Bailey 0

Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16:44-63

Brent Bailey
BIBL 610: Advanced Introduction to the Old Testament
Dr. Jonathan Huddleston

1 December 2011
Revised 1 April 2012

Bailey 1

Ezekiel 16 contains lengthy material that is, if not troubling to the modern reader, at least
deserving of special attention. In addition to crude, displeasing imagery involving violence
towards women,1 Ezekiels prophetic retelling of the story of Gods covenant relationship with
the nation of Israel leads up to a surprising comparison of Jerusalem, her northern neighbor
Samaria, and her southern neighbor Sodoma nation that receives frequent allusions in ancient
literaturethat means to shame Jerusalem in all her arrogant sinfulness.2 As far as Ezekiel is
concerned, the shame he places upon Jerusalem is consistent with Gods historical interactions
with the nation of Israel thus far; in the same way, Ezekiels charged references to Sodom are
consistent with the narrative framework he establishes in ch. 16, and they prepare the way for the
promise of Gods covenant faithfulness that will conclude the chapter. The sister relationship
between Jerusalem and Sodom and the shame it induces are central to Ezekiels purpose in the
chapter, and any present-day difficulties with the text must not prevent readers from
understanding Ezekiels profound theological conclusions. In Ezekiel 16:44-63, Ezekiel relies
upon a comparison of Jerusalem to Sodom in order to introduce shame as a permanent,
1

As with other seemingly anti-female material in scripture, this difficult characteristic of the text has received
scholarly attention. Interested readers may want to consult the discussion in Katheryn Darr, The Book of Ezekiel:
Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections (NIB 6; Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 1240-3.
2
Although Ezekiel compares Jerusalem to both Sodom and Samaria, he places much greater emphasis on Sodom
than on Samaria: whereas four verses are dedicated exclusively to Sodom (vv. 48-50, 56), Samaria only receives one
exclusive mention (v. 51). Because the references to Samaria do not illuminate the present discussion, this paper
focuses exclusively on Sodom. In keeping with the feminine metaphor running throughout Ezekiel 16, I will use the
feminine pronoun to refer to Jerusalem throughout this paper. In order to avoid confusion, I use Israel to refer to
the ancient nation of Israel and Jerusalem and Samaria to refer to, respectively, the southern and northern
kingdoms. Though Ezekiel points directly to Jerusalem in vv. 2-3, his narrative in vv. 3-43 seems to describe the
history of the entire nation of Israel until he differentiates the northern kingdom in v. 46, and I will read it thus.

Bailey 2
fundamental dynamic coexisting with forgiveness in the restored covenant relationship between
God and Jerusalem.

SETTING
Ezekiel 16:44-63 concludes the self-contained narrative that comprises ch. 16. Greenberg
identifies the chapter as the longest cohesive prophecy within the book,3 and the passage is
structured in three sections: vv. 2-43 tells a graphically sexual version of the story of Israels
covenant unfaithfulness, vv. 44-58 compares Jerusalem to Samaria and Sodom, and vv. 59-63
promises a covenant renewal involving shame. Though some have questioned the authorship
and authenticity of the latter sections,4 the passage as it stands presently contains enough
consistency to be read as a whole.5 Zimmerli is correct to identify the chapter as an address of
accusation resulting in judgment, and the punishment the prophet describes in vv. 36-43 follows
as a direct result of the accusations in vv. 2-34 (with v. 35 as transition between the two).6
Ezekiels comparison of Jerusalem to Samaria and Sodom thus exists within the context of
Israels flagrant disobedience throughout the entirety of her relationship with God and Gods
resulting punishment, which Ezekiel understands as justified.
Furthermore, Ezekiel goes to great lengths throughout the chapter to draw a sharp
contrast between Gods affectionate faithfulness and Israels flippant disloyalty. For example,
3

Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 22; Garden City:
Doubleday, 1983), 292.
4
See, for example, the discussion of authorship in Marten Woudstra, The Everlasting Covenant in Ezekiel 16:5963, CTJ 6 (1971): 22-48, here 23-4, who similarly concludes, The unity and authenticity of the entire sixteenth
chapter of Ezekiel cannot be challenged on sufficient grounds, due to the thematic and linguistic unity of the
chapter.
5
The language of covenant appearing in v. 8 returns in vv. 59-62; the sister metaphor guiding vv. 44-58 returns
in v. 61; and other familial imagery appears throughout (father in v. 3; mother in v. 44; daughters in v. 61).
All scripture quotations are from the NRSV.
6
Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1-24 (ed. Klaus Baltzer
and Frank Cross, with the assistance of Leonard Greenspoon; trans. Ronald Clements; Hermeneia; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1979), 335. See also Greenberg, 292-4, who calls vv. 3-34 a detailed bill of indictment and identifies at
least three major accusations.

