The phrase “from there” (מִשָּׁם, miššām) most naturally refers to the hairs just scattered to the wind in v. 2. The nearest antecedent is the final third of the divided hair, which Ezekiel is commanded to disperse, while the Lord declares that he will draw out a sword after them. From that dispersed company Ezekiel is to take “a few in number” (מְעַט בְּמִסְפָּר, meʿaṭ bemispār), an intentionally indefinite expression denoting only a very small remainder rather than a stated numerical proportion. The sign therefore distinguishes a handful of survivors from the larger body of Judah and Jerusalem that falls under famine, pestilence, sword, and scattering. This preservation is real, but it is neither broad nor an unconditional guarantee of safety for every exile. Verse 4 immediately commands Ezekiel to take some even from the bound hairs and throw them into the fire, from which judgment goes forth against the whole house of Israel. The few gathered from the scattered hairs thus represent a remnant preserved through the initial catastrophe, yet still subject to God’s discriminating judgment. Later visions develop this pattern: the Lord leaves survivors among the nations (6:8), and survivors from Jerusalem become a testimony to the righteousness of his judgments (14:22-23). Ezekiel 5:3 accordingly introduces the remnant motif as preservation within judgment, not exemption from the covenant Lord’s searching holiness.

The “many women” are the public witnesses of Jerusalem’s disgrace, most plausibly the surrounding peoples and cities viewed within Ezekiel’s sustained feminine personification of Jerusalem. The phrase לְעֵינֵי נָשִׁים רַבּוֹת (leʿênê nāšîm rabbôt), literally “before the eyes of many women,” presents the judgment as open and shameful rather than private. In the immediate metaphor Jerusalem is an adulterous wife and prostitute; consequently, other communities may suitably be portrayed as women who see her exposure and punishment. The expression therefore does not chiefly identify a formal judicial panel of female judges, though the preceding “they will execute judgments against you” retains judicial imagery. The public character of the punishment accords with the threats in vv. 37-40, where the nations whom Jerusalem had courted are gathered against her, strip her naked, and inflict covenantal penalties. Her judgment reverses the prominence she sought through idolatrous alliances and prostitution: the city that made itself conspicuous in faithlessness becomes conspicuous in humiliation. Ezekiel elsewhere uses the same kind of language for the public renown of a disgraced woman, and he can portray nations or cities in feminine terms within his extended allegories. The wording also prepares for the comparison with Jerusalem’s “sisters,” Samaria and Sodom, later in the chapter (vv. 46-58). Jerusalem’s punishment is witnessed beyond her own population and functions as a manifest vindication of the Lord’s righteousness among those who had known of her covenant privileges. The emphasis falls upon the comprehensive exposure of covenant infidelity before a wide public, not upon a separate charge directed against these women.

The shift in verbal forms presents Israel’s restoration as an act already initiated in the resolve and announcement of God, whose consequences will certainly follow. The clause הִנְנִי פֹתֵחַ (hinneni poteaḥ), literally, “Behold, I am opening,” combines the attention particle הִנֵּה (hinneh), the independent pronoun אָנִי (ʾani), and the Qal active participle of פתח (pātaḥ, “open”). In prophetic speech, this construction commonly marks an imminent divine intervention: the action is portrayed as present because the Lord himself has undertaken it and stands ready to accomplish it. The following forms, וְהַעֲלֵיתִי (wehaʿălîtî) and וְהֵבֵאתִי (weheveʾtî), are first-person Hiphil forms of עלה (ʿālâ, “cause to go up”) and בוא (bôʾ, “bring in”). Though formally perfect forms with waw, in this prophetic context they continue the prospective force established by “Behold, I am opening.” Hence translations properly render them, “I will bring you up” and “I will bring you into the land.” The Hiphil stems stress that Israel’s return is effected by the Lord: he will cause the people to emerge and will bring them to אַדְמַת יִשְׂרָאֵל (ʾadmat Yiśrāʾēl), “the land of Israel.” The verbal sequence also gives the oracle a deliberate order. The opening of the graves is the initiating divine act; bringing the people up from them and bringing them into their land are its appointed results. The grammar therefore joins divine imminence with future completion. Israel’s restoration is neither a possibility dependent upon Israel’s power nor an undefined hope, but the declared work of the covenant Lord, who still calls the apparently dead community “my people” (עַמִּי, ʿammî).

