‘And the word of Yahweh came to me saying, “Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting treacherously, and I stretch out my hand on it, and break the staff of its bread and send famine on it, and cut off from it both man and beast, though these three men, Noah, Daniel and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, says the Lord Yahweh.” '
Note that the application is general. It is a general principle. It applies to any land against which God might intend to bring judgment for acting treacherously, but it is quite clear that Jerusalem is in mind in the context.
The principle is that once God has finally determined judgment, even the presence of godly men will not prevent it. The godly themselves will be delivered but Yahweh's judgment will not be prevented. Thus they need not look to the presence of men in Israel like Jeremiah and Ezekiel as evidence that they were safe. Why, even the presence of those great and good men Noah, Daniel and Job, would not forestall the judgment God intended to bring on Jerusalem. Noah was ‘a righteous man, blameless in his generation' (Genesis 6:9), Job was ‘blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil' (Job 1:1). Neither were strictly Israelites, and both were thus a good example to use as a general principle.
Noah was a particularly good contrast, for his presence in the world had delayed the flood for many years, but in the end it came, even though it had been delayed to give them opportunity to repent. So would it come on Jerusalem. The mention of Job demonstrates that his story was at this time well known in Israel, and that he was admired and respected as a righteous and holy man. His righteousness too did not prevent great suffering.
The mention of Daniel presents us with a slight problem. The name is different from that used in the book of Daniel, (Dani'el here, Daniyye'l in Daniel), but it is a variation which occurs in other names referring to the same person (Do'eg (1 Samuel 21:7; 1 Samuel 22:9) spelled Doyeg in 1 Samuel 22:18; 1 Samuel 22:22), so that is not a great difficulty. More difficult is as to whether the contemporary of Jeremiah and Ezekiel could have achieved such fame by the time Ezekiel was speaking. But he had been taken captive from Jerusalem years earlier, and in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar had interpreted his dream and been raised to honour (Daniel 2). Word may well therefore have got back to Jerusalem about this, and at a time when people were seeking comfort and hope he may well have become a folk-hero. The mention of a contemporary who had clearly been ‘delivered' from the coming judgment on Jerusalem would add considerable weight to Ezekiel's argument.
An alternative Daniel is found by some in stories surrounding the Dan'el known from Ugaritic literature, who had a reputation for wisdom and righteous judgment. But it seems unlikely that Ezekiel would choose such a figure when he had many heroes from Hebrew tradition such as Abraham that he could have called on, especially as Dan'el was connected with the very idolatry that was being condemned. However the Ugaritic myths may have been based on earlier stories of a famous king Dan'el, well known in Israel, which exalted his goodness and did not connect with idolatry and with Baal. Certainly, like Noah and Job, as he was not an Israelite he would fit the pattern. It does not, however, really matter which we choose, for it does not affect the poignancy of the illustration.
‘Acting treacherously.' The word is strong. It indicates those who have sinned to the full.
‘Break the staff of its bread and send famine on it, and cut off from it both man and beast.' For the ‘staff of bread' see Ezekiel 4:16; Ezekiel 5:16 and compare Leviticus 26:26; Psalms 105:16; Isaiah 3:1. Bread was the basic food on which they leant and depended for survival. Thus to break the staff meant to remove their bread, which would be the result of famine. That both man and beast would be cut off indicates the severity of the judgment.