Bailey 3
the description in vv. 8-14 of God choosing and blessing the helpless nation of Israel is followed
by vv. 15-22, which describes how Israel misuses those blessings. Thus Israel uses the gold and
silver with which God adorn[s] her in v. 13 as materials for making male images in v. 17,
and Israel offers the flour and honey and oil God gives her as food in v. 13 as sacrifices for
those idols in v. 19. In the relationship portrait he is painting, the prophet leaves no question
about the one-sidedness of Israels breached covenant with God; whereas God has been
consistent, dependable, and even lavishly generous, Israel has scorned Gods blessing and
wantonly broken the covenant God established (v. 8). The charges Ezekiel will level against
Jerusalem in vv. 44-58 will sting more acutely after he paints such a dramatic and poignant
picture of Israels faithlessness, and Gods remembrance of the covenant in vv. 59-63 will
demonstrate consistency in his dealings with Israel.

ANALYSIS
One of the most remarkable elements of Ezekiels argument in vv. 44-63 is his
manipulation of the Sodom tradition, placing Jerusalem into a sibling relationship with Sodom in
order to strengthen his accusations against Jerusalem. Ezekiels use of Sodom as an example of
Gods response to depraved civilization is nothing new in the scriptures, and an examination of
the Sodom tradition elsewhere may illuminate the significance of the reference. Outside of its
most thorough treatment in Genesis, Sodom appears in Deuteronomy, Lamentations, and many
of the other prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, and Zephaniah); it also appears throughout the
New Testament and in other early Jewish and Christian literature.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine the specific traditional nature of Sodom and
Gomorrahs sin, especially in the post-Ezekiel writings. Within early Jewish writing, there is a

Bailey 4
general unity in the same basic motifsviz wickedness and punishment, but the emphases
and purposes which are served by them differ,7 and in the hands of the early Christian authors,
the Sodom and Gomorrah tradition functioned exclusively in terms of the issues that were
topical in their own time.8 Even throughout the Old Testament, Sodom is used flexibly in
conjunction with various kinds of sins; so in Deuteronomy 29 Sodom fits into a warning against
idolatry, an element not explicitly present in the Genesis 18-9 narrative.9 Ezekiel specifically
describes the sins of Sodom that are most relevant in vv. 49-50, emphasizing Sodoms oppression
of marginalized people, likely as a projection of the social sins of Jerusalem.10 Although
Ezekiel likely expects his audience to see in vv. 49-50 a reflection of their own behavior (You
followed their ways, v. 47), evidence within the passage suggests the connection between the
specific nature of Jerusalems and Sodoms sins does not seem to be Ezekiels main point here.11
Instead, Ezekiel seems to be offering Sodom as an extreme example of general sinfulness
and as a warning about the results of such behavior; it is much easier to determine how Sodom
functions thematically in ancient literature, and there is relative consistency here. Fields
suggests the Sodom tradition involves two essential components for which it is archetypal: The
destruction of Sodom is seen as prototypical of divine judgment upon wicked cities, nations or

J. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities: Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, Early Jewish, and Early Christian
Traditions (CBET 1; Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1990), 116.
8
Ibid., 138.
9
Philip Esler, The Sodom Tradition in Romans 1:18-32, BTB 34 (2004): 4-16, here 7.
10
Leslie Allen, Ezekiel 1-19 (WBC 28; Waco: Word Books, 1994), 244, who demonstrates the relevancy of this
accusation with references to Isa 1:17, 23; 3:16; 32:9-14; and Jer 22:13-8. It is worth noting that in a chapter laden
with sexual imagery, Ezekiel curiously says nothing of the sexual nature of Sodoms sin. See, for example,
Woudstra, 36.
11
First, the broader context of ch. 16 does not seem concerned with the oppression of marginalized people but rather
idol worship (vv. 17-21) and faithlessness involving other nations (vv. 26-9). Second, Ezekiel makes no explicit
connection between the sins of Jerusalem and Sodom; although he does accuse Jerusalem of living according to
[Sodoms] abominations without listing specifics, he ultimately concludes Jerusalem is more corrupt (v. 47).
Finally, the discord that exists throughout ancient literature in regards to the specific nature of Sodoms sin suggests
Sodom may not represent a specific form of immorality; rather, as many early Jewish writers did, Ezekiel may be
using the Sodom tradition for his own purposes.

