Ezekiel 20

Israel’s Rebellion, 1-44

20:1 In the seventh year, in the fifth month, on the tenth of the month, some of the elders of Israel came to seek the LORD, and they sat down in front of me. 20:2 The word of the LORD came to me: 20:3 “Son of man, speak to the elders of Israel, and tell them: ‘This is what the sovereign LORD says: Are you coming to seek me? As surely as I live, I will not allow you to seek me, declares the sovereign LORD.’ 20:4 “Are you willing to pronounce judgment? Are you willing to pronounce judgment, son of man? Then confront them with the abominable practices of their fathers, 20:5 and say to them:

Some of the elders of Israel came to seek the Lord – Their reasons for doing so are not specified.  However,

‘The allusion at the end of the survey (v. 32) to what was in their minds—namely, emulation of forms of worship practiced by other nations—allows the…suggestion that the elders were proposing to set up their own center of worship in Babylon which would incorporate the cult of deities other than Yahweh, as the Jews of Elephantine in Upper Egypt were to do some years later. The suggestion finds some support in Ezekiel’s direct address to them toward the end (v. 39), where he tells them, in effect, to make up their minds whether to serve Yahweh alone or engage in idolatry.’

A history lesson.  ‘Ezekiel delivered this message on August 14, 591 B.C., to some of the Jewish elders who came to his house to “inquire of the Lord.” But the prophet knew that their hearts were not right with God and that they had no right to ask the Lord for instruction (vv. 30–32; see 14:1–3; 33:30–33). A willingness to submit and obey is the mark of the person who can seek God’s guidance and expect to receive it. Ezekiel’s response to their request was to review the history of the nation of Israel and point out the repeated rebellion of the people and the gracious long-suffering of the Lord.’ (Wiersbe)

‘Ezekiel’s exodus is one of Israel’s unrelenting rebellion (cf. Ezek 2:5). It begins, uniquely, with Israel’s refusal to reject Egypt’s gods even while in bondage (Ezek 20:7–8a; 23:8, 19–20, 27; cf. Josh 24:14)—this might partially explain the extended diatribe against Egypt (Ezek 29–32)—countered by Yahweh’s commitment “for the sake of his name” to continue with their deliverance (Ezek 20:8b–10; cf. Ex 32:11–14). This initiates a threefold cycle, repeated throughout the wilderness journeying and into the land: (1) Yahweh’s gift of his life-giving statutes and Sabbath as a testimony to his holiness (Ezek 20:11–12, 18–20), (2) Israel’s refusal to obey, breach of Sabbath and persistent idolatry (Ezek 20:13a, 21a, 27–32), (3) Yahweh’s withholding of his wrath (Ezek 20:13b–14; 21b; cf. Ex 32:10–14; Num 14:11–20) while passing suspended sentence upon them (Ezek 20:15–16, 23–24; cf. Ex 32:34; Num 14:21–23), a sentence now meted out in the exile.’ (R.E. Watts, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets, art. ‘Exodus Imagery’).

‘The great German scholar Gerhard von Rad found the heart of Old Testament theology in the remembrance and recitation of Heilsgeschichte: the sacred history of God’s saving acts on Israel’s behalf. It is not hard to find such recitations peppered throughout the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Deut. 26:3–10; Ps. 105). In Ezekiel 20:1–44, however, we find a very different sort of recitation. Here, the story of Israel’s past is not a holy history of salvation but an unholy history of rebellion: in a word, Unheilsgeschichte. This is not the only such recitation in Scripture (compare, e.g., Pss. 78 and 106); however, no text outside of Ezekiel goes to such extravagant lengths to demonstrate the radical corruption of Israel, from its earliest days to its present moment (compare Ezek. 4:4–5; 16:1–6).’ (Tuell, UBCS)

“ ‘This is what the sovereign LORD says: On the day I chose Israel I swore to the descendants of the house of Jacob and made myself known to them in the land of Egypt. I swore to them, “I am the LORD your God.” 20:6 On that day I swore to bring them out of the land of Egypt to a land which I had picked out for them, a land flowing with milk and honey, the most beautiful of all lands. 20:7 I said to them, “Each of you must get rid of the detestable idols you keep before you, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.” 20:8 But they rebelled against me, and refused to listen to me; no one got rid of their detestable idols, nor did they abandon the idols of Egypt. Then I decided to pour out my rage on them and fully vent my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. 20:9 I acted for the sake of my reputation, so that I would not be profaned before the nations among whom they lived, before whom I revealed myself by bringing them out of the land of Egypt.

