Ezekiel and the "Two Sticks" (Ezekiel 37 Reexamined)

The Problem:

Recently a number of teachers in the "Hebrew roots community" have instructed their followers in a teaching from a prophetic metaphor in Ezekiel, now referred to as "two sticks" prophecy (see Ezekiel 37). Though not all of the teachers are saying exactly the same thing, the pattern of the basic instruction appears to explain the mystery of the union between both Jews and Gentiles in the "one new man" (as revealed in Ephesians) that Messiah created. The teaching identifies the tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (taken captive long before the Ezekiel's birth) with those scattered and intermarried with the nations, and in the end presents the Gentile believers of today as the "stick of Ephraim" mentioned in the text. The graphic picture of bonding the two sticks, Judah and Ephraim, illustrates the bonding of Jew and Gentile in the "one new man" of the Church (Eph. 2:15ff), according to these teachers.

On my current lecture tour in the US, several have asked about this teaching, and I have responded that I believe this teaching to be a misunderstanding of the prophetic truth of Ezekiel, and I believe that following after this teaching has some potentially devastating consequences (especially in light of the fact that it is being taught by long-time dear friends of Israel).

As a teacher of the Word, I am generally concerned about the number of "insights" offered in the name of "Hebrew roots" that often show inconsistent methodology in Biblical interpretation or cite source materials that cannot be verified. Often, these insights quote from rabbinic references that appear to be well out of their natural context and do not reflect the view of the sage quoted - nor do they fit the context of a truly Biblical approach to the problems. Additionally, I have been an open critic of the number of parties that claim to have found evidence of certain Biblical artifacts - not because I desire to create cynicism, but because I fail to find solid archaeological evidence to support the claims of these organizations. These claims bring academic scorn to the cause of Messiah because they are often assertions offered by someone without training in the field and without evidence. In a small way, take for example our harmless inclinations to pass on emails of "computer virus" hoaxes. It is because of our misplaced zeal to help one another (a genuinely Godly instinct) that people sometimes don't take seriously our claims. We must search like Bereans, and not "cry wolf" so easily.

Lest I give the wrong impression, I do not see myself as an "answer man", but as a insatiable student on a quest for the meaning of God's Holy Word. I am as flawed as any other student (and much more than many!). I simply argue that my students should question any teaching (especially mine!), believing nothing that does not offer careful evidences "square" with the Word. I want to see us become more "critical" in the apparatus of our study, while becoming more loving and gentle in our behavior one toward another. We must be careful to consistently and carefully examine the Word. Because of this, I am writing this short explanation, in hope that it will clarify the text, at least to the best of my ability.

I want to make one more note before critiquing the idea. I want to sound a note of "grace" to the many friends I may offend by writing on this issue. I care about you and about the "apple of God's eye" (Israel), and I know that you have attempted in all things to be faithful to the God of Abraham and His Holy Word. I do not believe that the teaching was founded to do damage to the Kingdom by any who have a heart that desires to grieve the Holy Spirit. I am ever aware of my own frailty, and know that we must humbly check ourselves and be checked by others - that we may exalt our Master and not ourselves. God grant that nothing I write would imply either superiority (for I truly am a sinful and flawed man); nor a sense that others are evil and I have attained a special measure of righteousness. Nothing could be further from my heart. I am, however, convinced that the use of this metaphor is flawed, in that it:

1) Improperly interprets the prophecy in light of the message of the book of Ezekiel in its historical context.
2) Offers an artificial application that at least confuses the distinct identity of Israel in the current era (and at worst fundamentally changes the nature of the promise to both Israel and the Gentile church, causing us to "join" Israel in a physical inheritance).
3) Brings confusion and inconsistency to the basic pattern of Biblical interpretation, creating instruction from a narrative. I will examine each of these dangers in the end of this article.

The Setting:

In order to examine the passage, it is first necessary to recall the setting of Ezekiel and his message. This should not be passed over to quickly, for an understanding of the times and message of the writer is essential to interpret any part of the narrative properly. Sloppy interpretation leads to misapplication.

The book of Ezekiel is actually a library collection of prophetic works from the more than 22 years of prophetic ministry (cp. 1:2 and 29:17-21) of a priestly son of Buzi (Ezek. 1:3). Ezekiel was apparently taken captive by the Babylonians and assigned a house along the royal canal waterway (called the river Chebar in 1:1). The work embraces the period from about 592 to about 570 BCE, and was compiled in Babylon after the writer was taken hostage (perhaps in the second captivity wave of 597 BCE). The writing can be divided into the thematic sections - divided by life changing event of the death of Ezekiel's wife (mentioned in chapter 24:15-27). The prophecies before her death (Ezekiel 1-24) were written to focus the captives of Judah on the reasons for God moving against them and using Babylon to tear them from the land promised to their fathers. The prophecies "sounded the shofar" (ram's horn) of coming battle and promised the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and its Temple. They explained the Divine judgment to come in a series of metaphors and parables.