Bailey 5
peoples,12 and the actions of the Sodomites are archetypical instances of wickedness.13 The
former, Gods destruction of the immoral city, includes three characteristics that receive varying
emphases in the different uses of Sodom: its suddenness and spectacular nature (see Lam 4:6),
its totality (see Deut 29:23), and its perpetuity (see Jer 50:40).14 Ezekiel possibly hints at the
first two; there is suddenness implied in the manner in which God removed the Sodomites (v.
49), and the haughty disdain with which the people of Jerusalem use Sodom as a byword
implies thorough, if not total, destruction (v. 56). (Ezekiels reversal of the perpetuity tradition
will be discussed below.) If this is the case, Ezekiel is less concerned with the specifics of
Sodoms sin and more concerned with the depths of the peoples depravity and the thoroughness
of Gods righteous judgment. He is using Sodom as the most extreme example he can muster to
communicate the weight of Jerusalems sin by alluding to the punishment Sodom rightfully
suffered.
Offering Sodom as the epitome of immorality, Ezekiel uses the pointed image of the
smoldering city to stress Jerusalems sinfulness through a number of claims relating the two
entities. If Sodom has traditionally functioned as some kind of hyperbole within Jerusalems
literature, then the result of Ezekiels comparisonthat Jerusalem is worsewould be pointed
indeed. For the majority of vv. 48-57, Ezekiel elucidates the nature of the relationship between
Jerusalem and Sodom: Jerusalems sin has far exceeded that of Sodom (vv. 48-50); Jerusalems
sins are numerous enough to make Sodom seem righteous in comparison (vv. 52, 54); Jerusalem
can only be restored if Sodom is also restored, since Jerusalems restoration would otherwise be
unjust (vv. 53, 55); and Jerusalem will be embarrassed at how she once mocked Sodom, since the
12

So Esler, 9: Whenever someone wished to speak of Gods bringing destruction upon the earth, the fate of Sodom
and Gomorrah seems to have been very commonly cited as a model.
13
Weston Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical Narrative (JSOTSup 231; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 158.
14
Ibid., 158.

Bailey 6
people of Jerusalem have now been revealed as more wicked (vv. 56-7). Ezekiel leaves
Jerusalem with little defense; whereas Sodom evidently used to function for Jerusalem as some
kind of impossible extreme for the purpose of self-justification (i.e., At least we arent that
bad), Ezekiel crushes any remaining sense of self-righteousness to insist that Jerusalems
immorality has reached depths she would not have thought possible.
That Jerusalems sinfulness should lead to the experience of shame seems to be a natural
progression for Ezekiel. The language of shame permeates the passage (so vv. 52, 54, 60, 63),
and Ezekiel directly relates Jerusalems shamed status to his references to Sodom: Be
ashamedand bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous (v. 52).
Ezekiel seems to suggest Jerusalems honest self-examination (especially in relation to Sodom)
will result in remorse and embarrassment, a sense of regret over past mistakes. Thus Greenberg
comments, Sibling rivalry gives occasion for her first experience of shamereally humiliation
over having made her disdained sisters look right by comparison with her.15 In his introduction
to the passage, Ezekiel continues the chapters emphasis on public humiliation by suggesting,
Everyone who uses proverbs will use this one against you (v. 44). The intended purpose of
Ezekiels criticism seems to be to inflict within his listeners a deep sense of their own sinfulness,
which results in contrition.
Nevertheless, this sense of shame seems out of place in a discussion of Gods restoration
and forgiveness of Jerusalem. Greenberg notices the enigma: It is remarkable that the usual
sequence of shame leading to repentance and expunging of sin by God is reversed here.16 The
suggestion that Jerusalems sin making Sodom seem righteous by comparison should lead to a
sense of shame is reasonable enough (v. 52); less obviousbut still within reasonis the idea
15
16

Greenberg, 306.
Ibid., 292.

