Unlike many Latter-day Saints, I do not believe that Ezek 37 is a direct prophecy of the Book of Mormon (see the links under “Further Reading” for more on this). However, one argument that I do not think holds up against the standard LDS interpretation is that the Hebrew word translated as “stick” (עֵץ) cannot refer to a written text. Note the following from Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine:
Let us examine this by examining the reception of this text in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. For an article discussing the dating of this work, see Samson H. Levey, "The Date of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets," Vetus Testamentum 21, no. 2 (April 1971): 186-96. On p. 190, he writes that "We have no reservations in asserting that the termius a quo of the official Targumim can be assigned to the period between 200 and 150 BCE, comparable to the time of the emergence of the LXX." The terminus ad quem, it is noted, is more difficult to pinpoint; on p. 193, Levey argues that the terminus ad quem was "some time subsequent to the Arab conquest of Babylonia, that is, after 640-41."
Ezek
37:16 in Targum Jonathan on Ezekiel reads the following in Aramaic:
וְאַתְּ בַּר אָדָם סַב
לָךְ לוּחָא חֲדָא וּכְתוֹב עֲלוֹהִי לְשִׁבְטָא דִיהוּדָה וְלִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵיהוֹן
וְסַב לוּחָא חֲדָא וּכְתוֹב עֲלוֹהִי לְשִׁבְטָא דְיוֹסֵף דִי הוּא שִׁבְטָא דְאֶפְרַיִם
וְכָל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲחֵיהוֹן:
The Aramaic term translating
Hebrew עֵץ is לוּחַ. It can refer to a tablet one writes a text on. Consider
the following entries from lexicons:
4590
לוּחַ
לוּחַ: MHeb.; Ug. lhÌ )Gordon
Textbook §19:1358(;
? EgArm. )Jean-H. Dictionnaire 136(; JArm. Syr. לוּחָא, Mnd. )Drower-M.
Dictionary 232bלוחא (; Arb., Soq. lohÌ,
Eth. lauhÌ, Tigr. )Littmann-H. Wb.
44b( luhÌ; Akk. leÒÀu
)AHw. 546b; Driver Sem. Writing 7912(, wooden, stone or metal tablet: לוּחֹ(וֹ)ת,
)MHeb. (לְוָחִין
du. ) לוּחֹתָֽיִםBauer-L. Heb.
516q(; masc. Ex 3215 3118
)EgArm. Syr. fem.(:
—1. tablet (of stone) Ex 2412
3118 341.4 Dt 413
522 99-11 101.3 1K
89, also Ex 3215f.19 341.28
Dt 917 102-4 2C 510;
הָעֵדֻת לֻחֹת Ex 3118 3215
3429, לוּחֹת הַבְּרִית
Dt 99.11.15, cj. 1K 89 )ins. with Sept., Montgomery-G. 186; Noth Könige 171,
180; Rudolph Chr. 211(;
Hab 22; סֵפֶר parallel with לוּחַ Is 308; metaph. לִבָּם ל׳
Jr 171, לִבּוֹ ל׳ Pr 33 73;
—2. board, plank: altar נְבוּב לֻחֹת hollow out of boards Ex 278
387; ship Ezk 275; אֶרֶז ל׳ in the door Song 89;
of נְחֹשֶׁת 1K 736; ï לוּחִית. † (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
[HALOT], ed. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Bibleworks)
[4283]
לוּחַ lûaḥ 43× tablets (of stone); board, panel (of wood); plate (metal)
[3871] (William D. Mounce, Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old
and New Testament Words [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2006], 963)
לוח
noun לוחא
1 Palestinian,Syr tablet
2 Palestinian board
LS2 361
LS2 v: ܠܽܘܚܳܐ
abs. voc: לוּח (Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, Targum Lexicon [Hebrew Union College,
2004], Logos)
לוּחַ
lûaḥ, n.c., tablet;
board, plank. 43×
Root: לוּחַ. Cognates: לוּחִית
Bible Senses
tablet n., a slab of stone or wood suitable for bearing an inscription: Ex
24:12; 31:18; 32:15–16, 19; 34:1, 4, 28–29; Dt 4:13; 5:22; 9:9–11, 15, 17;
10:1–5; 1 Ki 8:9; Is 30:8; Je 17:1; Hab 2:2; Pr 3:3; 7:3; 2 Ch 5:10 (38×)
board n., a stout length of sawn timber; made in a wide variety of sizes and used
for many purposes: Ex 27:8; 38:7; Eze 27:5; So 8:9 (4×)
plate (segment) n., a segment of a surface of something: 1
Ki 7:36 (1×)
(The Lexham Analytical Lexicon
of the Hebrew Bible [Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2017])
†לוּחַ S3871
TWOT1091a GK4283 n.m.
