenged in 1924, the criticism mounted against a single author
seems insufficient to cast serious aspersions on the traditional teaching (See Allen, “Ezekiel.” 358).
3
Allen, “Ezekiel.” 357.; Ezekiel 40:1
4
Ezekiel 24:15-27
5
Introduction from “The Book of Ezekiel,” in The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, ed. Spiro
Zodhiates (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers 1990). 1082.
6
Allen, “Ezekiel.” 360-364; Zodhiates, “The Book of Ezekiel,” 1084.
7
According to Zodhiates, every chapter of John’s apocalypse, save one, refers to Ezekiel in same manner.
found throughout caused some Second Temple rabbis to suggest hiding the book from private
use.8 During Ezekiel’s lifetime, Israel experienced a tumultuous exile and despair. The
Babylonian Empire ravaged the Promised Land, and exported its best and brightest.9 Captivity
under Babylon appeared softer than under the Assyrians, and many Jews accepted the living
conditions during this time period as sufficient.10 For some, this exile served to work through
Jewish concepts regarding God, particularly the issues of idolatry and personal responsibility for
one’s actions.11 It was this focus on the individual that plagued the Second Temple rabbis, and
simultaneously allowed Ezekiel to be easily reinterpreted by the Christians of the first century.
Given the relative peace that Judah experienced during the captivity, it is important to
remember that the exile was the result of their disobedience to God.12 As such, the Hebrew
people looked towards a time of restoration, when their obedience would be recognized and they
would be brought back to the land God had given them. Ezekiel 31:1-14 is one of the most
famous passages expressing this hope. The rest of the chapter continues in this vein, promising
that the kingdoms would one day be reunited under a Davidic ruler.13 For the ancient audience to
whom Ezekiel addressed his vision, the valley of dry bones was more than a bizarre prophecy; it
resonated with the growing hope that Judah’s exile was ending. This political concept of
resurrection may not have been the only viewpoint that prevailed during Ezekiel’s day, however.

Ancient Thought on Resurrection

How did this vision of resurrection connect with the restoration of God’s people? How is
Hebrew thought in Ezekiel’s day to be categorized in regards to resurrection? This is not an easy
subject to nail down, although a cursory study reveals enough to put his vision of the dry bones
into a proper perspective. Noah Webster, the first American to compile a dictionary based on
common usage in the United States, defined the term as, “A rising again; chiefly, the revival of
the dead of the human race, or their return from the grave, particularly at the general
judgment.”14 But how does this Christian understanding of the term compare to the religious
beliefs of the time prior to Jesus? This is an important question to wrestle with in order to
understand Ezekiel’s vision. To discover the answer, a cursory exploration of the Old Testament
is necessary.

8
Allen, “Ezekiel.” 358.
9
II Kings 24:11-16
10
Allen, “Ezekiel.” 357.
11
Zodhiates, “The Book of Ezekiel.” 1083, 1088.
12
Ezekiel 22:23-31
13
Allen, “Ezekiel.” 367; Ezekiel 37:15-23.
14
Webster based his definitions on the Bible, as well as American usage. For instance, to demonstrate the
practice of the term resurrection as he defines it, he cites I Peter 1 and Matthew 22. His definitions can be easily
qualified as Christian in nature.
 Throughout the Old Testament, the bodies of the deceased are treated in respectful and
precise ways.15 Passages like II Chronicles 16:14 and Jeremiah 8:1 demonstrates the care
afforded the burial practices in Israel. Still, the idea of resurrection was probably one that
developed in Jewish theology over a long period. The earliest reference seems to be Genesis 22
wherein Abraham is told to sacrifice his son Isaac. The text suggests that Abraham already had
confidence that Yahweh could resurrect the dead as he told his servants, “I and the lad will go
over there; and we will worship and return to you,” although it is unclear if this was the common
interpretation of this passage in Ezekiel’s day.16 Certainly, by the time of Jesus, many teachers
had adopted this view, which is made evident in the New Testament writings.17 However, there
is much evidence to support the idea that most ancient peoples thought of death as the end, with
no hope of anything further.18 Religions in places such as Egypt and Greece held that there was
indeed an afterlife, although it was not a place of rest or joy. These ideas are also present in the
Old Testament, with Sheol often being described as a place of utter despair and hopelessness.19
Thoughts on this matter were not uniform however. Even within the Old Testament,
different strains of thought surface. Within the Psalms, God’s sovereignty over death is explicit,
and the prophets tended to affirm this as they concentrated on the individual relationship to God
as opposed to the national one.20 Job goes so far as to proclaim, “If a man dies, will he live
again? All the days of my struggle I will wait until my change comes.”21 Alongside the idea that
death was the final act in the drama of life, there ran another thought, one that anticipated a form
of immortality that was both bodily and spiritual. In other words, the hope of the future lay in the
idea that God would one day resurrect His people, either nationally or individually, so that His
sovereignty over death could be made manifest.