The language is fundamentally a military metaphor for the prophets’ covenantal failure, though it includes the intercessory dimension later made explicit in Ezekiel 22:30. A breached city wall exposed its inhabitants to assault; defenders would enter the openings and repair the fortification so that the city could withstand attack. Thus, Israel’s false prophets had not provided the costly and truthful ministry by which the house of Israel might "stand" (laʿamod, Qal infinitive construct) in the coming battle on the day of the LORD. Their visions of peace had left the nation undefended before the judgment soon to arrive through Babylon. The two clauses develop one picture. “You did not go up” (lo ʿalitem, Qal perfect, second masculine plural) into “the breaches” depicts taking one’s place at the points of greatest danger. “Nor did you wall up a wall” (welaʾ tegadderu gader) describes restoring a protective barrier for Israel. The wording is deliberately ironic in the immediate context: these prophets have helped construct a deceptive wall, which they whitewash with false assurances (vv. 10-15), rather than repairing the actual breaches created by Israel’s rebellion against the LORD. Ezekiel 22:30 employs closely related imagery when the LORD seeks someone “to stand in the breach before me for the land,” making clear that standing in the gap includes pleading before God for a guilty people. That later text should not reduce Ezekiel 13:5 to private intercession alone, since the present verse explicitly frames the result as standing in battle. Rather, faithful prophetic ministry would have involved both uncompromising exposure of sin and covenantal appeal to the LORD, thereby calling Israel away from the course that invited judgment. The false prophets did neither: by proclaiming peace where the LORD had announced judgment, they abandoned the very place where Israel’s spiritual and national defense was most urgently needed.

The phrase “all their flesh” (kol-besaram) refers to the visible bodily surface of the cherubim and indicates that the eyes covered the whole composite vision, including the living creatures and their accompanying wheels. The construct noun בָּשָׂר (basar), “flesh,” bears the third masculine plural suffix, referring back to the four cherubim identified throughout the chapter. It does not ascribe fallen human nature, mortality, or creaturely sinfulness to them. In visionary descriptions, basar can denote the material or bodily aspect of a being in contrast with an abstract or disembodied conception. Ezekiel accordingly presents the cherubim as genuine, apprehensible heavenly beings with bodies, hands, and wings. The plural predicate מְלֵאִים (meleʾim), “full,” governs the coordinated members of the description: their flesh, their bodily features, and the wheels are all said to be full of eyes “all around” (sabib). Ezekiel 1:18 had specifically described the wheel-rims as full of eyes, whereas 10:12 expands the statement to encompass the cherubic forms themselves. The final expression, “their four wheels,” recalls the arrangement already given in 1:15 and 10:9, where a wheel stood beside each cherub. The eyes therefore belong neither to detached wheels alone nor to an independent class of beings, but to the entire mobile throne apparatus. Within the vision, the eyes portray exhaustive awareness and alertness in the execution of the divine purpose. The cherubim and wheels move with perfect responsiveness to the divine Spirit, as 10:16-17 will reiterate; their many eyes image a providential rule that is neither blind nor impeded. The description intensifies the holiness and majesty of the departing glory of the Lord, whose judgment upon Jerusalem proceeds with complete knowledge.

The formula presents the ensuing message as a divine disclosure received by Ezekiel, rather than as the prophet’s interpretation of events or private religious reflection. The Hebrew reads literally, “and the word of YHWH was to me” (wayhi debar-YHWH ʾelay). English versions commonly render the idiom, “the word of the LORD came to me,” because the preposition ʾel, “to, toward,” depicts the divine word as directed to the prophet. The subject is debar-YHWH, “the word of the LORD,” a construct expression identifying both the origin and authority of the revelation. The verb wayhi is a Qal wayyiqtol of hayah, “to be, happen,” and in this recurrent prophetic formula it introduces the occurrence of revelation within Ezekiel’s ministry. It does not specify the sensory means by which the revelation was given, whether auditory, visionary, or otherwise; its concern is that the message truly proceeded from YHWH and was entrusted to his prophet. The infinitive lemor, “saying,” then introduces the content of that word in vv. 16–24. This attribution is especially significant in the following narrative, where the death of Ezekiel’s wife and the prophet’s mandated restraint in mourning are interpreted as a divinely appointed sign for Israel. The severity of the command is therefore framed from the outset by YHWH’s own revelatory authority.