tablet, board or plank, plate (NH id., Aramaic לוּחָא, ܠܘܽܚܳܐ (luḥo); Arabic لَوْحٌ (lawḥun) (mod. pron. lûḥ, lôḥ, cf. e.g. SpiroArabic-Eng. Vocab. Buhl),
Ethiopic ለውሕ (lawḥ), but Assyrian lêʾu
(as if from לחה in Dl 366; see, however, lêjum (lêyum) Jäger i, 486);—ל׳ abs. Is 30:8; cstr. Pr 3:3 + 4 times; du. לֻחֹתָ֑יִם Ez 27:5;
pl. לוּחֹת (לֻחוֹת), לֻחֹת) abs. Ex
32:16 + 17 times; cstr. Dt 4:13 + 16 times;— 1. chiefly of stone tablets on which ten words were written Ex
24:12; 31:18b; 32:16(), 19 (all E), 34:1(), 4(),
28 (all J), Dt 4:13; 5:19; 9:9, 10, 11, 17; 10:1, 2(), 3(),
4, 5 1 K 8:9 2 Ch 5:10; ל׳ הָעֵדֻת Ex 31:18a; 32:15 cf. v 15,
34:29 (all P); ל׳ הַבְּרִית Dt 9:9, 11, 15; tablet for
writing prophecy Is 30:8 (|| סֵפֶר), Hb 2:2, and fig., לוּחַ לִבְּךָ Pr 3:3; 7:3 (for writing wise counsel), cf. Je 17:1 (inscribing
sin of Judah); (vb. mostly כָּתַב Ex 31:18b; 32:15; Dt 9:10; כ׳ עַל Ex 34:1, 28; Dt 4:13; 5:19; 10:2, 4 Pr 3:3; 7:3; Is 30:8; חָרַשׁ עַל Je 17:1; כָּרַת sq. acc. Dt 9:9 cf. 1 K 8:9 =
2 Ch 5:10; חָרַת עַל Ex 32:16; בֵּאֵר עַל Hb 2:2). 2. wooden boards,
composing altar of tabern. Ex 27:8; 38:7; planks
composing ship (fig. of Tyre) Ez 27:5; cf. נָצוּר
עָלֶיהָ לוּחַ אָ֑רֶז Ct 8:9, of door. 3. (metal)
plates on bases of lavers in Solomon’s
temple 1 K 7:36. (Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and
Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon [Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1977], 531–532)
The following comes from Arnulf Baumann, “לוּחַ,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 16 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), 7:480–481, 481-82, 482-83:
2. Meaning and
Occurrences. In all the Semitic languages, lûaḥ is a technical term for flat objects (boards, planks, plates)
of various materials (wood, metal, or stone), especially writing tablets.
The noun occurs 43 times in the OT (45 if we accept
the LXX reading in 1 K. 8:9 par. 2 Ch. 5:10; but Prov. 3:3 is probably an
addition from Prov. 7:3). The occurrences are clearly concentrated in certain
books: 17 in Exodus and 16 in Deuteronomy, referring to the tables of the law;
1 K. 8:9 par. 2 Ch. 5:10 belong to the same context, as do 4 other occurrences.
The other 8 are distributed among the prophets (Isa. 30:8; Jer. 17:1; Ezk.
27:5; Hab. 2:2), Proverbs (Prov. 3:3; 7:3), Kings (1 K. 7:36), and the Song of
Songs (Cant. 8:9). This distribution shows clearly how the meaning “tables of
the law” dominates in the OT, an emphasis that probably does not reflect normal
usage.
The dual of lûaḥ
appears in Ezk. 27:5, unless we accept the reading lûḥôṯāyiḵ.
The LXX regularly uses pláx to translate lûaḥ in
the sense of “table of the law,” except in Ex. 24:12, which uses pyxíon; the latter appears also in Isa.