From the narrative of the death of Ezekiel's wife in chapter 24, the focus of the collection changed to prophetic material concerning events after the destruction of Jerusalem. The first part of the section heralded the destruction of seven nations that bordered the ancient Israelite kingdoms (Ezekiel 25-32). The book finished with exciting prophecies of the re-gathering of the scattered Jewish people (including both the Judah captives and the remnant of the Northern Kingdom (that had long since been sacked by the Assyrians in 722/21 BCE) into the land of their fathers. It offered the hope of a new Temple, new worship patterns and a new geography (a remaking of the land by the Messiah in Ezekiel 33-48).

The two sticks:

The prophecy we are examining is set in the context of the promise of restoration of the Jewish people to their land, events set in time with the regathering of the nation in its land, and the establishment of a kingdom in that place. The story prior to the "two sticks" was that of the "dry bones" (Ezek. 37:1-14). Bible students recall the main point of the "dry bones" prophecy was not merely to disclose that God was going to resuscitate the nation of Israel, but rather the stunning promise that the nation would included the "whole house of Israel" (37:11). At the time of Ezekiel's prophecy, the Hebrews surely echoed the objection found at the end of verse 11:

"Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off from our parts."

Can you hear their question? "How can it be that the whole house of Israel will be restored Ezekiel", they were saying, "when our brothers in the north are dispersed, and cannot even find their brethren?' That was the stunning part of the promise, but God's prophetic word continued. God promised to bring them "up out of their graves" (probably a poetic expression like "bring them back from the dead") and to restore them to their land (Ezek. 37:12). Note the prophetic focus was to restore their physical inheritance, not to simply make them "His People" spiritually. If we take seriously the text in a literal sense, the exiles were promised the restoration of the children to the home of their fathers as a preceding event to the change of the hearts of the people of Israel (37:14). God said He would place His Spirit within them, after they dwelt in their Promised Land.

The "two sticks prophecy" came on the heels of God's promise to bring back from the grave the Northern Kingdom, and to include it in the resurrection of the National future in restoration of the physical land. It certainly included spiritual restoration, but the spiritual changes were undeniably as a part of physical restoration. Any attempt to identify the "whole house of Israel" as including those who have "come under the blessing of Israel in Messiah" (i.e. modern Gentile believers in Messiah) has the net effect of removing the unique land inheritance promise to the Jewish people. In effect, it replaces the fulfillment of that promise with either an allegorical interpretation of "land" or forces God to fulfill the promise to Abraham through the church, thus replacing the unique and distinct promises to the nation with general spiritual blessings to "believers" today. Neither Ezekiel nor the rabbis could conceive of such an interpretation! More important, that interpretation does not consistently explain the details of the text when set in the whole context of Ezekiel's prophetic purpose.

The same interpretive standard applies to the passage we are considering as any other metaphor in the book. Ezekiel (see Ezek. 37:15) spoke of God's command to take two sticks and join them together. He identified the sticks (v.16) specifically as:

1) "Judah" and "the children of Israel his companions"; and
2) "Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions."

Verse 19 reaffirmed the identifications and expanded the instruction. Ezekiel was told that God would take the stick of Joseph that was in the hand of Ephraim and the tribes of Israel his brothers, and bond it with the other stick (identified as Judah), to make them one in His mighty hand. The dry bones promise of the previous chapter appears to be again in view, with the promise that God would eventually restore not only Judah, but also the whole of the Jewish people.

The heart of the two sticks teaching:

Much conjecture has been offered by some Bible teachers of the way Ezekiel identified the "stick of the northern tribes". Several phrases are used in the prophecy, and include "Joseph", "Ephraim", "all the house of Israel his companions". For some, this cryptic reference has caused them to conclude that more than a simple reference to the tribes of the north must be in view. We should take a minute and look carefully at the identification, and pose the question "Who does the reference include?"