The phrase “I raised my hand” identifies the forthcoming allotment as the execution of Yahweh’s sworn covenant commitment to Israel’s fathers. The expression נשׂאתי את־ידי (nasaʾti ʾet-yadi), a Qal perfect, is an oath formula: the lifting of the hand signifies solemn self-commitment. The relative clause, “which I raised my hand to give to your fathers,” refers to “this land,” even though the resumptive feminine suffix on לתתּהּ (letittah, “to give it”) makes the relation explicit. Israel’s return to possession is therefore grounded first in the divine oath, rather than in the merit of the generation restored after exile. Within Ezekiel, this formula deliberately recalls the land promise associated with the fathers and repeatedly rehearsed in Israel’s history. Ezekiel 20:42 similarly speaks of the land concerning which Yahweh lifted his hand to give it to Israel’s fathers; the wider chapter joins the ancestral promise, the exodus, Israel’s rebellion, judgment, and eventual restoration. The “fathers” are thus principally the patriarchal ancestors, though the promise had also been reaffirmed to Israel in the exodus generation. The land remains the particular territory pledged within the covenantal history of Israel, not an undefined symbol of general blessing. The oath language does not deny the reality or justice of the exile, since Ezekiel has consistently treated the loss of the land as the covenantal judgment due to Israel’s defilement and rebellion. It does establish that judgment cannot nullify Yahweh’s pledged purpose. The detailed boundaries and tribal allocations of Ezekiel 47:13 through 48:29 are consequently portrayed as the orderly realization of an ancient promise. The final clause, “this land shall fall to you as an inheritance,” employs the inheritance vocabulary נחלה (naḥalah), presenting restored possession as a covenant gift secured by God’s sworn faithfulness.

The verse assigns distinct but concurrent accountability to the endangered person and to the negligent watchman. The victim is “taken in his iniquity” (baʿăwōnô nilqāḥ): the Niphal perfect of lāqaḥ, “to take,” denotes his being removed by the sword under the judgment warranted by his own guilt. His death is therefore not attributed exclusively to the watchman, nor is the victim excused because no warning was sounded. This accords with the individual principle developed in Ezekiel 18 and reaffirmed in 33:10-20: each person answers before God for his own wickedness or righteousness. Yet the watchman’s failure is a real covenantal and judicial offense. The expression “his blood I will require from the hand of the watchman” employs the legal idiom of requiring blood from someone’s hand, that is, holding that person answerable for bloodshed or a death for which he bears responsibility. The first-person Qal imperfect ʾedrōš (from dāraš, “seek, require”) presents the Lord as the one who investigates and exacts this liability. The watchman did not wield the sword, but his culpable silence deprived the people of the warning appointed as the means by which they might turn from their way and live. The same formulation occurs in Ezekiel 3:18-20, where it defines the prophet’s commission. In its immediate setting, the watchman imagery first addresses Ezekiel’s obligation to announce the divine word to Israel, especially the summons to repentance in the face of coming judgment. The principle does not confuse divine sovereignty, personal guilt, and ministerial responsibility: the sinner remains liable for his iniquity, while the commissioned sentinel incurs bloodguilt when deliberate neglect withholds God’s warning.

The plural גּוֹיִם (gôyim, “nations”) presents the lion’s capture in the stylized international idiom of the lament, while “the land of Egypt” identifies the concrete destination of his captivity. The lion is the royal son raised by Judah in vv. 2-3, commonly identified with Jehoahaz. His removal to Egypt corresponds to Pharaoh Neco’s deposition of Jehoahaz and his subsequent captivity in Egypt (2 Kgs 23:31-34; 2 Chr 36:1-4). Ezekiel’s poetic account does not require that several independent nations literally conducted the arrest. Egypt appears as the dominant imperial power, potentially with its forces and subject peoples, while the plural depicts the broader political world responding to the ruler’s predatory reputation. The clause וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֵלָיו גּוֹיִם (wayyišmeʿû ʾēlāyw gôyim) is best rendered, “nations heard of him,” rather than “nations listened to him.” Although שׁמע (šāmaʿ) with אֶל can elsewhere denote heeding a person, the following account of pursuit and capture requires the sense of hearing concerning him, presumably hearing the lion’s roar and destructive activity within the metaphor. The plural therefore serves the lion-hunt imagery as well as the historical allusion: the king who had made himself feared among the nations is himself seized in “their pit” (בְּשַׁחְתָּם, bešaḥtām). The final reference to Egypt prevents the imagery from becoming an unspecified judgment upon Judah’s monarchy; it recalls the first exile of a Davidic ruler and anticipates the further royal humiliation depicted in vv. 5-9.

