Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal Communication. (JSOTS 283)

Written by Kelvin G. Friebel Reviewed By Iain M. Duguid

This revision of the author’s 1989 dissertation essentially consists of two intermingled parts. There is first a thorough exegetical examination of the sign-acts performed by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and secondly a rhetorical analysis of sign-acts in general and these prophetic sign-acts in particular.

The opening chapter argues that the sign-acts described were actually performed by the prophets, rather than being merely literary fiction, and that their intent is not magical but persuasive. Obviously, both points are crucial to the legitimacy of Friebel’s approach. If the sign-acts were never performed, then no nonverbal communication took place. Likewise, if their intent was merely informative or magical, then rhetorical analysis is misplaced. Friebel makes a strong case in both regards, drawing helpfully on a wide range of parallels from ancient Near Eastern and Greek sources

The second chapter, which forms the bulk of the book, provides the detailed exegesis of each sign act, along with its rhetorical impact in terms of arousing interest (Attention), transmitting the message (Comprehension), immediate impact on the audience (Acceptance) and longer term results (Remembrance). The exegesis is thorough and judicious, well worth consulting in its own right. For example, on the question of Ezekiel’s dumbness, Friebel argues convincingly that it was a literal, voluntary refraining from all non-prophetic conversation during the initial seven year period of Ezekiel’s ministry, and represented the shamed silence which the people should have had before God. This unusual behaviour would attract people’s attention, and its ambiguity would invite them to ponder its meaning. Such an indirect approach avoided the potential alienation of direct indictment (though Ezekiel rarely seemed concerned about alienating his hearers). The message would also be reinforced continually over the seven year span, whenever the silent prophet was encountered.

The remaining two chapters analyse the sign-acts as rhetorical acts of nonverbal communication. This rhetorical analysis is less helpful than the detailed exegesis. At times, Friebel states the obvious, such as ‘a source of high credibility is more immediately persuasive than a low credibility source’ (418). At others, he wants to have his cake and eat it. Thus he lauds the prophet’s choice of totally incongruous acts as an aid to message retention (456), but also thinks that the use of common objects or acts would ensure constant reminder of the sign (458). When both the bizarre and the routine serve as memory aids, it is unclear how a forgettable sign act could ever be performed! If he had been raised on a weekly diet of eminently forgettable children’s addresses, in which routine objects were regularly used to illustrate gospel truths, he might not have been so swift to assume that every broken pot would remind the clumsy housewife of the prophet’s proclamation!

More attention could have been given to the distinctions in nonverbal rhetorical style between the two prophets, and between them and prophets of other eras. Why did these particular prophets use this method of communication so fully, in contrast to others? Also, Friebel concludes that, had the pre-586 BC audience responded to the two prophets, the outcome of history might have been different. But this goes against Ezekiel’s perspective from the very start of his ministry, that the fall of Jerusalem was a foregone conclusion. Nonetheless, this book will still be a valuable resource to every student of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.


Iain M. Duguid

Iain M. Duguid
Westminster Theological Seminary
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA