Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In this video, David Pawson asserts (at 29:20) that Ezekiel is a descendent of Zadok. I cannot find any verification for this. Is that true?

share|improve this question
up vote 10 down vote accepted

Is it true? There is as much evidence to confirm Ezekiel's Zadokite status as to deny it -- that is, none.

That Ezekiel is a priest is clear from the patronymic in Ezekiel 1:3 -

יְחֶזְקֵאל בֶּן־בּוּזִי הַכֹּהֵן
yĕḥezqēʾl ben-bûzî hakkōhēn

Whether that should be "Ezekiel ben Buzi the priest", or "Ezekiel the priest, son of Buzi" doesn't really matter - either way, Ezekiel is of priestly lineage, and so is himself "priestly". (Pawson's point that he is never "ordained" in order to enter priestly ministry is correct, however.)

What is not clear is whether he was "Zadokite" or not. As that Wikipedia article suggests, it is only the enthusiasm he shows for the Zadokites in Ezekiel 44:15-31 that makes this appealing. This is, in fact, the only "evidence" that Daniel Block adduces for the suggestion in his magisterial Ezekiel commentary (on p. 88 of vol. 1).

So, not something that can be asserted or denied: we simply don't know.

share|improve this answer
Thanks, that was quick! I haven't even finished the video, yet! :) – Wikis Mar 15 '14 at 22:31
LOL (as they say). To be fair, it is a long video! – Davïd Mar 15 '14 at 22:34

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.