Scholars have noticed a recurring pattern.  In the words of Blinkinsopp:

‘beneficent divine action, ungrateful human reaction, and judgment decreed but then postponed.’

vv5-8 – Israel in Egypt.

20:10 “ ‘So I brought them out of the land of Egypt and led them to the wilderness. 20:11 I gave them my statutes and revealed my regulations to them. The one who carries them out will live by them! 20:12 I also gave them my Sabbaths as a reminder of our relationship, so that they would know that I, the LORD, sanctify them. 20:13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness; they did not follow my statutes and they rejected my regulations (the one who obeys them will live by them), and they utterly desecrated my Sabbaths. So I decided to pour out my rage on them in the wilderness and destroy them. 20:14 I acted for the sake of my reputation, so that I would not be profaned before the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. 20:15 I also swore to them in the wilderness that I would not bring them to the land I had given them—a land flowing with milk and honey, the most beautiful of all lands. 20:16 I did this because they rejected my regulations, did not follow my statutes, and desecrated my Sabbaths; for their hearts followed their idols. 20:17 Yet I had pity on them and did not destroy them, so I did not make an end of them in the wilderness.

v10 – Israel’s exodus from Egypt.

v11f – Israel at Sinai.

v11 ‘It is worth noting that, despite New Testament strictures on the spiritual value of the law as an instrument of salvation (e.g. John 1:17; Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:19ff.), it is quite clearly regarded as a gracious gift of God through Moses to his people and it was ordained so that by the observance of it man shall live, i.e. ‘prosper’, both materially and spiritually (cf. Deut. 4:40; Josh. 1:7f.).’ (Taylor)

vv13-26 – Israel in the wilderness.

20:18 “ ‘But I said to their children in the wilderness, “Do not follow the practices of your fathers; do not observe their regulations, nor defile yourselves with their idols. 20:19 I am the LORD your God; follow my statutes, observe my regulations, and carry them out. 20:20 Treat my Sabbaths as holy and they will be a reminder of our relationship, and then you will know that I am the LORD your God.” 20:21 “ ‘But the children rebelled against me, did not follow my statutes, did not observe my regulations by carrying them out (the one who obeys them will live by them), and desecrated my Sabbaths. I decided to pour out my rage on them and fully vent my anger against them in the wilderness. 20:22 But I refrained from doing so, and acted instead for the sake of my reputation, so that I would not be profaned before the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. 20:23 I also swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them throughout the lands. 20:24 I did this because they did not observe my regulations, they rejected my statutes, they desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes were fixed on their fathers’ idols. 20:25 I also gave them decrees which were not good and regulations by which they could not live. 20:26 I declared them to be defiled because of their sacrifices—they caused all their first born to pass through the fire—so that I would devastate them, so that they will know that I am the LORD.’

“I gave them decrees which were not good and regulations by which they could not live” – Because of v26 (“They caused all their first born to pass through the fire”), some think that this refers back to Ex 22:29f.  For various reasons, I think that this is unlikely.  Please see longer note following.

Did God change his mind about child sacrifice?

Eze 20:25f  “I also gave them decrees which were not good and regulations by which they could not live.  I declared them to be defiled because of their sacrifices—they caused all their first born to pass through the fire—so that I would devastate them, so that they will know that I am the LORD.”

How can it be that the Lord would give his people ‘decrees which were not good’?  And what ‘decrees’ are being referred to here?

Blenkinsopp: This is ‘perhaps theologically the most problematic statement in the book.’

Taylor (TOTC): This presents ‘an acute problem of interpretation’.

English translations

Majority translation: “I gave them…” – ESV, NASB, NIV, RV, RSV, NRSV, AV, GNB.

A minority translation ‘softens’ this to: “I gave them over to…” – NIV84, NLT; “I gave them up to…” – NKJV; “I allowed them to…” God’s Word; “I permitted” NET (in a translation note).

The Complete Jewish Bible:

“I also gave them laws which did them no good and rulings by which they did not live.”

A reference back to Exodus 22:29f?

Ex 22:29 “Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 22:30 You must also do this for your oxen and for your sheep; seven days they may remain with their mothers, but give them to me on the eighth day.”

Some think that Eze 20:25 refers back to this command, now declaring it to be ‘not good’.

Christopher Hays (The Widening of God’s Mercy): Eze 20:25-26 ‘clearly’ refers back to the Exodus passage, appealing to this as evidence that God changes his mind (on this occasion on child sacrifice).

Harper’s Bible Commentary: ‘Ezekiel held that God had once established the ordinance requiring child sacrifice but now finds it odious.’

Paul Redditt (Introduction to the Prophets): Ezekiel may have been aware that some laws required child sacrifice, while others required substitution.  He used the latter as a basis for condemning the former.  God did not really desire human sacrifice, but made the demand as a way of driving his people from him.

Tuell (UBCS): Ezekiel is horrified by Ex 22:29f with its requirement for child sacrifice.  But he is not willing to set it aside.  His understanding of these ‘statutes that were not good’ is comparable to Jesus’ reading of the teaching on divorce (Deut 24:1): ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning” (Matt. 19:8; also Mark 10:5).’

Evaluation: The claim that Ex 22:29f mandates child sacrifice is open to serious doubt, as I have argued elsewhere.

A good law twisted?

It is possible that the text means, ‘not good’ in the sense of a good law (Ex 22:29f) being misinterpreted, bringing it into line with pagan practices and leading to evil consequences.  The misinterpretation would involve ignoring those other texts that speak of redemption and substitution.

Harper’s Bible Commentary: Ex 22:29 was ambiguous, capable of being understood to mandate child sacrifice.  Later laws allowed for first-born sons to be redeemed through animal sacrifice (Ex 13:11–13; 34:20).  But in Ezekiel’s day people would appeal to the earlier law to justify their participation in the cult of Molech in the Valley of Hinnonm, where children were sacrificed to pagan deities.

Hard Sayings of the Bible: Ezekiel is not referring to the Mosaic law at all.  The following verse clarifies that v25 is referring to the Canaanite practice of child sacrifice.  The Israelites had perverted the laws pertaining to the giving of the firstborn to the Lord (e.g. Ex 13:13; 22:29) by offering children to Molech.

Taylor (TOTC): Child-sacrifice would never be condoned by God.  The Israelites had tragically misinterpreted the ordinance relating to the offering of the firstborn, as modified by the law of redemption (Ex 22:29; Num 18:15ff.).  The continuation of child-sacrifice would then be due to a tragic misinterpretation of this law.

God ‘gave them over to’ the practices of the surrounding pagan nations?

As a variation on the above, some interpreters maintain that Ezekiel is not referring to any of the Mosaic laws, but to the practices of the surrounding Canaanite nations.

In this case, the usual English translation (God gave them statutes…’) would be understood to mean, ‘God gave them over to…’

McGregor (NBC) paraphrases:

‘I handed them over to unjust statutes and intolerable laws (25). I let them defile themselves with such practices as the sacrifice of every first-born child. This I did so that in their horror they would come to know that I am the LORD (26).’

McGregor: the term translated ‘statutes’, which is normally feminine, is masculine here.  And they are not ‘my’ statutes, as in vv 11 and 13, suggesting that Ezekiel is not referring to the same statutes.  The prophet is probably not referring now to the Mosaic law but to Canaanite practice.

The CSB Study Bible: these decrees and ordinances were not God’s own, but those of the pagan nations.  God sometimes punishes sin by abandoning people it and suffering its consequences.

Tuell: The thought here as similar to that of Rom 1:24, 28f, where Paul says that God ‘gave them over’, or ‘gave them up’ to ungodly practices.

Lest it be thought invalid to ‘import’ this New Testament teaching back into the Old Testament, the OT itself entertains the possibility that something can simultaneously be ‘of God’ and ‘not of God’.  I am thinking of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (he harded his own heart, but also God hardened it) and David’s numbering of the people (he was incited by the Lord, and also by Satan).

Mark Rooker: God punished their sin by abandoning them to the evil laws of pagan nations (Eze 16:20f), so that they might suffer the consequences, Deut 4:28; Rom 1:21-27.  This is paralleled in the hardening of Pharoah’s heart and the command in Isa 6:9-10.  Unlike the good statutes they had rejected, vv11,19,24, these ‘not good’ statutes are not referred to by the Lord as ‘my decrees and laws’.  Thus, ‘sin becomes its own punishment’, Ps 81:12; Ezek 14:9; Acts 7:42; Rom 1:24–25; 2 Thess 2:11.