Bailey 7
that Jerusalems concurrent restoration with Sodom will result in Jerusalems shame, insofar as
the restored Sodom will stand as a monument to Jerusalems depravity (vv. 53-4). But Ezekiels
suggestion that the restoration of Gods covenant with the people will result in their shameI
will establish my covenant with youin order that you may remember and be confounded, and
never open your mouth again because of your shameseems counterintuitive and requires
further exploration, especially in light of the promise of forgiveness that concludes the passage
(vv. 62-3).
Odell handles this apparent tension by appealing to an alternative understanding of the
concept of shame.17 According to Odell, the shame described throughout vv. 59-63 is not some
kind of feeling of affective humiliation or self-loathing; rather, Ezekiel is referring to a more
technical component of ancient relationships. Odell defines Ezekiels understanding of shame:
Theevidence suggests that in both social and ritual contexts a significant element in the
experience of shame involves the bonds of social relationships. These bonds entitle the
individual to certain kinds of protection and security. When the relationship fails to
provide such protection, the individual is left vulnerable to the experience of shame. It is
also worth noting that the expression of shame is the opposite of what we would consider
the feeling of unworthiness; rather, it is the expression of an individual's outrage that
others do not acknowledge and respond to his or her claims.18
According to Odell, this nuanced sense of shame is not meant to leave the people of Jerusalem in
a perpetual state of regret; rather, it reflects their frustration with the punishment they are already
suffering, and it prevents them from blaming God for their ruptured relationship: The command

17

Margaret Odell, The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16:59-63, JSOT 56 (1992): 101-12.
Ibid., 105. Odell relies upon evidence throughout the Old Testament, including an exposition of Psalm 22 in
which Davids expression of shame involves the sense that God has failed him and not guilt. Indeed, Odell
implies frustration may be closer to what the psalmist experiences.
18

Bailey 8
to be ashamed turns the claims and complaints of the people back on themselves and forces them
to examine their role in the failure of the divine-human relationship.19 Odell probably goes too
far in removing any sense of remorse from the portrait Ezekiel is painting, especially in light of
the humiliation imagery running throughout vv. 36-43 and the other mentions of shame in vv. 52
and 53-4 (see above). What she does offer, though, is the sense that Jerusalems posture before
God will be fundamentally changed as a result of her sin and exile, especially in light of v. 63s
neveragain perpetual language.
Certainly Ezekiel has set the stage to suggest the experience of sin-exile-restoration will
fundamentally alter Jerusalems relationship with God. Throughout vv. 44-58, Ezekiels
association of Jerusalem with Sodom has included a dramatic reversal of the Sodom tradition by
predicting Sodoms restoration.20 In v. 53, Ezekiel claims Jerusalems fortunes will be restored
along with those of Sodom, which is a radical claim: Ezekiel thus appears as the vindicator of
Sodom, and as such occupies a unique position in almost the whole Sodom and Gomorrah
tradition. Not even the relative preference of Sodom and Gomorrah in some New Testament
passages and in the Wisdom of Solomon goes as far as this.21 This unexpected shift in the
tradition suggests Jerusalems restoration requires a change in the way God interacts with certain
nations; although God may not have planned ever to restore Sodom, his intention to restore
Jerusalem and his commitment to justice requires it (v. 55). In the same way, Jerusalems
restoration will leave a permanent mark because it is so undeserved: I will restore your own
19

Ibid., 111.
Fields, 158 identifies perpetuity as the third component of the Sodom archetype. See discussion above.
21
Loader, 63. Martin Mulder, Sodom and Gomorrah, ABD 6:99-103, here 100-1 discusses the possibility that a
number of different Sodom and Gomorrah traditions existed in antiquity, suggesting Ezekiel could possibly be
relying upon a different tradition (leading to a different outcome for the cities). Nevertheless, Ezekiels emphasis on
Sodoms immoralityespecially compared to his treatment of Samaria, which is much less harsh and thorough
suggests that if Ezekiel is not completely re-appropriating the Sodom tradition for his own use by changing the
outcome (as I am arguing here), he seems at least to assume Gods restoration of Sodom would be surprising for his
audience.
20

