Zechariah was more than just an admirer of prophet Ezekiel

 

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 “Interpreter’s Bible speaks of Ezekiel’s “young admirer, Zechariah”.

Fairbairn, commenting on Ezek. 21: 26, “Remove the mitre”, says that

Zechariah in his attitude to the high priest Joshua “took up the matter,

as it were, where Ezekiel had left it”. …”.

 Cameron Mackay

  

 

That Zechariah may have been the same priest-prophet as Ezekiel was what I vaguely hinted at in the very beginning of my article:

 

Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel

 

(4) Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel

 

“The prophet Zechariah has certain likenesses to the mysterious prophet Ezekiel”.

 

In that article I had, however, confidently identified Ezekiel “the son of Buzi” (Ezekiel 1:3) with young Elihu “son of Barakel the Buzite”, of the Book of Job (32:2).

 

Then, in my next article:

 

Some rabbinic literature has Ezekiel as a son of Jeremiah

 

(4) Some rabbinic literature has Ezekiel as a son of Jeremiah

 

in which I further (but only tentatively) identified Ezekiel/Elihu with the Rechabite, “Jaazaniah son of Jeremiah” (Jeremiah 35:3), I was somewhat more forceful about a possible connection of this holy man (Ezekiel) with Zechariah:

 

In that article I also note that: “The prophet Zechariah has certain likenesses to the mysterious prophet Ezekiel”. The textual likenesses are so numerous, in fact, that one feels much inclined to factor in the priest-prophet Zechariah as being, too, the priest-prophet Ezekiel.

And, if Ezekiel is also Elihu, then we may have a patronymic connection between Elihu’s ancestor, Barachel, and Zechariah’s Berechiah (Zechariah 1:1).

 

and:

 

If Zechariah were also Ezekiel/Elihu (Jaazaniah), as I suspect, then he, as the final martyr in Jerusalem before Jesus Christ (Matthew 23:35), really did fulfil Jeremiah 35:19: ‘… shall never lack a man to stand before me’.

 

More recently, I have expanded somewhat on this intriguing subject:

 

Jeremiah said to have been silent about Ezekiel and vice versa - why?

 

(2) Jeremiah said to have been silent about Ezekiel and vice versa - why?

 

What I want to focus on entirely in this present article are the textual similarities between Ezekiel and Zechariah, as many have already noted.

 

Along similar lines, the incredible likenesses between virtually the entire Book of Nahum with parts of Isaiah were enough to convince me, in my university thesis (2007) that Nahum (Jonah) was also the great prophet Isaiah. See e.g. my article:

 

Prophet Nahum as Isaiah Comforted

 

(5) Comparing Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah Styles

 

The usual view of things, as evidenced in Cameron Mackay’s quote above, would be to consider Zechariah, a minor prophet, as simply an “admirer” of the prophet Ezekiel from a good half century later.

 

But I have the prophetic life of Ezekiel covering the Chaldean and Medo-Persian eras - when Zechariah taught - and potentially beyond that, into the early Maccabean times:

 

Prophet Zechariah marvellously anticipates the Maccabean era

 

(2) Prophet Zechariah marvellously anticipates the Maccabean era

 

Let us read some of Cameron Mackay’s excellent comparisons (1968), as taken from:

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1968-4_197.pdf

 

ZECHARIAH IN RELATION TO EZEKIEL 40-48

 

by CAMERON MACKAY   

 

 

MR. MACKAY'S studies in the book of Ezekiel are always fresh

and fascinating. Here the earliest "commentary" on the book

(especially on chapters 40.-48) is found in the prophecies of Zechariah.

 

 

EZEKIEL and Zechariah share century, priestly stock, and Babylonian background, but the 50 years which separate their activities make personal contact unlikely. On the orthodox view that the differences between Zech. 1-8 and 9-14 are accounted for by supposing those sections the work respectively of the young and old Zechariah, his birth would have been around 550 B.C.. when Ezekiel had been silent 20 years-a not very probable dormancy if he were still alive. What the circumstances suggest is that the minor prophet grew up in the shadow of the major's repute, and that between the Return of 538 B.C. and his mission in 520 B.C. the repatriated scion of priests studied his fellow-exile's prospectus with built-in interest in the temple, the desire of his eyes (Ezek. 24: 21) in the land of desire (Zech. 7: 14).