30:8; Hab. 2:2. Proverbs uses plátos,
Cant. 8:9; Ezk. 27:5 sanís, and Ex.
27:8 sanidōtós, a hapax legomenon.
3. Archaeology.
Stone was used as a writing material from an early date (inscriptions on rock,
statues, and stelae). Distinctly different are portable writing tablets,
sometimes meant expressly for writing practice or official scribes. The most
familiar example from Israel is the agricultural calendar from Gezer (10th
century b.c.), of which probably
only the top half is extant (6.7–11.1 cm. [2.6–4.4 in.] high, 7.2 cm. [2.8 in.]
wide). The writing is incised on the soft limestone. The conjunction of a
writing tablet with a calendar is interesting, since “calendar” is a common
meaning for lûaḥ in Postbiblical
Hebrew.
Plates of lead or precious metal were commonly used
for writing in the ancient Near East, but not in Syria-Palestine. The same is
true of clay tablets, the preferred material for cuneiform.
Wooden tablets, however, were convenient for both
cuneiform (covered with a layer of wax) and for cursive scripts like Hebrew
(for which they were often covered with lime or whitewash). A diptych
comprising two tablets hinged together was the notebook preferred by scribes.
Many illustrations from the eighth century onward depict one scribe sitting
behind another recording lists (of booty, for example); the first uses a tablet
of clay or waxed wood for cuneiform, the second a piece of leather or papyrus
(or a wooden tablet) for cursive Aramaic. Such a tool had to be compact;
several tablets could be joined together (cf. the folding book of twenty-three
ivory and wood tablets measuring 33.8 × 15.6 cm. [13.3 × 6.1 in.] found at
Nimrud). The two leaves of a diptych joined by hinges worked like the leaves of
a door (cf. Jer. 36:23, where → דלת deleṯ, “wing of a door,” is used for the “columns” of a
papyrus scroll).
. . .
III.
Writing Tablets. OT usage
provides some information about writing tablets: clay tablets are never
mentioned. When lûaḥ appears without
qualification, wooden tablets, especially diptychs, are probably meant. Isa.
30:8, for example, may well refer to a diptych covered with wax, so that the
writing could be inscribed. Hab. 2:2, also, probably has a diptych in mind. In
Cant. 8:9, the LXX pictures a writing tablet, as the translation shows.
Tablets of stone had to be specifically identified as
such (Ex. 24:12; 31:18; 34:1; etc.). Such tablets were probably rare in later
periods. The frequent emphasis on the two tables of the law (Ex. 31:18; 34:1;
Dt. 4:13; 9:11; 10:1; 1 K. 8:9; etc.) may indicate that they were thought of
after the analogy of (rectangular!) wooden diptychs. The depiction of the
tables of the law with rounded tops, normal in Jewish and Christian
iconography, may be due to the analogy of (mortuary?) stelae. Ex. 34:1, 4
presupposes that the tablets were carved out of larger blocks, so that the
surface was as flat as possible. Writing on both sides (Ex. 32:15) is attested
elsewhere in the ancient Near East; it makes it possible to keep the dimensions
as small as possible. Furthermore, the Decalog probably did not require much
space. Moses could easily have carried such tablets of stone down from the
mountain of God. The inscribed texts cited in Isa. 30:8; Hab. 2:2 are even
shorter (Isa. 30:9–14; Hab. 2:3f.).
Writing implements included pens of iron with diamond
points (Jer. 17:1; cf. Job 19:24). Writing with ink is denoted by ktb (Exodus and Deuteronomy; also Hab.
2:2; Prov. 3:3; 7:3), more rarely by ḥqq
(Isa. 30:8; cf. Job 19:23f.) or ḥrš
(Jer. 17:1). Furthermore, only Ex. 32:16 uses ḥrt, “incise,” to describe the writing on tables of the law; other
texts use ktb, “write upon,” which
probably presupposes that the stone was first whitened with lime (cf. Dt.
27:8).
The purpose of writing is always to record a spoken
utterance for later ages (Isa. 30:8; cf. Job 19:23f.), so that it can be read
once more at any time (Hab. 2:2).
. . .