Statutes ‘good’ in content and purpose, but ‘not good’ in results?

Schreiner: The text does not mean that the content of the law was not good.  Rather it was not good for Israel because Israel did not obey it and so did not gain life.  Repentance is possible, Ezek 18:9, 13, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 32, but Israel’s evil heart can only be remedied by the enabling Spirit of God, Ezek 11:19–20; 36:26–27.  (40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law, p60)

Geisler and Howe (When Critics Ask): The law itself can be said to be ‘not good’ in in its purpose, but in its results, in that disobedience to it disaster.  See Rom 7:7f.

Hard Sayings of the Bible: ‘God sent them “a powerful delusion” (2 Thess 2:11) and “gave them over to the worship of the heavenly bodies” (Acts 7:42).  They failed to renounce idolatry, and were given up to its evil effects.  Note the statement: “that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.”

Leslie C. Allen (WBC): The vocabulary of v26 echoes that of the law of redemption in Ex 13:12f.  However, the language also recalls that of pagan practices of child sacrifice in Eze 16:20f and elsewhere.  Ezekiel therefore seems to be answering claims that in the law of the firstborn the Lord had authorised child sacrifice as practiced in pagan cults.

An ‘ironic polemic’?

R.E. Watts, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets, art. ‘Exodus Imagery’: This may be ‘an ironic polemic’ against a perversion of what God had actually commanded.  In allowing them to do this, the Lord determined that what should have led to life would, instead lead to destruction and death.

Wright (BST): It is a mistake to argue, with some early Christian interpretation, that these verses constitute some kind of anti-Jewish polemic.  It is also a mistake to argue, with some modern critics, that child sacrifice was once mandated within the Mosaic law.  Rather, Ezekiel is being deliberately controversial, giving a parody of Israel’s history in this chapter.  The present verse is to be understood in this context of sarcasm and irony.  The prophet has too high a view of God’s laws to regard any of them as ‘not good’ in essence or purpose.  The people had turned those laws upside down, engaging in child sacrifice as if God had commanded it, perhaps teaching that God had commanded it.  So Ezekiel represents God as letting them have their own way, giving them up to the consequences of their own sinful actions.

Block: Ezekiel’s statement ‘resists all attempts at domestication’ (Ellen Davis).  The prophet’s purpses are rhetorical, to show to the exiles that their rebellion is of a piece with Israel’s behaviour down the ages.  These ‘not-good’ laws are not to be identified with the laws of the firstborn, for: (a) they are given to the second generation of freed Israelites; (b) Ezekiel treats them separately from the life-giving laws; (c) the contradiction to the Mosaic and Sinaitic laws is to marked as to have been obvious to any of the original hearers; (d) Ezekiel signals his rhetorical intent by using the masculine, rather than the feminine, form of his term for the decrees.

Given that Ezekiel is speaking rhetorically, this giving of ‘bad laws’ that would lead to death is similar to:

‘Yahweh’s dispersal of his people in the desert (v. 23);

his dispatching of sword, famine, plague, and bloodshed as expressions of his wrath (5:13–17);

his commissioning of agents to slaughter the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to burn the city (chs. 9–11); and

his placement of his sword in Nebuchadrezzar’s hand (21:6–22 [Eng. 1–17]).’ (Paragraphing added)

All these actions have as their goal the devastation of the nation and the removal of all false theological props, paradoxically, that they might know that I am Yahweh (20:26). The force of Ezekiel’s rhetorical strategy lies precisely in its nonconformity with human reason. This nonconformity applies here, where the issue is the condemnation and judgment of the nation, and it will do so in vv. 42–43, where the issue will be Israel’s restoration, despite acknowledged sinfulness. Although Israel must carry the responsibility for its own fate, Yahweh retains full authority to determine its destiny, and to achieve that goal by whatever means he chooses.’ (Some paragraphing added)

Walther Eichrodt:

(a) The prophet was thinking of Ex 34:19f.  The law of redemption was always in force, and the Israelites never routinely sacrificed the first-born son.  Their most ancient documents indicate the joy expressed over the first-born son, e.g. Gen 49.3.  The command of Ex 22:28 seems to be absolute, and seemed to permit the Canaanite practice of the sacrifice of the first-born son, 1 Kings 16:34; 2 Kings 3:27.  This syncretic approach to propitiating a wrathful deity is reflected in the mockery of Mic 6:6f.  Ahaz and Manasseh appear to have offered child sacrifices, 2 Kings 16.3; 21.6.  There was a place of such sacrifice to Molech in the vally on Hinnom.