 

In fact echoes of Ezekiel found by Zechariah's commentators run into three figures. In the 18 verses from 7: 9 to 8: 12 Driver in Century Bible notes "execute judgment of truth" (Ezek. 18: 8), "hearts as an adamant stone" (3: 9; 11: 19). "they shall cry, and I will not hear" (8: 18), "no man passed through nor returned" (35: 7). "I will dwell in the midst" (43: 9), "they shall be my people,' and I will be their God" (11: 20 al.)’, "the earth shall yield her increase" (34: 27). Study of the mysterious "seven eyes" (Zech. 3: 9; 4: 10) must begin with Ezekiel's eye-spangled Chariot and seven angels (9: 2; cf. Rev. 5: 6), study of the flying roll (5 : 1) with 'Ezekiel's roll of a book (2: 9). Interpreter's Bible speaks of Ezekiel's "young admirer, Zechariah". Fairbairn, commenting on Ezek. 21: 26, "Remove the mitre", says that Zechariah in his attitude to the high priest Joshua "took up the matter, as it were. where Ezekiel had left it".

 

Mitchell in I.C.C. regards Zech. 2: 8, "After glory he sent me", as a condensed claim of mandate corresponding to Ezekiel's, who after his inaugural vision of the Glory received the commission, "I send thee", and adds that in v. 10 "the prophet is looking forward to the fulfilment of . . . 43: 111,", while v. 13 requires that "men should greet with awful attention ... the return of Yahweh to his sanctuary, as Ezekiel describes it".

 

The critical disinclination to allow chaps. 9-14 to the contemporary of Haggai leaves unaffected their Ezekielian background, now indeed even more marked - not surprisingly as the concern shifts from the day of small things (4: 10) to that of the King of all the earth (14: 9). The oracles against Phoenicia (9: 2-4), Egypt (10: 11), goodly cedars (11: If.), shepherds (11: 15-17), and professional prophets (B: 2-4), the symbolism of the two sticks (11: 7-14), the going forth of Jehovah with earthquake to fight against the nations (12: 9; 14: 3ff.) are immediately reminiscent of the earlier seer.

 

The seemingly superfluous note that the Mount of Olives "is before Jerusalem on the east" (14: 4) is a reminder that there the departing Glory lingered (Ezek. 11: 23) and from the east it would return (43: 2). The emphasis on David's house (12: 7-13: 1) recalls the focusing of Ezekiel's hopes on "David", and the associated introduction of Levites their position in the oblation of 40-48. The fountain for sin (13: 1) and the living waters summer and winter (14: 8) are generally regarded as dependent on the "clean water" of 'Ezek. 36: 25 plus the sanctuary river of 47, while 13: 2, according to I.C.C., is, once again, "simply summarising Ezekiel". For chaps. 9-14, on which the New Testament imprimatur is so marked, the date question may here be left aside, particularly in face of a recent finding that no definite dating can be achieved and that it is more useful to concentrate on the contents. ….

 

Our present interest is in the relation of Ezek 40-48 to the book of Zechariah as it stands, wherein the first part encourages the immediately practicable work as prelude to the vista enlarged on in the second part. The repatriates had rebuilt the altar on Moriah without, it is clear from Ezra 3, idea of acting on Ezekiel's directions: they followed the laws of 'Moses, including sons of Ithamar, i.e. non-Zadokites, in the priesthood (8: 2), retaining evening sacrifice (et. 46: 13-15) and all the set feasts. But adversaries, foreigners deported to Samaria, halted the work on the temple. Then Darius in his second year authorized its restart, but the Jews were now murmuring.

 

"The time is not come for the Lord's house to be built" (Hag. 1: 2). Among the causes of their discouragement commentators point to the contrast of their plight with the glowing promises of Second Isaiah.

 

Mackey’s comment: On the so-called Second Isaiah, though, see e.g. my article:

 

Dr. Chuck Missler refuted idea of a Deutero-Isaiah from John 12:39

 

(3) Dr. Chuck Missler refuted idea of a Deutero-Isaiah from John 12:39

 

Cameron Mackay continues:

 

But Zechariah's contemporaries would have thought more generally of "the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets" (7: 12). and the evidence detailed above suggests that Ezekiel as much as, or more than, Isaiah provided the disheartening contrast.