The expression “things will ascend upon your heart” depicts the emergence of intentions in Gog’s inward mind, which then issue in a deliberately formulated scheme. The plural דְּבָרִים (debarim, “things,” “matters,” or “words”) is intentionally broad: it denotes the considerations or designs that come into his לֵבָב (lebab), the Hebrew term for the center of thought, intention, and moral resolve, rather than the seat of feeling in a narrowly modern sense. The verb יַעֲלוּ (ya'alu), Qal imperfect masculine plural of עלה (ʿalah, “go up, arise”), portrays these matters as rising within him or coming to mind. The idiom does not require an audible message or a separate prophetic oracle directed to Gog. The second clause develops the first: וְחָשַׁבְתָּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת רָעָה (weḥashabta maḥashebet raʿah), “and you will devise an evil plan.” The Qal form of חשב (ḥashab) commonly signifies calculated planning or devising, while the cognate noun מַחֲשֶׁבֶת (maḥashebet) intensifies the idea of intentional design. What first rises in Gog’s mind is thus brought to settled, malicious purpose. The adjective רָעָה (raʿah) identifies the plan as morally evil and harmful, a judgment confirmed by the proposed attack on an apparently secure people in vv. 11-12. Ezekiel’s wording traces the movement from inward conception to purposeful plotting, preparing for the detailed invasion scheme that follows.

The phrase “at the border of Israel” designates both a real locus of judgment and the covenantal significance of expulsion from the land. The preposition אֶל (ʾel), ordinarily “to” or “toward,” may mark arrival at a destination, so that the clause anticipates the leaders’ removal from Jerusalem to Israel’s boundary, where the Lord will execute judgment. The first-person Qal imperfect אֶשְׁפֹּט (ʾešpōṭ, “I will judge”) makes clear that the Babylonians are the instrument, while the decisive judicial actor is the God of Israel. The immediate context explains the territorial language. The officials who treated Jerusalem as an inviolable pot will be brought out of the city, handed over to foreigners, and exposed to the sword (vv. 8-10). Judgment at the border therefore overturns their confidence that remaining within Jerusalem guarantees security. Their fate is exclusion from the city and, in effect, from the land entrusted to Israel under the covenant. This accords with the covenant sanctions in which persistent rebellion results in removal from the land (Lev. 26:33; Deut. 28:63-68). The wording is also consistent with the later historical account of Judah’s fall. Jerusalem’s leading officials were taken to Riblah, where Babylon’s king pronounced sentence upon them (2 Kings 25:18-21; Jer. 52:24-27). Riblah, in the land of Hamath, lay at the northern approaches associated with Israel’s traditional border region. Ezekiel’s prophecy need not depend upon identifying every detail of the location in advance, but the historical judgment at Riblah provides a fitting fulfillment: the men who presumed to govern and defend Jerusalem were carried beyond its walls and condemned at the extremity of the land whose security they had falsely claimed.

The two instruments identify the figure as an authorized surveyor of the restored sanctuary and distinguish measurements suited to different tasks. The "linen cord" (pĕtîl pištîm) is a flax line, flexible and appropriate for laying out extended distances or boundaries, while the "measuring reed" (qĕnê hammiddâ) is a rigid measuring rod suited to the dimensions of gates, walls, chambers, and other architectural features. The following description confirms the prominence of the reed: its length is defined as six long cubits in 40:5, and it becomes the regular instrument by which the temple complex is measured. The phrase pĕtîl pištîm does not primarily signify a priestly linen garment or a symbolic thread. Pĕtîl denotes a cord or twisted line, and pištîm specifies its flax material. Such a line naturally belongs with a reed in surveying practice: the line establishes alignment and larger spans, whereas the reed supplies the standardized unit for detailed construction. The vision therefore presents the temple neither as an undefined symbol nor as an arbitrary ideal; it is measured according to an objective standard disclosed by God. The pairing also participates in biblical measuring imagery. A measuring line can mark out territory, construction, or judgment, while the reed appears in visionary temple measurement as the instrument of divine specification. Here the man is already "standing in the gate" (Qal active participle of ʿāmad), poised at the entrance through which Ezekiel will be led as the measurements begin. The instruments anticipate the ordered inspection of the sanctuary and establish that its dimensions are received through revelation rather than devised by Ezekiel.