(b) Remarkably, Ezekiel does not oppose this horrific misinterpretation of the Mosaic law.  Rather, he attributes it to the will of God, who thereby executes punishment by giving his people a form calculated to cause them to fall.  This divine hardening of the hearts of unrepentant sinners is also reflected in Psa 18:26; Isa 6:10, and 1 Kings 22:22f.

(c) ‘That they might know that I am Yahweh’ – This is the ultimate purpose.  Israel had to experience the shock of finding herself wrong in her overconfident assumption of how God would behave, before she could be touched by any awareness of the mysterious holiness of God.’

20:27 “Therefore, speak to the house of Israel, son of man, and tell them, ‘This is what the sovereign LORD says: In this way too your fathers blasphemed me when they were unfaithful to me. 20:28 I brought them to the land which I swore to give them, but whenever they saw any high hill or leafy tree, they offered their sacrifices there and presented the offerings that provoke me to anger. They offered their soothing aroma there and poured out their drink offerings. 20:29 So I said to them, What is this high place you go to?’ ” (So it is called “High Place” to this day.)

vv27-29 – Israel in the Promised Land.

20:30 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what the sovereign LORD says: Will you defile yourselves like your fathers and engage in prostitution with detestable idols? 20:31 When you present your sacrifices—when you make your sons pass through the fire—you defile yourselves with all your idols to this very day. Will I allow you to seek me, O house of Israel? As surely as I live, declares the sovereign LORD, I will not allow you to seek me!

v30f – Israel in exile.

20:32 “ ‘What you plan will never happen. You say, “We will be like the nations, like the clans of the lands, who serve gods of wood and stone.” 20:33 As surely as I live, declares the sovereign LORD, with a powerful hand and an outstretched arm, and with an outpouring of rage, I will be king over you. 20:34 I will bring you out from the nations, and will gather you from the lands where you are scattered, with a powerful hand and an outstretched arm and with an outpouring of rage! 20:35 I will bring you into the wilderness of the nations, and there I will enter into judgment with you face to face. 20:36 Just as I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you, declares the sovereign LORD. 20:37 I will make you pass under the shepherd’s staff, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant. 20:38 I will eliminate from among you the rebels and those who revolt against me. I will bring them out from the land where they have been residing, but they will not come to the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD.

vv33-44 – Israel’s future kingdom.

20:39 “ ‘As for you, O house of Israel, this is what the sovereign LORD says: Each of you go and serve your idols, if you will not listen to me. But my holy name will not be profaned again by your sacrifices and your idols. 20:40 For there on my holy mountain, the high mountain of Israel, declares the sovereign LORD, all the house of Israel will serve me, all of them in the land. I will accept them there, and there I will seek your contributions and your choice gifts, with all your holy things. 20:41 When I bring you out from the nations and gather you from the lands where you are scattered, I will accept you along with your soothing aroma. I will display my holiness among you in the sight of the nations. 20:42 Then you will know that I am the LORD when I bring you to the land of Israel, to the land I swore to give to your fathers. 20:43 And there you will remember your conduct and all your deeds by which you defiled yourselves. You will despise yourselves because of all the evil deeds you have done. 20:44 Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I deal with you for the sake of my reputation and not according to your wicked conduct and corrupt deeds, O house of Israel, declares the sovereign LORD.’ ”

Prophecy Against the South, 45-49

20:45 (21:1) The word of the LORD came to me: 20:46 “Son of man, turn toward the south, and speak out against the south. Prophesy against the open scrub land of the Negev, 20:47 and say to the scrub land of the Negev, ‘Hear the word of the LORD: This is what the sovereign LORD says: Look here, I am about to start a fire in you, and it will devour every green tree and every dry tree in you. The flaming fire will not be extinguished, and the whole surface of the ground from the Negev to the north will be scorched by it. 20:48 And everyone will see that I, the LORD, have burned it; it will not be extinguished.’ ”
20:49 Then I said, “O sovereign LORD! They are saying of me, ‘Does he not simply speak in eloquent figures of speech?’ ”