How does Ezekiel 3:27 challenge the concept of free will? Text of Ezekiel 3:27 “‘But when I speak with you, I will open your mouth, and you shall say to them, “This is what the Lord GOD says.” Whoever listens, let him listen; and whoever refuses, let him refuse, for they are a rebellious house.’ ” Immediate Context: Ezekiel’s Commission Ezekiel, already bound to silence (3:26), is told that any future speech will occur only when Yahweh “opens” his mouth. The prophet’s very ability to communicate is placed under divine control, emphasizing that the initiative for revelation originates entirely with God. Yet the audience retains the capacity either to “listen” (Hebrew שָׁמַע, shāmaʿ) or to “refuse” (חָדַל, ḥādal), terms that denote active response. Divine Sovereignty Over the Prophetic Voice The phrase “I will open your mouth” is used elsewhere of God’s unilateral enabling (cf. Exodus 4:11; Psalm 51:15). Yahweh’s sovereign act eliminates any sense that Ezekiel might freely choose when and how to speak. Scripturally, prophetic utterance is consistently portrayed as compelled speech (Jeremiah 20:9; Amos 3:8). Ezekiel’s will is thus subordinated to divine determination, challenging the idea of unencumbered human autonomy. The Hearer’s Dichotomous Options Although God governs the messenger, the hearers receive a binary choice: “Whoever listens, let him listen; and whoever refuses, let him refuse.” This mirrors the covenant lawsuit pattern (Deuteronomy 30:19) where blessing or curse hinges on response. Human responsibility is therefore preserved, but within a framework in which the message, timing, and very possibility of hearing are established by God (cf. Isaiah 6:9-10; Matthew 13:14-15). Canonical Parallels Underscoring the Tension • Genesis 20:6—God restrains Abimelech from sinning, demonstrating active limitation of human will. • John 6:37, 44—No one can come unless drawn by the Father, yet “whoever comes” is welcomed. • Acts 13:48—Those “appointed to eternal life believed,” showing divine ordination preceding human faith. Together these passages reveal compatibilism: God’s sovereign ordination coexists with meaningful human choices. Historical-Theological Voices • Augustine (De Spiritu et Littera 34) argues that God’s grace “makes willing men out of unwilling.” • Luther (Bondage of the Will, 1525) compares humanity to a beast ridden either by God or Satan. • Calvin (Inst. 2.3.5) sees Ezekiel’s enforced silence as paradigmatic of divine omnipotence over human faculties. Each maintains that Scripture’s portrayal of will is not libertarian freedom but freedom-in-dependence. Philosophical Implications: Compatibilism Ezekiel 3:27 affirms: 1. Determinism at the level of divine initiative (prophet’s speech). 2. Responsibility at the level of human response. Compatibilism resolves the apparent conflict by distinguishing categories: God ordains ends and means; humans act according to their desires, albeit desires shaped by nature and grace (Philippians 2:12-13). Pastoral and Evangelistic Application For the unbeliever: acknowledgment that hearing the gospel is itself a divinely granted opportunity; persistent refusal compounds culpability (Hebrews 3:7-19). For the believer: confidence that God empowers witness; effectiveness rests not on eloquence but divine opening of mouths and hearts (Acts 16:14). Answer to the Core Question Ezekiel 3:27 challenges libertarian free will by displaying God’s unilateral control over the prophet’s ability to speak and, by implication, over the audience’s opportunity to hear, while simultaneously affirming human responsibility in the choice to heed or reject the word. The verse exemplifies the biblical pattern that God’s sovereignty and human accountability are not mutually exclusive but interwoven realities within redemptive history. |
    |