Resurrection in Ezekiel’s Day

When Ezekiel prophesied, some of those in his audience would have seen it as merely a
symbol of national restoration since they did not believe that bodily resurrection was possible.
Still others would have heard the words of Job and the Psalmist, seeing Ezekiel’s vision as the
coming judgment and new life. We see this second perspective in Ezekiel’s contemporary,
Daniel: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life,

15
Reginald White, “Resurrection of the Dead,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic 2001). 1017.
16
Genesis 22:5 (NASB).
17
Hebrews 11:17-19, James 2:21
18
N.T. Wright, “Resurrection and Life After Death in Ancient Paganism and Judaism,” in Surprised By
Hope (New York: HarperOne 2008). 35-36.
19
See Ecclesiastes 9:1-10 and Psalm 30
20
White, “Resurrection of the Dead.” 1017. See also Psalm 139:7-12 and Jeremiah 23:23-24.
21
Job 14:14 (NASB), emphasis mine. This entire chapter 14 in the book of Job is a prime example of how
much tension there was concerning the afterlife in ancient thought.
but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.”22 This passage not only suggests that the
chosen people of God would taste new life, but also that those who were God’s enemies would
experience a bodily resurrection. This idea connects the justice of God with the immortality of
His creation, putting a special emphasis on the eternal consequences of the decisions made in
life. While Daniel’s passage suggests an individual resurrection, Ezekiel’s seems to be more
focused on the national restoration of Israel.
Does resurrection necessitate one view over the other? Can passages like Ezekiel 37:1-14
refer to both the individual future eternal state, and the restoration of the nation of Israel?
Scholars like N.T. Wright and Reginald White do not seem to think so. While acknowledging a
plethora of views prevalent during Ezekiel’s day, Wright does go so far as to claim that the
predominant perspective was that of a bodily resurrection, raised up for judgment at the return of
the Messiah.23 This is a point that has been highly contested, within both the study of Old
Testament work and the Intertestamental period. In spite of the arguments though, Wright makes
a convincing case that from the time of the exile onward, the primary idea regarding resurrection
was one that was both national and individual.24

Resurrection and the Valley of Dry Bones

In his immediate context, prophesying to Judeans in exile, it is most likely that the
passage in 37:1-14 would have been understood in terms of Israel’s future restoration as the
people of God inhabiting the land He had given to their ancestors. The image of the dry bones
coming back to life, having flesh and breath given to them through the Spirit of God, likely
would have incited strong religious feelings among the people wondering if their obedience to
God would ever be recognized.
To undervalue the individual significance of the passage is to miss out on the rest of
Ezekiel in many ways. Ezekiel’s closing lines remind the reader of the importance in seeing this
passage in light of the other themes explored in the book: “’Then you will know that I am the
LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My
people. I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your
own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it,’ declares the
LORD.”25 Ezekiel possesses that oscillating vision which so often characterizes people ahead of
their time. He sees not only the national resurrection that the people are crying out for; Ezekiel

22
12:2 (NASB). N.T. Wright is not certain that the hearers of Ezekiel would have made the literal
connection between the valley of dry bones vision and the future resurrection. However, it cannot be ruled out based
on evidence from the period, and Daniel’s rather overt statement seems to suggest that there would have been at
least some who would have made this connection. See N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1992), 322.
23
David Bryan, “The Jewish Background to The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright,” in
Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 161-163.
24
See N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1992), 320-
322. Much of Wright’s focus is on the post-exilic literature, however. While he does draw upon Ezekiel, Hosea, and
Daniel, it is difficult to say with certainty that the Judeans living in Babylon in the late 500s BCE would have shared
his conclusion. Still, if it follows that the predominant views are passed on through the literature and stories of the
day, then Wright’s thesis is indeed sound. I would argue that this is so.
25
37:13-14 (NASB).
sees the future resurrection that will come to characterize the new covenant, established through
the resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth.
Bibliography

Allen, Leslie C. "Ezekiel." In Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of
the Old Testament, by William Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, & Frederic Wm.
Bush, 356-369. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1996.

Bryan, David J. "The Jewish Background to The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T.
Wright." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (SAGE Publications) 3, no. 2
(2005): 155-169.

"The Book of Ezekiel." In The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible: New American Standard
Bible, edited by Spiro Zodhiates, 1082-1150. Chattanooga, Tennessee: AMG Publishers,
1990.

Webster, Noah. An American Dictionary of the English Language. San Francisco: Foundation
for American Christian Education, 1995.

White, Reginald E.O. "Resurrection of the Dead." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited
by Walter A. Elwell, 1017-1019. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001.

Wright, N.T. Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the
Church. New York, New York: HarperOne, 2008.

—. The New Testament and the People of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God). Vol.
I. IV vols. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1992.