Bailey 9
fortunesin order that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed, and I will establish my
covenant with youin order that you may remember and be confounded (vv. 53-4, 62-3).
As a result, according to Ezekiel, the relationship between God and Jerusalem will now
permanently include the flavor of shame, even as God restores the nation and recommits his
covenant with it. Woudstras assessment seems accurate, although he may look too far ahead to
the New Testament in his argument to find the relief from this shame: Shame because of past
misdeeds and also because of the excess of God's grace in spite of these misdeeds will
characterize Jerusalem as she stands before the LORD of her salvation.22 Instead of deep
emotional sorrow and remorse, then, the shame described in v. 63 seems rather to be a constant
awareness among the people of Jerusalem that they do not deserve Gods favor and covenant. If
they had previously been thinking they were uniquely deserving of Gods favor due to
righteousnessand this seems to be the case, in light of their pride in v. 56they should
abandon any such delusion. In the same way, if they thought they had any legitimate reason to
complain about Gods punishment throughout the exile, they forfeited that right long ago when
they behaved with such profound and consistent immorality.
Thus, while this shame may indeed include some emotional burden (see above), that
melancholia will not endure nearly as long as Jerusalems loss of status with respect to God. The
phrase never open your mouth again in v. 63 is ambiguous enough that commentators have
interpreted it in various directions; while Brownlee reads the phrase referring to Jerusalem
opening her mouth in self-righteous pride, or in thankless complaint,23 Kennedy reads the
phrase pithn peh as a technical term related to idol worship, connecting the warning back to
earlier references to foreign gods.24 The former reading is probably preferable: the shame
22

Woudstra, 41.
William Brownlee, Ezekiel 1-19 (WBC 28; Waco: Word Books, 1986), 252.
24
James Kennedy, Hebrew Pithn Peh in the Book of Ezekiel, VT 41 (1991): 233-5, here 233-5.
23

Bailey 10
prompting the closed mouths is directly connected to the statement that Jerusalem will
cognitively remember and be confounded (referring to Gods grace on the sinful nation and the
effect of that knowledge on the people), and dropping in an indirect reference to idol worship
several verses after the last direct reference seems too erratic.25 Ezekiel tells Jerusalem her
shame will move her to silence, and he may be referring to either the peoples arrogant
haughtiness (v. 56), their complaints against Gods punishment, or a combination of the two.
Because Jerusalems punishment is directly tied to breaking her covenant with God, the
shame the people experience as a result is only meaningful insofar as God sustains that covenant,
albeit with a new posture. From the beginning of the covenant relationship between God and
Israel, God has been the originator and sustainer of the covenant: I pledged myself to you and
entered into a covenant with you, says the Lord God, and you became mine (v. 8). Ezekiel has
already demonstrated that the people are entirely to blame for the broken covenant, preparing the
way for him to insist Gods decision to deal with [Jerusalem] as [Jerusalem] has done is the
legitimate response to Jerusalems decision to [despise] the oath, breaking the covenant (v. 59).
The punishment, therefore, is a continuation and not an abandonment of the covenant; whereas
the people neglected the covenant, Gods holding them to account for their faithlessness
represents his deep commitment to the covenant and to Jerusalem. Gods promise to
remember his covenant is consistent with his actions throughout the chapter, especially in light
of Woudstras clarification of the term: Remembering in the Old Testament is more than a
mere calling to mind. It is tantamount to making the covenant operative again.26
That being said, Jerusalem is entering this restored covenant from a new position, and it
may be that only now she fully understands the weight of the covenant into which she has
25

See also Daniel Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 519-20,
who favors Odells interpretation of the concept of shame.
26
Woudstra, 29.

Bailey 11
entered as well as the depths of Gods mercy. God will restore that which Jerusalem has broken,
but the restored covenant will not look identical to that which existed before. Darr notices this
bittersweet conclusion: Even in depicting reconciliation, Ezekiel does not permit an Edenic
scene of rejoicing and gladness.27 Thus, even though God promises Jerusalem will return to
[her] former state (v. 55), he also claims Jerusalem must bear the penalty of [her] lewdness and
[her] abominations (v. 58). These movements do not seem to be mutually exclusive, especially
in light of the juxtaposition of shame and forgiveness in v. 63. Gone is the naivety the
people may have claimed; they have become fully aware of the weight of their sins and the
necessary consequences of their sins.
Nevertheless, Jerusalems recognition of her own sinfulness, accompanied by shame, is
closely related to a fuller recognition of Gods mercy: You shall know that I am the Lord (v.
62). It is not insignificant that Gods proclamation ends with his hope-granting promise, When
I forgive you all that you have done, and the preceding statements about shame and punishment
must be understood in light of Gods impending forgiveness (v. 63). Gods punishment,
Jerusalems shame, and Gods covenant restoration are all fundamentally related to Gods
consistent nature and the nature of the covenant between God and Jerusalem, and they exist in
harmony. Now that the people of Jerusalem more fully understand their own sinfulnessand
feel the weight of the shame that accompanies that self-awarenessthey are more fully
cognizant of the severity of Gods merciful forgiveness, and the experience of exile has made
them more prepared to live in the everlasting covenant God will establish (v. 60).

REFLECTION

27

Katheryn Darr, Ezekiels Justifications of God: Teaching Troubling Texts, JSOT 55 (1992): 97-117, here 106.

Bailey 12
Ezekiels juxtaposition of shame with grace challenges those modern sensibilities about
grace that rely heavily on passages like Psalm 103:12As far as the east is from the west, so
far he removes our transgressions from usand suggest the experience of forgiveness involves
complete immunity from any knowledge of or regret over past misdeeds.28 Such a definition of
grace implies that the act of remembering and mourning ones sins represents a rejection of
complete forgiveness, since this contrition is felt as some kind of lingering punishment or
judgment. For Ezekiel, though, Jerusalems experience of shame is inseparable from her
experience of forgiveness: To experience divine grace is never a cause for pride and should not
dull ones consciousness of sin. On the contrary, the gift of grace quickens the memory to past
infidelity and present unworthiness, and heightens ones amazement at Gods love.29 One ought
not to confuse Jerusalems permanent shameful posture towards God (established here in 16:4463) with a lack of forgiveness from God, as if the necessary result of Gods mercy is a return to
some Edenic childlike innocence. It may be that humanitys sinfulness prevents us from ever
returning to that pre-sin naivety; perhaps Ezekiels description of Jerusalems relationship with
God in ch. 16 is descriptive of how the God-human relationship will function from that time
forward. In any case, that remnant of shame does not signify any ontological reality of an
enduringly irreconcilable fracture in the God-human relationship.
Instead, the shame that remains when one receives forgiveness from God is as much a
reminder of Gods mercy as it is a reminder of humanitys sinfulness. While it is dangerous to
completely ignore the feelings of shame that ought to accompany sinful behavior, it is equally
dangerous to submit to those feelings to the extent that one is incapable of receiving forgiveness;
this sort of crippling shame is certainly not what Ezekiel has in mind, or else vv. 59-63 would
28
29

See also Pauls use of Isaiah 28:16 in Romans 9:33 and 10:11.
Block, 522.

Bailey 13
have no place in Ezekiels prophecy. Ezekiels prophecy thus remains urgently relevant to
modern recipients of Gods grace and to a theology of grace and shame. For those who
arrogantly use grace as a trump card against creeping feelings of guilt for wrongdoings, or for
those whose self-righteous forgetfulness of their own mistakes makes them quick to judge the
imperfections of others, Ezekiels proclamation that the people of Jerusalem should never open
[their mouths] again because of [their] shame ought to hit close to home (v. 63). But for
redeemed believers who remained enslaved to the humiliation of their own sinfulness, Ezekiels
promise that God will forgive you all that you have done stands to redeem that humiliation by
drawing believers into closer and richer relationship with God. Because God, in all his
faithfulness and generosity, has chosen to enter into relationship with sinful humanity, shame will
characterize that relationship such that the people may glorify Gods goodness further.

Bailey 14
WORKS CITED
Allen, Leslie. Ezekiel 1-19. Word Biblical Commentary 28. Waco: Word Books, 1994.
Block, Daniel. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24. New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Brownlee, William. Ezekiel 1-19. Word Biblical Commentary 28. Waco: Word Books, 1986.
Darr, Katheryn. Ezekiels Justifications of God: Teaching Troubling Texts. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 55 (1992): 97-117.
----------. The Book of Ezekiel: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. The New
Interpreters Bible 6; Nashville: Abingdon, 2001.
Esler, Philip. The Sodom Tradition in Romans 1:18-32. Biblical Theology Bulletin 34 (2004):
4-16.
Fields, Weston. Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical Narrative. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 231. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1997.
Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor
Bible 22. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983.
Kennedy, James. Hebrew Pithn Peh in the Book of Ezekiel. Vetus Testamentum 41 (1991):
233-5.
Loader, J. A Tale of Two Cities: Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, Early Jewish, and
Early Christian Traditions. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology 1. Kampen: J.
H. Kok, 1990.
Mulder, Martin. Sodom and Gomorrah. Pages 99-103 in vol. 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary.
Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Bailey 15
Odell, Margaret. The Inversion of Shame and Forgiveness in Ezekiel 16:59-63. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 56 (1992): 101-12.
Woudstra, Marten. The Everlasting Covenant in Ezekiel 16:59-63. Calvin Theological Journal
6 (1971): 22-48.
Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1-24.
Edited by Klaus Baltzer and Frank Cross, with the assistance of Leonard Greenspoon.
Translated by Ronald Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.