 

Zechariah's task was to encourage his community to go ahead as they had 'begun, both with construction plans and sacerdotal, as step 'towards, not consummation of, prophetic hopes. …. Right away, connection with the temple-vision is made in the reappearance of a distinctive feature characteristic of Zechariah's visions, the intermediary angel who acts as instructor and guide …. In 1: 16 the angel conveys assurance that God's house shall be built in Jerusalem and a measuring line stretched over that city.

….

 

Reminiscence of the earlier seer is apparent both in the angel's words and in the attached oracle (vv. 6-13) which we have seen interpreted by Mitchell as continuing Ezekiel's mandate and looking to the fulfilment of 43: Iff. Driver here notes as echoes "villages without walls" (38: 11). "I will be the glory in the midst of her" (43: 2-5), "I have spread you abroad" (17: 21). ''they shall be a spoil to those that served them" (39: 10), and his, "I will dwell in the midst of thee" (43: 9). ….

 

In consonance the final chapter repeats in "Jerusalem shall dwell securely" (v. 11) a favourite Ezekielian phrase used of those dwelling in unwalled villages on the mountains of Israel (3S: S. 11). ….

[End of quotes]

 

And there are many more such comparisons to be read as Cameron Mackay’s article continues.

 

But he is by no means the only one to have observed such likenesses between the text of Ezekiel and that of the Book of Zechariah. See also, for example:

 

https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC85605

 

An abundance of living waters: The intertextual relationship between Zechariah 14:8 and Ezekiel 47:1-12

 

M D Terblanche (UFS)

 

ABSTRACT

 

Zechariah 14:8 and Ezekiel 47:1-12 have more in common than an allusion to a common stock of images. Consequently our understanding of Zechariah 14:8 can be fruitfully informed by the perspectives of the study of intertextuality. This paper considers the question whether the author of Zechariah 14:8 wanted to replace Ezekiel 47:1-12. He seemingly assumes that the reader is acquainted with the latter text.

 

Although one cannot speak of the displacement of Ezekiel 47:1-12, Zechariah 14:1-15 seems to be a commentary on the former text. The author of Zechariah 14:1-15 deems the transformation of the known natural order vital for the fulfilment of the expectations raised by Ezekiel 47:1-12.

 

And, again:

 

https://www.prophecyproof.org/ezekiel-7-vs-zechariah-122-end-times/

Ezekiel 7 vs Zechariah 12:2: End Times Comparison

 

The following article, much to be recommended in full, is absolutely replete with such relevant with comparisons:

 

(5) ZECHARIAH'S SPIES AND EZEKIEL'S CHERUBIM

ZECHARIAH'S SPIES AND EZEKIEL'S CHERUBIM

By Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

 

1

ZECHARIAH’S SPIES AND EZEKIEL’S CHERUBIM

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

 

1. Introduction

 

There are many literary links between Zechariah’s vision report (Zech

1:7–6:8) and the book of Ezekiel. This study focuses on but one of these

links, namely the similarity between the various descriptions of the

cherubim in the book of Ezekiel and the description of the horses and the

riders in Zechariah’s vision report. As this study will show, the overall

similarity, both graphic and conceptual, between these descriptions

suggests that Ezekiel’s portrayal of the cherubim influenced the literary

representations of the horses in Zechariah’s vision report.

 

I shall begin by determining the likelihood that the author of Zech-

ariah’s vision report was familiar with the book of Ezekiel. Thereafter, I

shall address two general parallels between Ezekiel’s cherubim and

Zechariah’s horses and riders: (1) the shared setting of both groups, that

is, the heavenly court and the divine council, and (2) the shared task of

both groups, namely, to function as God’s military servants who execute

his commands. Turning then to the more specific aspects of comparison,

I shall first discuss three visual and conceptual points of contact between

the description of Ezekiel’s cherubim and that of Zechariah’s patrols:

 

The concept of God’s spirit/wind,

The concept of chariots,

The word “eyes.”

 

Secondly, using the book of Job as a third element of comparison, we

shall look at the shared theme of God’s rebelling scout:

 

The satan of Job, the patrols of Zechariah, and the cherubim of

Ezekiel are all patrolling forces who report their findings to the

heavenly council.

 

All three texts contain either the outright idea of a “fallen”

member of the heavenly council (the cherub in Ezek 28:14) or

the seed to such a thought (the satan in Job 1–2 and Zech 3:1–2).

Lastly, we shall compare the attitude towards the high priest found in

Ezek 28:11–19 and Zech 3. ….

 

 

Jeremiah said to have been silent about Ezekiel and vice versa - why?

 

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

“Beyond points of agreement, one profound issue of disagreement is highlighted, which leads to the suggestion that the silence between Ezekiel and Jeremiah

covers over a great ideological disagreement between the two … prophets …”.

 Dr. Dalit Rom-Shiloni

  

Commentators have much puzzled over the fact that two great prophets of Israel, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who were contemporaries, never appear to have referred the one to the other.

 

This has led to articles like, for instance, Dr. Dalit Rom-Shiloni’s “Ezekiel and Jeremiah: What Might Stand Behind the Silence?”:

https://humanities1.tau.ac.il/segel/dromshil/files/2012/10/Rom-Shiloni.HeBAI-2-2012203-30.pdf

 

Dr. Rom-Shiloni introduces her paper as follows:

 

This paper brings up a long standing question in the study of Ezekiel and his (or, the book’s) relationship to Jeremiah. The silence between the prophets is but a key opening the door to a large hall filled with a great variety of historical and literary-textual connections. Having reexamined the long list of suggested parallel phrases and passages (from R. Smend [1880] to R. Kasher [2004]) from the methodological standpoint of intertextuality and allusion, the study reveals the complicated relationships between the books in their different layers. Beyond points of agreement, one profound issue of disagreement is highlighted, which leads to the suggestion that the silence between Ezekiel and Jeremiah covers over a great ideological disagreement between the two contemporary prophets of YHWH. Hence, the silence between the prophets and their books is a highly eloquent one.

 

Further on, Dr. Rom-Shiloni will suggest why it might be expected that there would have been communication between Jeremiah and Ezekiel (pp. 205-206):

 

The expectation that some kind of contact existed between Ezekiel and Jeremiah is based on the following indications: A. Each of them recognizes their time as a period of intensive prophetic activity, marked by fierce polemics over both status and message (Jer 14:13–16; 23:9–40; 27–29; Ezek 13). Jeremiah mentions by name some prophets who were active in Babylon (Jer 29:21, 24) yet says nothing about that one prophet, Ezekiel.

 

 

Is it reading too much into the text to wonder whether, when he quotes the Jehoiachin Exiles’ saying: נבאים יהוה לנו הקים בבלה” The LORD has raised up prophets for us in Babylon” (Jer 29:15), Jeremiah is referring obliquely to (and putting down) Ezekiel? …. Indeed, according to Ezekiel’s own call narrative, he was called to his prophetic mission on the Kebar River in Babylon (Ezek 1:1).

 

B. Jeremiah and Ezekiel have quite similar personal backgrounds, as members of priestly families commissioned to prophesy (Ezek 1:3; Jer 1:1). Scholars have noted the differences in their descent, and even claimed a rivalry between their priestly families, since Ezekiel was of Jerusalemite, perhaps even of Zadokite, origin and Jeremiah was of the priests of Anatoth (Jer 1:1), who are said to have descended from Abiathar. …. Whatever the relations between their clans, we may assume some basic resemblance in their education and in their intellectual and spiritual formation.

 

C. The likelihood of connection between the prophets may also stem from the socio-political situation of the Judean communities from the early sixth century B.C.E. and onwards. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel express in their individual prophecies the highly tense and even hostile relationship between the two Judean communities, the community left behind in Jerusalem and the Jehoiachin Exiles in Babylon (Jer 22:24–30; 32:6–15; Ezek 11:1–13, 14–21; 33:23–29). Both this personal data and the antagonism between the communities in Babylon and Jerusalem suggest the strong possibility that Jeremiah and Ezekiel would not only have known of each other by name, but also would have been aware of each other’s prophetic activity. ….

 

And, with that, Dr. Rom-Shiloni returns to her former query (p. 206): “If so, what are we to make of the silence of each in relation to the other?”

Her suggestion being:

 

I want to propose that we investigate this silence itself as another datum in the struggle between the two Judean communities, in Babylon and in Judah, a conflict that we can trace back to the prophets themselves and follow on through the editorial strands of their books.

….

Specifying the significance of the prophets’ silence in this way suggests that the relation between them should be addressed at the historical, sociological, and literary levels.

 

The most basic questions that address the historical context of these prophetic personages are: Did Ezekiel know Jeremiah? Did he hear him or read his prophecies in Jerusalem prior to 598 B.C.E.? Did he come to read his scrolls only when Ezekiel arrived in Babylon? ….

 

I, however, would like to suggest quite a different approach to the problem.

 

Ezekiel may have been Jeremiah’s own son

 

“Some even say that [Ezekiel] was the son of Jeremiah, who was also

called “Buz” because he was despised—"buz"—by the Jews …”.

 

Jewish Encyclopedia

 

“Did Ezekiel know Jeremiah?” Yes, I say, Ezekiel did know Jeremiah, and vice versa.  Ezekiel may actually have been Jeremiah’s son, as according to rabbinic tradition. The pair does indeed meet in the OT, in the Book of Jeremiah, as I am going to be arguing.

 

But, because of the fact that the prophet Ezekiel is there referred to by another name, the connection is by no means obvious.

 

That is alright, because the prophet Jeremiah himself is presented in the OT under different names. For, according to my biblico-historical reconstructions, “Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin” (Jeremiah 1:1), was actually the High Priest:

 

Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest

 

(1) Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest

 

And Jeremiah:

 

-         was King Hezekiah’s chief official, Eliakim son of Hilkiah, over the Tabernacle, i.e., High Priest (2 Kings 18:18; cf. Isaiah 22:15, Vulgate).

-         He was the High Priest, Eliachim (Douay), or Joakim, in the Book of Judith.

-         He was the otherwise unknown “Jehoiakim the high priest, the son of Hilkiah, son of Shallum”, of Baruch 1:7.

 

None of this, admittedly, helps us with forging any cogent link between the High Priest of Jerusalem, “Jeremiah son of Hilkiah”, and the priest-prophet Ezekiel (1:3): “… Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi …”.

 

And, geographically, while Jeremiah is primarily to be found in Jerusalem, Ezekiel seems to have lived some distance away, as may be apparent from the fact that news of the Fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians took about a day to reach him (Ezekiel 33:21).

 

But it needs also to be noted that Jeremiah was not always in Jerusalem.

 

Jeremiah sometimes away from Jerusalem

 

The Book of Judith specifically makes mention of the fact that the High Priest, Joakim (that is, Jeremiah) “was in Jerusalem at the time” (4:6) of Holofernes’ invasion, implying that he was not always located there (vv. 6-7):

 

The high priest Joakim, who was in Jerusalem at the time, wrote to the people of Bethulia and Betomesthaim, which faces Esdraelon opposite the plain near Dothan, ordering them to seize the mountain passes, since by them Judea could be invaded, and it would be easy to stop any who tried to enter, for the approach was narrow, wide enough for only two at a time to pass.

 

 

Previously I have thought that Jeremiah – {who seems to have had some strategic military involvement as Eliakim son of Hilkiah, and as the High Priest Joakim} - as we have just read from Judith 4 - may also have been the Akhimiti (Eli-achim?) whom Sargon II of Assyria established as governor of Ashdod (Lachish) after that city had rebelled against the Assyrians (Isaiah 20:1):

 

As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash

 

(1) As Ashduddu (Ashdod) is to Lachish, so, likewise, is Eshnunna to Lagash

 

That would explain some of Jeremiah’s absence; an absence which is felt most keenly when Jeremiah is nowhere to be found, either being consulted by King Josiah, or being involved in the delegation to the prophetess Huldah (that is, Judith), upon his father, Hilkiah’s, finding of the Book of the Law in the Temple.