The feminine plural verbs designate the restored sheep, not a new group of shepherds. Yahweh remains the shepherd in the opening clause, “in good pasture I will shepherd them” (ʾerʿeh ʾotam). The following clauses state the intended result of his shepherding: the flock will find its dwelling place, lie down securely, and feed upon rich pasture. Thus the final verb, tirʿeynâ, from רעה (rʿh, “to pasture, graze”), is intransitive in sense: the sheep themselves will graze, rather than assume Yahweh’s pastoral office. The grammar confirms this reading. Both tirbaṣnâ (“they will lie down”) and tirʿeynâ (“they will graze”) are Qal imperfects, third feminine plural. Their implied antecedent is the flock, Yahweh’s sheep, repeatedly identified in the surrounding oracle (34:10-13). Although the noun צֹאן (ṣōʾn, “flock”) is formally feminine singular and collective, it can be resumed according to the plurality of the individual animals, hence the feminine plural verbal forms. The masculine singular yiheyeh (“it will be”) agrees instead with nĕwêhem (“their pasture” or “their habitation”), the singular collective provision assigned to the flock. The alternation is therefore deliberate rather than awkward. Yahweh’s sovereign action supplies the good and fat pasture, while the flock’s lying down and grazing portray the security and abundance that follow. In contrast to the preceding indictment of Israel’s shepherds, who fed themselves and left the flock unfed (34:2-6), the divine Shepherd both tends the sheep and brings them to a condition in which they can rest and feed undisturbed on Israel’s mountains.

Ezekiel presents the burial of Gog’s defeated host as an act of cultic restoration because unburied corpses render the land unclean before the holy God who has vindicated his name there. The phrase לְמַעַן טַהֵר אֶת־הָאָרֶץ (lemaʿan ṭahēr ʾet-hāʾāreṣ), “in order to cleanse the land,” employs the Piel infinitive construct of טהר (ṭāhēr), a verb regularly used for purification from ritual defilement. The concern therefore exceeds practical removal of decomposing bodies, though burial necessarily accomplishes that removal. The land has become the scene of Yahweh’s catastrophic judgment upon the nations, and the remains of the slain must be removed so that the promised land may again stand as a fitting sphere for his holy presence. This logic accords with the Pentateuchal treatment of death and corpses. Contact with the dead brought ritual impurity (Num. 19:11-16), while a corpse left exposed, particularly the body of an executed criminal, could defile the land given by the Lord (Deut. 21:22-23). Ezekiel applies this principle on a national and territorial scale: the vast number of Gog’s dead, left after the divine victory described in 39:1-10, requires a correspondingly comprehensive purification. Verse 13 confirms that the entire population participates in the burial, and 39:14 provides for an ongoing search for remaining bones. The burial thus marks the removal of the defilement associated with death and judgment, preparing the land for the restored order in which Yahweh’s sanctuary dwells permanently among Israel (37:26-28; 43:7-9).

The net and the pit are complementary hunting figures, not a precise account of two successive mechanisms of capture. The nations first “spread” (פָּרַשׂ, paras) their net over the lion, portraying a coordinated encirclement, and the concluding Niphal perfect נִתְפָּשׂ (nitpas, “he was caught”) declares the result. The phrase בְּשַׁחְתָּם (beshaḥtam), “in their pit” or “by means of their pit,” supplies the image of the trap into which the prey has been brought. The preposition בְּ may be understood locatively, “in,” while also allowing the instrumental sense that the pit was the means by which he was seized. Although שַׁחַת (shaḥat) can denote a pit associated with destruction, death, or the grave, its immediate sense here is a hunters’ pit. The lion metaphor governs the imagery: a dangerous young ruler, formerly represented as devouring prey and terrifying people (vv. 5-7), is himself overcome by the devices of his enemies. The phrase deliberately repeats Ezekiel 19:4, where the first lion is likewise caught “in their pit.” Thus the two royal figures share the same humiliating fate, despite their predatory strength. The imagery reaches its historical clarification in v. 9, where the captured lion is brought to the king of Babylon; the pit is therefore a poetic representation of foreign conquest and deportation, with its associations of irreversible judgment.