The Hebrew passage identified each stick with two names separated by the word "and"- affirming the stick as one bonded group:

The first stick was inscribed "to Judah" (Le-Yehudah) and "and to the sons of to Israel his companions" (Ve-Le-bene Yisrael Havru). This represents the generations of the Kingdoms of Judah taken captive to Babylon in the waves beginning in 606 BCE and ending at the time of the First Temple's destruction in 587/6 BCE as well as those who were taken into Babylon from the capture of the Assyrian Empire (where many of the Northern Kingdom were captive since 722/1 BCE). Many of the sons of captive Israel witnessed the capture of Nineveh in 612 BCE (see the Book of Nahum). Many of the Northern Kingdom knew their lineage, despite their stay away from their ancestral home, and some returned at the decree of Cyrus. This stick was identified, in effect, as the Jewish people that were in exile that knew of each other, and awaited a time of return as prophesied".

The other stick was identified in the Hebrew text as "to Joseph a stick Ephraim" (Le-Yoseph Ayts Ephraim) "and all the house of Israel his companions" (Ve-Kol-Bait Yisrael Havru). I believe the identification of Joseph was carefully chosen to indicate a very special distinction of these who are also a part of the children of Israel. The names of Ephraim and Joseph evoke images of a story well known to students of the Torah.

Without investing twenty pages in an in-depth look at the life of Joseph, ask yourself, "What was the most important theme in the Biblical record of the story of Joseph?" What is the one thing that all Bible students know about this man? In a word, he was the physically lost son. Let's quickly review the story to aid our interpretation of this prophecy:

From Genesis 37 to 50, the story of Joseph is an epic tale, well-marked with unfair treatment of one of the sons of Jacob who learned to cope with life's struggles with a gracious spirit and a heavenly perspective. Joseph began his life as a favorite son of his father, only to be sold to a slave caravan bound for Egypt by his jealous brothers. After a struggle in Egypt, this quality young man rose above his peers, and took a position of authority in the house of a wealthy Egyptian. A short time later, Joseph was falsely accused by the wife of his master, and was again unfairly treated, cast into prison. In prison Joseph demonstrate a God-given ability to decipher dreams, and got two men released. The men forgot about Joseph, and again life dealt an unfair blow. Eventually, Pharoah needed a dream interpreted, and success afforded Joseph the opportunity to become a ruler in Egypt. In each case, Joseph handled the unfairness of life with grace, and was able to rise above each circumstance.

One of the richest traditions of the Hebrews, passed in the pages of God's Word, was the meeting of Jacob with his long lost son, Joseph (Gen. 46:29). The emotion of the rejoining was extreme. Two grown men stood clutching one another for a long time, the pain of the past dissolved. An old man lived long enough to have his deepest prayer answered, he held his son again. The son that he thought was gone forever, came back from the dead! I believe the identification "Joseph" was used because of this very idea. This was the best reference the prophet could use to indicate that he was speaking of brothers that were lost, and thought of as dead. This held great promise for the exiled Israelites: those of their brethren that had been traded away to other nations would be rejoined to them!

If the term Joseph refers to the "lost son" then why also use "Ephraim" to identify the second stick? With the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by Jacob, the house of Joseph was assured a "double-portion" of the inheritance, in the way a first-born would normally attain. The text implies (48:15,16) that Reuben lost the valued place in blessing to Joseph at the adoption. In the end, Ephraim and Manasseh both received portions of land as adopted sons of Jacob (Gen. 49). Manasseh's inheritance straddled the Jordan rift valley, with half of the tribe remaining on east, and the other half west of the Jordan River.

The identification of the Northern Kingdom became synonymous with "Ephraim" among the prophets of Scripture (see Isa 7:1ff). There are more than thirty examples in the prophets alone where the writer is speaking of the "Northern Kingdom" and uses the term "Ephraim". The mountain plateau of the kingdom was also frequently called Ephraim, in spite of the fact that some of the area was actually allotted to Manasseh. "Ephraim" became used in the north as "Judah" became used in the south.

If, as I am suggesting, the reference is a carefully chosen poetic reference to what some call today "the ten lost tribes" (an inaccurate term in light of various archaeological evidences), the promises are parallel to the dry bones imagery above. To be clear, if the two sticks are the Northern Kingdom and Southern Kingdom (both the known and "lost" Jews that were scattered) then the promise of the land contract should be identical to what we saw in the case of the dry bones. I believe it is!

Look carefully at the promise of inheritance to the united two sticks:

1) They will become one nation (37:22);
2) They will dwell in the mountains of Israel (37:22);
3) They shall get one King over them and not be two anymore (37:22);
4) They shall cease idolatry and sinful practices (37:23);
5) They will be rescued from their dwellings and cleansed (37:23);
6) They will be made the "people of God" (37:23);
7) They will have one "David-like" King who will shepherd them (37:24);
8) They will walk in the judgments and statutes of God's law (37:24);
9) They will live in the land that their fathers lived in without further interruption (37:25);
10) They will dwell in a covenant of perpetual peace (37:26);
11) They will multiply in the land and have a new sanctuary built (37:26).
12) The other nations will see that I have set Israel apart (37:28).

