حزقيال ٤:١٤

My soul hath not been polluted - There is a remarkable similarity between this expostulation of the prophet and that of St. Peter, Act 10:14.

Ezekiel, as a priest, had been accustomed to the strictest abstinence from everything legally impure. Peter felt the same scruple at a similar command (Act 10:14; compare Isa 65:4). Positive precepts, being dependent on a particular command can be set aside at the will of the divine ruler; but moral precepts are everlasting in their obligation because God cannot be inconsistent with His unchanging moral nature. abominable flesh--literally, "flesh that stank from putridity." Flesh of animals three days killed was prohibited (Lev 7:17-18; Lev 19:6-7).

Then said I, ah, Lord God!.... The interjection "ah" is expressive of sighing and groaning, as Jarchi; or of deprecation, as the Targum, which paraphrases it, ""and I said", receive my prayer, O Lord God:'' behold, my soul hath not been polluted; not meaning that his soul had not been polluted with sin, or with an evil thought, as Kimchi interprets it; but by his soul he means the inward part of his body, his stomach and belly; which had not been defiled by taking in meats which were unclean by the law, as follows: for from my youth up, even till now, have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; these were forbidden to be eaten by the law; and such that did were defiled, and obliged to bathing in water, Lev 17:15; and from those the priests more especially were careful to abstain, as Kimchi observes; and such an one was the prophet; see Act 10:14; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth; corrupt or, putrefied, or whatsoever was unclean by law, as swine's flesh, or any other. The argument is, that since he had never eaten of anything forbidden by the law of God, he could by no means think of eating that which was abhorrent to nature; as bread baked with men's dung was.

Ezekiel was now among the captives in Babylon, but they there had Jerusalem still upon their hearts; the pious captives looked towards it with an eye of faith (as Dan 6:10), the presumptuous ones looked towards it with an eye of pride, and flattered themselves with a conceit that they should shortly return thither again; those that remained corresponded with the captives, and, it is likely, bouyed them up with hopes that all would be well yet, as long as Jerusalem was standing in its strength, and perhaps upbraided those with their folly who had surrendered at first; therefore, to take down this presumption, God gives the prophet, in this chapter, a very clear and affecting foresight of the besieging of Jerusalem by the Chaldean army and the calamities which would attend that siege. Two things are here represented to him in vision: - I. The fortifications that should be raised against the city; this is signified by the prophet's laying siege to the portraiture of Jerusalem (Eze 4:1-3) and laying first on one side and then on the other side before it (Eze 4:4-8). II. The famine that should rage within the city; this is signified by his eating very coarse fare, and confining himself to a little of it, so long as this typical representation lasted (Eze 4:9-17).

4:14-15 The prophet protested that he had never eaten anything unclean. The Lord relented, allowing Ezekiel to cook his food over cow dung and to follow the law regarding disposal of human excrement (see Deut 23:12-14).