The expression “in this way” (kakhah) identifies Ezekiel’s prescribed meal and its defiling fuel as a symbolic representation of Israel’s coming condition in exile. The sign begins with Jerusalem under siege (4:1-3), and its measured bread and water portray the deprivation produced by that siege (4:9-11). Verse 13 extends the horizon beyond the fall of the city: the survivors of Judah, described covenantally as “the sons of Israel,” will be scattered among foreign peoples and will eat bread under conditions of uncleanness. Thus the enacted sign concerns Jerusalem as the point of judgment, while its full consequence is the exile of the people. “Israel” should not be taken here as a prediction restricted to the former northern kingdom, nor does it require that every Israelite without exception undergo the identical experience. In Ezekiel, the name regularly denotes the covenant people as a whole, including the Judean community to whom the prophet ministered in Babylon. The imperfect יֹאכְלוּ (yoʾkelu, “they will eat”) expresses the future consequence of Yahweh’s judicial action, and the Hiphil imperfect אַדִּיחֵם (ʾaddiḥem, “I will drive them away”) makes Yahweh himself the agent of the dispersion. Exile is therefore interpreted neither as a merely political catastrophe nor as Babylonian autonomy, but as the execution of the covenant curse announced for Israel’s persistent rebellion (cf. Lev. 26:33; Deut. 28:64). The breadth of “the sons of Israel” also prevents the sign from being reduced to Ezekiel’s personal dilemma over ritual purity. His objection in v. 14 arises from priestly and covenantal scruple, but v. 13 declares that the sign represents the public humiliation of the covenant people among the nations. Their bread, the basic means of life, will be eaten as טָמֵא (ṭamēʾ, “unclean”), a condition bound to displacement from the land where the LORD had ordered Israel’s life and worship. The wording anticipates the later explanation that Israel’s scattering among the nations manifests the LORD’s judgment for profaning his holy name (36:17-21).

The second-person singular resumes the address to Egypt, represented in its king Pharaoh, rather than introducing an unidentified nation. The independent pronoun אַתָּה (ʾattâ, “you,” masculine singular) is emphatic, and the following imperfects, תִּשָּׁבַר (tiššābēr, Niphal imperfect, “you will be broken”) and תִּשְׁכַּב (tiškab, Qal imperfect, “you will lie down”), continue that direct address. Egypt has been the subject of the lament since v. 18, while the intervening descriptions of Assyria, Elam, Meshech-Tubal, and others establish the company into which Egypt is being consigned. The shift is therefore literary and judicial. The nations in vv. 22-27 are described in the third person as inhabitants of the pit; v. 28 turns from those examples to the hearer whose doom is the burden of the oracle. Egypt will be “broken” among the uncircumcised and will lie with those slain by the sword. The Niphal of שׁבר (šābar) depicts Egypt as shattered under divine judgment, while “lie” denotes its fixed place among the dead. Pharaoh is explicitly named as the one who will see these nations in vv. 31-32, yet the oracle can address Egypt in the masculine singular because the kingdom is personified in its ruler. The verse thus anticipates the conclusion that Pharaoh and all his multitude will join the nations already displayed in the underworld scene.