 

Where was Jeremiah at this crucial moment in time? 

 

Why did king Josiah, upon the finding of the Book of the Law, send his chief ministers to consult, not the male prophets, Jeremiah and Zephaniah, but a mysterious female prophetess named Huldah (חֻלְדָּה)? (2 Kings 22:8-20).

 

The situation becomes even more extraordinary in the context of my revision which merges the era of king Josiah with that of king Hezekiah, showing that the king’s servant “Asaiah” of Josiah is to be identified with the great Isaiah himself.

For more on this revision of the Judean kingship, see e.g. my article:

 

Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses

 

(1) Damien F. Mackey's A Tale of Two Theses

 

We also know that, on at least one occasion, Jeremiah went (was delegated to go) away to the River Euphrates (Jeremiah 13:1-7).

 

I think that the key to Jeremiah’s absence from Jerusalem - or to some of it, at least - is to be found in his chapter 16, which some over-interpret as the Lord forbidding him to marry.

No, all that he is told is not to marry within ill-fated Judah, “in this place” (16:1-4):

 

The Lord gave me another message. He said, ‘Do not get married or have children in this place. For this is what the Lord says about the children born here in this city and about their mothers and fathers: They will die from terrible diseases. No one will mourn for them or bury them, and they will lie scattered on the ground like manure. They will die from war and famine, and their bodies will be food for the vultures and wild animals’.

 

I am presuming that one like Jeremiah, in line to becoming High Priest, would have been expected to marry.

So, where would be the logical place beyond Judah for the presumably young Jeremiah to have gone in order to find for himself a worthy wife?

 

To Aram, of course, as had his great patriarchal predecessors.

 

And, has that any connection with his venture to the River Euphrates and the linen loin cloth incident?

 

Whatever about that, my suggestion is that Jeremiah went to the land of the Buzites, closely connected with Aram (Genesis 22:20-21): “Some time later Abraham was told, ‘Milkah is also a mother; she has borne sons to your brother Nahor: Uz the firstborn, Buz his brother, Kemuel (the father of Aram) …’.” 

And there, in the course of time, he became the father of the wise young Elihu of the Book of Job (32:2): “… Elihu son of Barakel [Barachel] the Buzite, of the family of Ram …”.

 

“Ram” here thought to indicate Aram.

 

Jeremiah certainly knew of Buz (25:23): “… Dedan, Tema, Buz and all who are in distant places …”.

 

And this, Buz, may be our sought-after connection with the priest-prophet, Ezekiel, likewise a Buzite, apparently living some distance away from Judah.

 

Comparisons between Elihu and Ezekiel, for one, are common.

See for example my article: 

 

Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel

 

(2) Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel

 

In that article I will also note that: “The prophet Zechariah has certain likenesses to the mysterious prophet Ezekiel”.

The textual likenesses are so numerous, in fact, that one feels much inclined to factor in the priest-prophet Zechariah as being, too, the priest-prophet Ezekiel.

 

And, if Ezekiel is also Elihu, then we may have a patronymic connection between Elihu’s ancestor, Barachel, and Zechariah’s Berechiah (Zechariah 1:1).

 

The Jeremiah connection

 

In an outstanding, but perhaps not so well known, chapter 35 of Jeremiah, sometimes labelled “Rechabites” (Rekabites), we read of an upright young Rechabite, Jaazaniah, who is the son of a Jeremiah (vv. 1-11):  

 

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord during the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah: ‘Go to the Rekabite family and invite them to come to one of the side rooms of the house of the Lord and give them wine to drink’.

So I went to get Jaazaniah son of Jeremiah, the son of Habazziniah, and his brothers and all his sons—the whole family of the Rekabites. I brought them into the House of the Lord, into the room of the sons of Hanan son of Igdaliah the man of God. It was next to the room of the officials, which was over that of Maaseiah son of Shallum the doorkeeper. Then I set bowls full of wine and some cups before the Rekabites and said to them, ‘Drink some wine’.