I understand the temptation for any Bible student to see spiritual truths in this text that the believer enjoys in the church today, yet it is worth noting that the climactic ending point of the promise (at the close of Ezekiel 37) is that other nations are eventually forced to conclude that God has done a great work in and for Israel! If that stick were made of many people who were "spiritually brought into Israel from many nations" then this conclusion seems to me to be in vain, or at least greatly muted. In addition, it requires me making an allegory of all the references to the Kingdom and land as a "spiritual truth". Does that sound like what the people who were taken into exile needed to know, or does the literal reading "God has not forgotten you, and He will restore the nation again" sound more like the proper reading? As students of the Bible, we must interpret every part of any text in harmony with the whole counsel of God. Look at the big picture here:

Paul's encouragement to the Gentile believers at Ephesus (who were suffering from Jewish believers that were making them feel inadequate) that they were "part of the commonwealth of Israel" (Eph. 2:11-12) must not be seen as Paul stripping away any difference between the two peoples. It is clear that the Ephesians were not inferior, nor did they need to feel they lacked any good thing. At the same time, Paul's understanding that Israel remained a distinct people was evident in many places :

"Have the Jewish people stumbled so that they should fall? May it never be! Rather, through their slipping salvation came to the Gentiles, and that will provoke them to jealousy. Now if this slipping away has lead to such a richness, and the diminishing of them has lead to such great things for the Gentiles, how much better will it be when they return in fullness?"

Did God cast off the natural children on behalf of the adopted ones, or does it appear that His Divine objective includes drawing back the physical sons of Abraham by showing them graphically the way a relationship with Him produces marvelous benefits?

If God's intention was to communicate that he was faithful to Israel by fulfilling promises in His Church, then two things would not be true:

1) There would not be two separate standards of obedience in the New Testament for Jews and Gentile believers in their walk of obedience before God; and
2) The distinction between Jewish believers (Messianics) and Gentile believers (Christians) would not have been maintained, even in name, by the Apostles.

A careful study of the writings of the early church give evidence that two standards of obedience were maintained after salvation and two identities (Jewish believers and Gentile believers) were recognized. They were treated differently and their issues were different.

Paul clarified this standard in 1 Corinthians 7 following a passage on marriage and divorce. His clear command was: "Stay what you are!" If you are not circumcised, then stay uncircumcised! (1 Cor. 7:18) I don't think he could be clearer, there are two different lifestyles, though one common salvation. If it were his responsibility to get the churches to keep the Torah, he does a miserable job! If it were to get Jews to stop being Jews and join the church, he was in trouble, for he told those "who were called being circumcised, let them not become uncircumcised". Later, the only accusation made by the Jerusalem church later is that some reported he was telling JEWS not to keep the Torah, not Gentiles (Acts 21). Nobody mentioned an accusation against him about Gentiles not keeping the Torah. It looks like Paul understood their were two standards of obedience, and that could not be if one group replaced the other in God's economy.

The fact that some of the epistles were specifically marked for "Jewish believers" (James 1:1) and other for Gentiles (see 1 Peter 1), or that one could even be called "Epistle to the Hebrews" presupposed the difference was maintained. There was an apostle to the Gentiles, another to the Jews. Paul remained distinctly Jewish in his practice throughout his life, or he lied at his trial before Agrippa and had not kept the distinct standards of a Jew (sneaking a ham sandwich during a stop in Athens or something, cp. Acts 26:4,5). It is clear he was pleased to be associated with those who were Jewish, zealous of the Torah, and believers in Yeshua (Acts 21:20ff), yet he told Gentiles repeatedly not to be concerned with keeping the same law (Col. 2:11-17), for it merely foreshadowed to them the truth of Messiah. In the final analysis, I see no reason to suspect that Ezekiel 37 refers to Gentile believers in the "two sticks". My concern is not simply an academic exercise, however. With the spiritual promises there are many already who have begun to move to the next step, and argue that Israel has no unique right to the land agreements of Abraham anymore, relegating the discussion of the title for the land to a mere argument for international law at the Hague or the UN. In the end, Israel as a people is either intended as a physical and unique entity, or it is (to one degree or another) a reference to a spiritual entity, and the land agreements of "forever" are completed. In that case, God has "loved them with an everlasting love" (Jer. 31) and now "moved" that love to another.

That's my take on it, R