The address to the land is deliberate personification: Israel’s physical territory is summoned as the recipient of Yahweh’s judicial and restorative word because it has borne the consequences of Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness and of the nations’ contempt. The imperative שִׁמְעוּ (shimʿû), a Qal masculine plural imperative of שׁמע (šāmaʿ, “hear”), is first directed to “the mountains of Israel” (hārê yiśrāʾēl), a phrase that can denote the central highland region but here represents the whole land. The subsequent catalogue, “mountains,” “hills,” “ravines,” and “valleys,” extends the summons comprehensively across its inhabited and cultivated terrain. The list then moves from topography to the visible marks of judgment: “the desolate ruins” and “the abandoned cities.” חָרְבוֹת הַשֹּׁמֵמוֹת (ḥorbôt haššōmēmôt) joins a noun for ruins with a Qal participle from שׁמם (šāmēm), describing places made desolate, while the Niphal participle נֶעֱזָבוֹת (neʿĕzābôt) identifies cities that have been forsaken. These are not detached scenic details. Earlier oracles had addressed Israel’s mountains because idolatrous high places had polluted them and because sword, famine, and desolation would overtake the land (Ezek. 6:1-14). In this context, however, the same land receives the opening announcement of Yahweh’s reversal of its shame. The land’s personification also sharpens the offense of the surrounding peoples. They have treated the devastated territory as plunder and an object of scorn, as though Israel’s God had been unable to preserve what belonged to him. The following verses answer that taunt with Yahweh’s jealousy for his land and his determination to restore it (36:5-12). Thus the speech to mountains and cities does not attribute moral agency to them; it presents the land as the covenantal inheritance publicly implicated in both Israel’s judgment and Yahweh’s vindication of his holy name.

The feminine plural forms identify Sodom together with the dependent communities designated earlier as “her daughters” (v. 46), rather than referring to Sodom alone as an abstract singular city. The verb תִּגְבֶּהֶינָה (tigbahenah, Qal wayyiqtol, third feminine plural) and the direct-object suffix in אֲסִיר אֶתְהֶן (ʾasir ʾethen, “I removed them”) retain the plural perspective established by the repeated phrase “Sodom and her daughters” in vv. 46, 48, 53, and 55. Sodom, the principal city, stands representatively for its surrounding towns, but divine judgment encompasses the whole social and territorial complex. This grammar also accords with the presentation of Sodom in Genesis 19, where the destruction falls upon Sodom, Gomorrah, and the cities of the plain. Ezekiel’s concern, however, is not antiquarian precision about the number of cities but covenantal comparison: Jerusalem has surpassed both Samaria and Sodom in her abominations (vv. 47, 51). The plural therefore intensifies the scope of the indictment. A corporate society had become proud, had committed “abomination” (toʿebah), and was collectively removed by God. The phrase “before me” (lepanay) makes the offense explicitly Godward. Though the preceding verse stresses Sodom’s arrogant self-sufficiency and neglect of the poor and needy, v. 50 adds conduct that God calls an abomination. The singular noun does not specify every act in view, but gathers the community’s detestable rebellion under a divine evaluation. Thus the plural forms preserve the distinction between Sodom as the representative city and Sodom with her daughters as the judged corporate entity.

Sabbath profanation is singled out because the Sabbath functioned as a covenantal sign of Israel’s consecration to the Lord, so its violation disclosed the same fundamental apostasy expressed in rejecting his statutes and pursuing idols. The plural שַׁבְּתוֹתַי (shabbatotay, “my Sabbaths”) includes the recurring weekly Sabbath and may encompass Israel’s sacred rest-days more broadly. In the immediate context, however, the emphasis falls upon the Sabbath as the distinctive sign that the Lord sanctifies Israel (20:12, 20). To profane it was therefore to treat as common what God had set apart as holy and to repudiate the Lord’s claim upon his people and their time. The verb חִלֵּלוּ (ḥillelu, Piel perfect of ḥālal, “they profaned”) denotes an active desecration rather than simple ritual failure. The charge stands in a coordinated series: they did not do the Lord’s judgments, they rejected his statutes, they profaned his Sabbaths, and their eyes were directed after their fathers’ idols. The final clause identifies the controlling disposition. Their “eyes” were fixed upon the idols of their fathers, an idiom for desire and allegiance, and this idolatrous orientation issued in comprehensive covenant rebellion, including disregard for the Sabbath. Within Ezekiel 20, the reference belongs specifically to the children of the exodus generation addressed in vv. 18-24. Though warned not to walk in their fathers’ statutes or defile themselves with their idols (v. 18), they repeated the fathers’ rebellion (v. 21). Verse 24 supplies the grounds for the Lord’s oath to scatter them among the nations (v. 23). Sabbath violation thus carries unusual prominence because it contradicts the covenant sign appointed to mark Israel as the Lord’s holy people; it is not an isolated ceremonial offense, but evidence that the wilderness generation had embraced the same idolatrous disloyalty as their fathers.