וָאֶשְׁמַ֛ע מִדַּבֵּ֥ר אֵלַ֖י מֵהַבָּ֑יִת וְאִ֕ישׁ הָיָ֥ה עֹמֵ֖ד אֶצְלִֽי׃
and I heard speech addressed to me from the temple, though that figure* was standing beside me.
*that figure I.e., the guide of 40.3–4.
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
The meaning of אִישׁ here is a longstanding interpretive crux, which will be resolved in this comment. The summary is: The prophet needed to remark on his situation because it was a non-standard one. He used אִישׁ to depict that situation schematically, while labeling an essential participant in that situation as such. And because that participant was situationally unique, it is readily identifiable—and thus the noun did not need to be marked as definite.
What has puzzled many interpreters here is summed up by Daniel Block (NICOT, 1998), when he notes that this noun label is indefinite: “With the versions one expects wĕhāʾı̂š instead of wĕʾı̂š.” As a result, already Radak (David Qimḥi) expressesd uncertainty as to the identity of this individual:
אפשר שהיה אותו שראה בתחילת הנבואה שהיה מראהו כמראה נחשת (יחזקאל מ׳:ג׳) או היה מלאך אחר.
After all, if this is the same figure who has been Ezekiel’s interlocutor since 40:3, then why isn’t the noun marked as definite (as in 40:4, 5)?
Given the lack of an article, Eliezer of Beaugency construed the noun’s referent as a new angelic guide—who is standing by while God is speaking (vv. 7–17), while presumably prepared to then instruct the prophet about the altar (vv. 18ff.).
However, the syntax of this clause is marked: the subject is fronted before the verb. And that is not how specific new participants are introduced into Biblical Hebrew discourse (cf. the similar cases in 2 Sam 20:11; 1 Kgs 20:35; 22:34 [each of the foregoing refers to a member of an already discourse-active group]; and 2 Kgs 4:42 [sentence focus: reporting on a new development that happened in a particular time and place]). Rather, the fronted subject is best explained as signaling a shift in topic—specifically, the reactivation of an identifiable entity that is involved in the same situation under discussion, in order to comment upon that other entity. (See Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 2nd edn., §47.2.1.(b), p. 501.)
According to Walther Zimmerli (1969; transl. 1983 for the Hermeneia series), the German scholars Gustav Jahn (1905) and Johannes Herrmann (1908) had construed this instance of אִישׁ as referring not to an angelic being but to “Yahweh himself” (as identified in the next verse)—who had already started to address the prophet. True, the Deity obviously qualifies as an “identifiable entity,” yet the designation of Yhwh as אִישׁ would be highly unusual, to say the least.
Happily, a more conventional construal of this “identifiable” אִישׁ is readily at hand: he is the angelic guide who has been engaged with Ezekiel ever since 40:3–4 (which is the other option that Radak had mentioned). And why isn’t he labeled as הָאִישׁ, with an article? Because such is not necessary. In this situation, he is already active in the discourse (e.g., “Then he led me to a gate…”; v. 1) and he is the unique participant aside from Ezekiel himself. In such cases, the intended reference is unambiguous even without an article—if one reads according to relevant conventions. (With אִישׁ, see, e.g., Gen 34:14; Judg 18:25; 2 Sam 18:20; 2 Kgs 5:7, 26; Est 6:7; 7:6.) This would explain why for this verse, the ancient translations—Septuagint (καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ), Vulgate (et vir qui), Targum Jonathan (וְגַבְרָא), etc.—all construed the referent as being the already discourse-active אִישׁ.
Yet this explanation still raises the question: Why at this point is the prophet bothering to mention the whereabouts of this אִישׁ—when he is not actually doing anything? The answer is: this situation is exceptional, in that it departs from the usual protocol for an agency arrangement, and therefore some explanation is in order. Conventionally, when a principal already has a messenger working actively on the scene, the principal would not speak up directly. Rather, the messenger would continue to serve as the stand-in.
That is, here we are in the midst of a long passage in which the אִישׁ has been giving the prophet a tour of the future temple. In the first half of the verse, the prophet describes his having noticed that speech was coming from the direction of the divine Presence (or Glory), and thus he hastens to note how unexpected this was, given that his tour guide was still present. That is, by noting the guide’s proximity, the speaker is marking a deviation from expectation in an agency situation. (Contrary to conventional wisdom, God/Yhwh does not normally speak in narrative scenes in which a human or divine agent of God/Yhwh is involved. See my article “Angels by Another Name: How ‘Agency Metonymy’ Precludes God’s Embodiment,” in Theology of the Hebrew Bible, Volume 2: Texts, Readers, and Their Worlds, edited by Soo Kim Sweeney, David Frankel, and Marvin A. Sweeney (Resources for Biblical Study 107; SBL Press, 2024), 245–65, especially Excursus 10 in the online supplementary documentation.) Arguably the non-standard absence of the article helps Ezekiel to underscore the non-standard nature of the situation that he found himself in.
Depicting a situation schematically (as here) is a prototypical usage of אִישׁ as a situating noun. Here, as usual, אִישׁ is employed to comment succinctly upon the depicted situation.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS rendering “[the] man” of this verse properly conveys both the intended referent and the reason for his mention. Yet it would not be out of the ordinary for NJPS to construe a Hebrew indefinite noun as definite in English; here, the NJPS placement of square brackets around the article seems to signal some uncertainty about the construal (like Radak’s express uncertainty).
On “figure” as preferable to the traditional rendering “man” where אִישׁ is used to refer to an angelic figure, see my comment at Gen 18:2 and “Notes on Gender in Translation,” pp. 6, 15.
English idiom prefers a demonstrative pronoun to the definite article, when making repeated reference with the noun “figure.” Unfortunately, when used in a definite noun phrase, “figure” does not readily evoke the situation under discussion, like אִישׁ does. For that reason, a role noun such as “agent” might be a better fit in the present verse. On that option, see my comment at Gen 18:16.