 

But they replied, “We do not drink wine, because our forefather Jehonadab son of Rekab gave us this command: ‘Neither you nor your descendants must ever drink wine. Also you must never build houses, sow seed or plant vineyards; you must never have any of these things, but must always live in tents. Then you will live a long time in the land where you are nomads’. We have obeyed everything our forefather Jehonadab son of Rekab commanded us. Neither we nor our wives nor our sons and daughters have ever drunk wine or built houses to live in or had vineyards, fields or crops. We have lived in tents and have fully obeyed everything our forefather Jehonadab commanded us. But when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon invaded this land, we said, ‘Come, we must go to Jerusalem to escape the Babylonian and Aramean armies’. So we have remained in Jerusalem.”

 

The Rechabite Jaazaniah and his clan not only lived outside of Judah, but they may have been Buzites, for he was a “son of Habazziniah” (meaning the-Buz-ite?).

 

Jaazaniah, moreover, was the “son of Jeremiah”. Our Jeremiah, I believe.

 

This, then, may have been the prophet Jeremiah’s family on his non-Jewish wife’s side, which would explain how Jeremiah could be both a High Priest connected to Anathoth, but also be related to the Buzites.

 

The Lord highly praises these Rechabites for their fidelity, and as an example to Judah and Jerusalem, declaring (vv. 12-18):

 

Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying: ‘This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Go and tell the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, ‘Will you not learn a lesson and obey my words?’ declares the Lord. ‘Jehonadab son of Rekab ordered his descendants not to drink wine and this command has been kept. To this day they do not drink wine, because they obey their forefather’s command. But I have spoken to you again and again, yet you have not obeyed me. Again and again I sent all my servants the prophets to you. They said, “Each of you must turn from your wicked ways and reform your actions; do not follow other gods to serve them. Then you will live in the land I have given to you and your ancestors.” But you have not paid attention or listened to me. The descendants of Jehonadab son of Rekab have carried out the command their forefather gave them, but these people have not obeyed me’.

 

“Therefore this is what the Lord God Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘Listen! I am going to bring on Judah and on everyone living in Jerusalem every disaster I pronounced against them. I spoke to them, but they did not listen; I called to them, but they did not answer’.”

 

Then Jeremiah said to the family of the Rekabites, “This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘You have obeyed the command of your forefather Jehonadab and have followed all his instructions and have done everything he ordered.’ Therefore this is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘Jehonadab son of Rekab will never fail to have a descendant to serve me’.”

 

The last verse can also be translated as (35:19): ‘Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Jonadab the son of Rechab shall never lack a man to stand before me’, suggesting a Levitical priest.

They were to be the offspring of a High Priest.

 

As Jaazaniah immediately refused to take the forbidden wine, so will (his potential counterpart) Ezekiel recoil from the Lord’s strange request for him (Ezekiel 4:12-14): “And you shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight on human dung.” And the Lord said, “Thus shall the people of Israel eat their bread unclean, among the nations whither I will drive them”.

 

(Verse 14): “Then I said, ‘Ah Lord God! behold, I have never defiled myself; from my youth up till now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has foul flesh come into my mouth’.”

 

Cf. Zechariah 9:6-7.

 

Jaazaniah the Rechabite, was, I suggest, a Buzite son of Jeremiah, and likely the priest-prophet Ezekiel/Elihu (Zechariah).

Unlike with Jeremiah, the names differ - the connecting thread throughout being Buz.

 

Conclusion

 

Thus, I think, we can finally answer Dr. Dalit Rom-Shiloni’s vital questions:

 

“If so, what are we to make of the silence of each in relation to the other?”

Did Ezekiel know Jeremiah?

 

Ezekiel, if he were Jeremiah’s very son, certainly knew Jeremiah, and vice versa.

But they would have lived, for the most part, geographically well apart.

 

A note on Zechariah. If Zechariah were also Ezekiel/Elihu (Jaazaniah), as I suspect, then he, as the final martyr in Jerusalem before Jesus Christ (Matthew 23:35), really did fulfil Jeremiah 35:19: ‘… shall never lack a man to stand before me’.

 

Again, if Zechariah were also Ezekiel/Elihu, then he was reunited with his old friend, Job, as Haggai:

 

Haggai as Job late in his life?

 

(4) Haggai as Job late in his life?

 

as late as the early reign of Darius the Persian (cf. Zechariah 1:1; Haggai 1:1).