V. Tables
of the Law. The OT
uses lûaḥ in a special sense to refer
to the tables Moses brought down from the mountain of God. While the noun always
serves to denote these particular tablets with the writing upon them, their
significance is defined by various explanatory qualifications. The original
expression probably referred only to the “two tables” (Ex. 31:18; 34:1, 4, 29;
Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:11, 15, 17; 10:1, 3; 1 K. 8:9 par. 2 Ch. 5:10) or the (two)
“stone tables” (Ex. 24:12; 31:18; 34:1, 4; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:9, 10, 11; 10:1; 1
K. 8:9) or simply “the tables” (Ex. 32:19; 34:1, 28; Dt. 10:2, 4). They are
important because God gave them to Moses (Ex. 24:12) and also because the
writing upon them was the work of God (Ex. 32:16) or God’s own writing (Dt.
10:2, 4) or was even done by God’s own finger (Ex. 31:18; Dt. 9:10). In this
context, the substance of what was written on the tables is stated more
precisely: not simply words of God in general but very specific words, the “ten
words” of the Decalog (Ex. 34:28; Dt. 4:13; 10:4).
Two traditions must be noted that associate the tables
of the law very closely with the ark: the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic
tradition calls the tables “tables of the covenant”19 (Dt. 9:9, 11;
cf. Ex. 34:28; Dt. 4:13; 1 K. 8:9 conj. par. 2 Ch. 5:10 conj.). In this
tradition, the ark appears as the receptacle for the tables (Dt. 10:1, 3, 5; 1
K. 8:9 par. 2 Ch. 5:10). The Priestly tradition refers to them as “tables of
the testimony” (Ex. 31:18; 32:15; 34:29), a phrase intended to express the
relationship between the ark, the Decalog, and the ensuing covenant commitment.
It is important that the tradition of the tables
speaks of their being broken and restored. More is involved than just a
physical process. The restoration of the tables (and their preservation in the
ark) is visible testimony that it is God’s will to maintain his covenant.
Clearly, in ancient times, the symbolism of a written text was especially
pregnant: the writing represented something binding and enduring. We see this
already in Job 19:23f.; Isa. 30:8; Hab. 2:2; Jer. 36:27ff. makes it clear that
human attempts to destroy what has been written cannot deflect the will of God:
the burned scroll declaring imminent judgment is rewritten. Through the ages,
however, the two tables of the law have been the most powerful symbol of God’s
unchanging demands on his people as well as God’s unchanging love for his
people.
As Leivy Smolar and Moses Aberbach noted in their Studes in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets:
One of the basic equipment items in the Talmudic age, namely the writing tablet (לוח) is presumed by TJ to have existed in Biblical times. Hence TJ’s translation of עץ (“stick”) in Ezek. 37:16 f. and v. 20a is consistently לוחא (“writing tablet”), though this rendering is hardly suitable in this context (It is true that Ezekiel is told to write on the עץ [v. 16]. But the context indicates that this was no writing tablet, but a wooden stick). (Leivy Smolar and Moses Aberbach, Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets [The Library of Biblical Studies; New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1983], 103)
Some scholars think עֵץ alludes to “sceptre” in line with the LXX rendering ραβδος (“stick”) which can refer to a sceptre (e.g., Allen 2:193; cf. Zimmerli 2:273). The Hebrew word however also allows for the Targum interpretation as “tablet” (לוחא) The allusion would also be more obvious had a different word been used, such as מַטֶּה as in 7:10, 11; 19:11, 12, 14 (2x) (cf. Num. 17:17ff), or שֵׁבֶט as in 19:11, 14; 20:37 and 21:15, 18 (cf. Gen 49:10) which would make a nice play of words with “tribes of Israel” in 37:19, or מַקֵּל as in 39:9 (cf. Zech. 11:7). Furthermore, the sign act is easier to picture with two tablets rather than two sticks (cf. Maarsingh 3:88). J.W. Mazurel argues that עֵץ in 37:15ff was chosen in view of עֲצָמוֹ in 37:1-14, see “Het Woord עֵץ in Ezechiel 37:16-20,” Amserdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse Theologie 12 (1993): 116-21. (Thomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel [Leiden: Brill: 1999], 114 n. 138)
The common “response” to the
traditional LDS reading that “stick” can not be understood as referring to a
written document, not simply a scepter with “for <tribe name>” is weak;
there are better responses to the LDS reading.
Further Reading:
