vs 11
You can see how this repetition makes this part sound very much like poetry. This sword has long been prepared, really. How much more preparation does it need? Not much, really. Slaughtering is going to happen all too soon.
vs 12
It almost sounds like this sword is like a magical dancing sword, but of course really it represents the destruction of war. God's people are handed over to it, and will be destroyed by it - or at least destruction will be wrought by it. And Ezekiel is not meant to be dispassionate when he gives these words - he is to wail, to beat his breast. It is the judgement of God, and it is not good. It is not happy. It is a time to mourn and wail.
vs 13
I'm not sure what to make of this verse. It almost sounds as if God is saying, "So what if the scepter (that is the rulership of Judah) does not continue?" It's as if God is not very concerned about there being an unbroken line of kings to rule a people who are about to lose their land anyway.
vs 14
Throw your body into this message, Ezekiel. Whack! The sword will come on Israel. Crack! And again! Slash! Three times, more! God is not going to hold back, it is going to be a slaughter. People, lots of people, are going to die this time.
vs 15
There might have been a time where God would have said, "So, the sword is coming from the north. I'm not going to protect you, but if you flee south, I might keep you alive." But not now. He says, "The sword comes from the north. And the west. And the south. Even from the east. There's no safe place now. The sword will just flash, and flash, and flash, and people will fall, and fall, and fall.
vs 16
This is a blade that is working overtime. Wherever it chooses to slash, it will find people to slay. And it doesn't discriminate. It can go around slashing wherever it wants in Jerusalem, says God.
vs 17
Of course, when Ezekiel strikes his hands together, it goes "clap". When God does it, people die.
vs 18
And now there is a new word in this chapter. That's lots of word.
vs 19
Is Ezekiel seriously going out into the road and putting up signs saying, "Sword of Babylon - this way to Jerusalem"? That's so crazy.
vs 20
Okay, so one road goes to the Ammonites, and the other goes to Jerusalem. But he is totally doing that. This is the sort of thing that, if I had time, and a camera, and someone to film me, and wasn't a pussy, I could do for sermons. You go out, do a thing, film people interacting with you (God's Wrath this way ---->) and then put it up in church and show them what happened. This is a pretty strong object lesson, and because God's prophet is doing it, it shows that this is a message from God - to the Babylonians, showing them which ways to march, because ultimately they are under his control.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 21
vs 1
I guess no response then.
vs 2
Well, this isn't sounding good. Preach against Jerusalem, the sanctuary, and all of Israel. But really, if you didn't get this feeling by now, I think you were reading another book.
vs 3
But this prophecy is against the land itself. God is against the land, and is going to cut it off from its people. Poor land. I mean, the land didn't do anything wrong, did it? It's just land.
vs 4
Since God is punishing everyone, there's no escape. Especially not on north/south line divides. Some people might think Jerusalem is safe, because it's not the northern tribes. Yes, well, that's not going to happen.
vs 5
What, never? God's just going to hold his sword out and smite with it from now on? Or is this a little hyperbolic just to show how serious God is. I'm going for B, considering that God actually does let people move back there.
vs 6
This I am sure Ezekiel can do.
vs 7
You know, I'm wondering if they just added the urine bit in the TNIV just to make Ezekiel that little bit more unreadable in churches.
Anyway, the whole limpness of hand and melting of heart takes us back to the pentateuch, but back then it was the nations going limp before Israel. Now it's Israel going limp before God's wrath.
vs 8
And again.
vs 9
Very sword-y, this passage.
vs 10
Interesting observation - the sword does not stop at scepters. War is no respecter of personage. God's sword certainly won't stop at them.
I guess no response then.
vs 2
Well, this isn't sounding good. Preach against Jerusalem, the sanctuary, and all of Israel. But really, if you didn't get this feeling by now, I think you were reading another book.
vs 3
But this prophecy is against the land itself. God is against the land, and is going to cut it off from its people. Poor land. I mean, the land didn't do anything wrong, did it? It's just land.
vs 4
Since God is punishing everyone, there's no escape. Especially not on north/south line divides. Some people might think Jerusalem is safe, because it's not the northern tribes. Yes, well, that's not going to happen.
vs 5
What, never? God's just going to hold his sword out and smite with it from now on? Or is this a little hyperbolic just to show how serious God is. I'm going for B, considering that God actually does let people move back there.
vs 6
This I am sure Ezekiel can do.
vs 7
You know, I'm wondering if they just added the urine bit in the TNIV just to make Ezekiel that little bit more unreadable in churches.
Anyway, the whole limpness of hand and melting of heart takes us back to the pentateuch, but back then it was the nations going limp before Israel. Now it's Israel going limp before God's wrath.
vs 8
And again.
vs 9
Very sword-y, this passage.
vs 10
Interesting observation - the sword does not stop at scepters. War is no respecter of personage. God's sword certainly won't stop at them.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 20
vs 41
So God is saying that there will be a time when he will accept their sacrifices once more, and accept them as an acceptable people on his holy hill, and there will be a time when they will once again serve their purpose of proving his holiness. That time will be after the exile. Which means, in hope for Israel, that God won't forget them through exile, and that the exile will end. Eventually.
vs 42
God is making a promise now so that in 70 odd years time they can see themselves coming back to the land and go, "Yeah, wow, God really is with us." It's always more impressive when you foreshadow something and it comes true.
vs 43
That sounds a lot like repentance to me.
vs 44
Really, whilst it is looks like God has fluctuated between these two positions in his dealing with Israel, what is probably more true is that God has always dealt with them according to his namesake, and only occasionally dealt with them according to their need for punishment. Now he's flipping that on its head, to make a point - but once again they will fall under his name. That's the promise here.
vs 45
Unsurprisingly.
vs 46
South? Judah? Or lands south of Judah? Let's see if it gets any clearer.
vs 47
This sounds like a reference to the last chapter, where God was talking about eagles planting trees, so I'm going to assume it's Jerusalem. Basically, Jerusalem is going to burn. We've heard this before.
vs 48
Once again, God is wanting people to know that it is him who is allowing the punishment of his holy city. He doesn't want anyone to think that it's somehow beyond his power to save them. They deserve it.
vs 49
Sounds like what people said to Jesus! I wonder if there will be a response in the next chapter.
So God is saying that there will be a time when he will accept their sacrifices once more, and accept them as an acceptable people on his holy hill, and there will be a time when they will once again serve their purpose of proving his holiness. That time will be after the exile. Which means, in hope for Israel, that God won't forget them through exile, and that the exile will end. Eventually.
vs 42
God is making a promise now so that in 70 odd years time they can see themselves coming back to the land and go, "Yeah, wow, God really is with us." It's always more impressive when you foreshadow something and it comes true.
vs 43
That sounds a lot like repentance to me.
vs 44
Really, whilst it is looks like God has fluctuated between these two positions in his dealing with Israel, what is probably more true is that God has always dealt with them according to his namesake, and only occasionally dealt with them according to their need for punishment. Now he's flipping that on its head, to make a point - but once again they will fall under his name. That's the promise here.
vs 45
Unsurprisingly.
vs 46
South? Judah? Or lands south of Judah? Let's see if it gets any clearer.
vs 47
This sounds like a reference to the last chapter, where God was talking about eagles planting trees, so I'm going to assume it's Jerusalem. Basically, Jerusalem is going to burn. We've heard this before.
vs 48
Once again, God is wanting people to know that it is him who is allowing the punishment of his holy city. He doesn't want anyone to think that it's somehow beyond his power to save them. They deserve it.
vs 49
Sounds like what people said to Jesus! I wonder if there will be a response in the next chapter.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 20
vs 31
God has a right to be angry at this. The rebellion against his statutes and the lust for idols has continued right up to this day, after all these generations. If you don't listen, why would he bother talking?
vs 32
It will never happen? Okay, I'm intrigued to know why.
vs 33
Oooooh. You see, once you've tried God, you can never go back, apparently. God did not just make an offer of covenant with Israel. He claimed it for his own. They signed up for the blessings and the curses, remember.
vs 34
God will save them, but it may not necessarily be happy about it. It was his wrath that tossed them out to the nations in the first place, but his wrath may just continue to burn when he then has to tear them out of the nations again.
vs 35
This does not sound like happy God.
vs 36
God is planning round two of his judgment of his people, and he sounds angry, and it does not sound like it's going to be pretty.
vs 37
God will force his covenant on them, in effect. Sometimes, even though people agree in principle to a system of punishment, you still have to enforce it. There aren't many people who don't try and talk their way out of being punished.
vs 38
That does sound a lot like what God did in the wilderness - he pulled them out of Egypt, but they didn't all get to Israel. God is saying he will do it again - pulling them out of Israel, wiping out the dissenters, idolators, wicked, and leaving only a small remnant. This is God's pattern - you'll know it's him doing it.
vs 39
When God tells you to sin, you know it's a bad, bad situation.
vs 40
But God still has the hope built into his system. Yes, his people will sin, yes he will punish them, but he will also have a people that will turn to him, come to him, and worship him in the way he demands. Still, the tone of this section is incredibly angry. I can almost imagine Ezekiel shouting it at people, at leaders. Or perhaps that's Rob Turnbull I am imagining - Backyard Bard doing Ezekiel would be awesome... if incredibly long.
God has a right to be angry at this. The rebellion against his statutes and the lust for idols has continued right up to this day, after all these generations. If you don't listen, why would he bother talking?
vs 32
It will never happen? Okay, I'm intrigued to know why.
vs 33
Oooooh. You see, once you've tried God, you can never go back, apparently. God did not just make an offer of covenant with Israel. He claimed it for his own. They signed up for the blessings and the curses, remember.
vs 34
God will save them, but it may not necessarily be happy about it. It was his wrath that tossed them out to the nations in the first place, but his wrath may just continue to burn when he then has to tear them out of the nations again.
vs 35
This does not sound like happy God.
vs 36
God is planning round two of his judgment of his people, and he sounds angry, and it does not sound like it's going to be pretty.
vs 37
God will force his covenant on them, in effect. Sometimes, even though people agree in principle to a system of punishment, you still have to enforce it. There aren't many people who don't try and talk their way out of being punished.
vs 38
That does sound a lot like what God did in the wilderness - he pulled them out of Egypt, but they didn't all get to Israel. God is saying he will do it again - pulling them out of Israel, wiping out the dissenters, idolators, wicked, and leaving only a small remnant. This is God's pattern - you'll know it's him doing it.
vs 39
When God tells you to sin, you know it's a bad, bad situation.
vs 40
But God still has the hope built into his system. Yes, his people will sin, yes he will punish them, but he will also have a people that will turn to him, come to him, and worship him in the way he demands. Still, the tone of this section is incredibly angry. I can almost imagine Ezekiel shouting it at people, at leaders. Or perhaps that's Rob Turnbull I am imagining - Backyard Bard doing Ezekiel would be awesome... if incredibly long.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 20
vs 21
Because really, the generation after the one that came out of Egypt wasn't really all that much better. I will at this stage point out that although God could demand perfection, he does not. He demands righteousness and repentance, even from Israel. He gets neither, and that's the problem.
Remember also that this is not just a history lesson, but it is meant to be a living historical notation to the present Israelites. They are meant to see their own faces in the faces of these people being described.
vs 22
Again, God makes the same decision - he will punish them, but not by simply striking them all dead in the desert.
vs 23
Hence the blessings and curses given in Deuteronomy. So God determines that he will punish his people... later.
vs 24
They still had idols! Can you believe that? The Israelite who carried an idol over the Jordan river when it was parted by God for him to enter his promised land must be one stubborn ass.
vs 25
The rules they followed - the statutes of idols and foreign gods - were still given to them by God, although if you like through proxy. He gave them rules that were not like his own - rules that weren't going to make them live (in the sense of live righteously and hence live long in God's sight).
vs 26
God made the rules and statutes of the foreign gods and idols so oppressive and so onerous that Israel might realise the horror of following them - sacrificing one's children for example - and know that surely only God is God.
vs 27
Oh, so now we're going on to part two of why Israel deserves this punishment so bad.
vs 28
Basically, they didn't do what they were told. You can see this in Judges - even though they might be offering sacrifices, God said specifically that he would have one place to do so, not every tree and hill and high place.
vs 29
Does that mean Obama is tall?
God quizzed them on this. Why would they go to high places, when told specifically not to? There is nothing in God's commands that even suggests that sacrifices and offerings should be made in high places. Why do it then? Because the Canaanites did it, that's why! It is the resumption of the old religious practices of the previous inhabitants. And God doesn't like that one iota.
vs 30
The answer is 'hopefully no, but probably yes, and in fact... um, sorta already did. Oops.'
Because really, the generation after the one that came out of Egypt wasn't really all that much better. I will at this stage point out that although God could demand perfection, he does not. He demands righteousness and repentance, even from Israel. He gets neither, and that's the problem.
Remember also that this is not just a history lesson, but it is meant to be a living historical notation to the present Israelites. They are meant to see their own faces in the faces of these people being described.
vs 22
Again, God makes the same decision - he will punish them, but not by simply striking them all dead in the desert.
vs 23
Hence the blessings and curses given in Deuteronomy. So God determines that he will punish his people... later.
vs 24
They still had idols! Can you believe that? The Israelite who carried an idol over the Jordan river when it was parted by God for him to enter his promised land must be one stubborn ass.
vs 25
The rules they followed - the statutes of idols and foreign gods - were still given to them by God, although if you like through proxy. He gave them rules that were not like his own - rules that weren't going to make them live (in the sense of live righteously and hence live long in God's sight).
vs 26
God made the rules and statutes of the foreign gods and idols so oppressive and so onerous that Israel might realise the horror of following them - sacrificing one's children for example - and know that surely only God is God.
vs 27
Oh, so now we're going on to part two of why Israel deserves this punishment so bad.
vs 28
Basically, they didn't do what they were told. You can see this in Judges - even though they might be offering sacrifices, God said specifically that he would have one place to do so, not every tree and hill and high place.
vs 29
Does that mean Obama is tall?
God quizzed them on this. Why would they go to high places, when told specifically not to? There is nothing in God's commands that even suggests that sacrifices and offerings should be made in high places. Why do it then? Because the Canaanites did it, that's why! It is the resumption of the old religious practices of the previous inhabitants. And God doesn't like that one iota.
vs 30
The answer is 'hopefully no, but probably yes, and in fact... um, sorta already did. Oops.'
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 20
vs 11
Such a small verse for such a big idea. God created a covenant with a people, calling them his own, giving them a code of laws by which to live. It's a huge thing.
vs 12
As far as I know, no other culture has like a sabbath day. But the reference to sabbaths is probably not just to the day - sabbath rests were had during festival times and other times too, not to mention sabbath years and years of jubilee. These times of distinct separate devotion to God were something that set apart Israel from other nations, it seems. Although festivals were a pretty regular part of the religious scene in the ancient world.
vs 13
He certainly did say that. God doesn't need almost a thousand years of disobedience to punish people for it. He was prepared to punish them within days of handing down his laws.
vs 14
God stayed his hand only to protect his name. After all, he had drawn his people out from Egypt - if he did not to miraculous and great things with them, people were going to think he brought them out into the desert just to kill them. And God would rather be remembered for mercy than wholesale genocide, methinks. Well, mercy and genocide, in fairness.
vs 15
In this way, God could voice his displeasure with them, and kill off a lot of people in the wilderness, without seeming like he had crushed his own people. After all, their survival in the wilderness for a generation is miraculous.
vs 16
So God is able to punish them within the bounds of his blessing. He does not turn his back on his promises to them, but actually withholds the blessings until the fullness of his wrath is meted out. In the case of the wilderness, it takes about 40 years.
vs 17
Pity, mercy - very similar ideas. They were worthy of destruction, but God had bigger plans for them. Besides, his power is made perfect in weakness, and they were obviously pretty weak.
vs 18
If you were to read this out of context, you'd be like, "But aren't their laws God's laws?" The fact is that the laws and ways of their parents were most definitely not God's. They had the laws and statutes of God, but didn't follow them. More fool them.
vs 19
You remember those laws I passed down only a generation ago? Moses is still alive! Go ask him!
vs 20
Ezekiel has obviously chosen this story so that he can harp on Sabbaths. It's the first time they've been mentioned, and obviously Israel's flagrant disregard for them over the last several hundred years is a fly in his ointment. God's laws and his Sabbaths - one will make you holy, and one will act as a sign of the holding of the covenant.
What's interesting, of course, is that the whole idea of temple/tabernacle sacrifice - which I would have thought was the sign between God and his people - is not mentioned here. Maybe this is because they aren't going to be able to do this when they are in exile? But they will be able to keep the Sabbaths. Remember, the exile is where synagogues grew from. It almost sounds to me like God is setting that up here in Ezekiel.
Such a small verse for such a big idea. God created a covenant with a people, calling them his own, giving them a code of laws by which to live. It's a huge thing.
vs 12
As far as I know, no other culture has like a sabbath day. But the reference to sabbaths is probably not just to the day - sabbath rests were had during festival times and other times too, not to mention sabbath years and years of jubilee. These times of distinct separate devotion to God were something that set apart Israel from other nations, it seems. Although festivals were a pretty regular part of the religious scene in the ancient world.
vs 13
He certainly did say that. God doesn't need almost a thousand years of disobedience to punish people for it. He was prepared to punish them within days of handing down his laws.
vs 14
God stayed his hand only to protect his name. After all, he had drawn his people out from Egypt - if he did not to miraculous and great things with them, people were going to think he brought them out into the desert just to kill them. And God would rather be remembered for mercy than wholesale genocide, methinks. Well, mercy and genocide, in fairness.
vs 15
In this way, God could voice his displeasure with them, and kill off a lot of people in the wilderness, without seeming like he had crushed his own people. After all, their survival in the wilderness for a generation is miraculous.
vs 16
So God is able to punish them within the bounds of his blessing. He does not turn his back on his promises to them, but actually withholds the blessings until the fullness of his wrath is meted out. In the case of the wilderness, it takes about 40 years.
vs 17
Pity, mercy - very similar ideas. They were worthy of destruction, but God had bigger plans for them. Besides, his power is made perfect in weakness, and they were obviously pretty weak.
vs 18
If you were to read this out of context, you'd be like, "But aren't their laws God's laws?" The fact is that the laws and ways of their parents were most definitely not God's. They had the laws and statutes of God, but didn't follow them. More fool them.
vs 19
You remember those laws I passed down only a generation ago? Moses is still alive! Go ask him!
vs 20
Ezekiel has obviously chosen this story so that he can harp on Sabbaths. It's the first time they've been mentioned, and obviously Israel's flagrant disregard for them over the last several hundred years is a fly in his ointment. God's laws and his Sabbaths - one will make you holy, and one will act as a sign of the holding of the covenant.
What's interesting, of course, is that the whole idea of temple/tabernacle sacrifice - which I would have thought was the sign between God and his people - is not mentioned here. Maybe this is because they aren't going to be able to do this when they are in exile? But they will be able to keep the Sabbaths. Remember, the exile is where synagogues grew from. It almost sounds to me like God is setting that up here in Ezekiel.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 20
Ahh, another long chapter.
vs 1
This isn't the first time, you'll recall. And you remember what God's attitude was last time.
vs 2
What else did we expect by now?
vs 3
God is not happy with the leaders of Israel, and if they think they can ask him 'what up', they're in for a surprise.
vs 4
Does God want Ezekiel to judge them? I guess it's more of a symbolic judgment with information given from God, so it's not like it's going to be wrong. The reason God doesn't want to talk to them is because of their detestable practices, and those of their ancestors. Now, God just spent the whole of last chapter (or was it the chapter before) talking about how a father's sins don't spread to the son, so this might seem a bit weird. But he also talked earlier about repentance, and the need for us to turn away from past actions - and this includes, I guess, the actions of past generations.
vs 5
So God made a covenant, which he swore 'with uplifted hand', which I assume means that he symbolically meant it. He wasn't messing around when he called Israel his people.
vs 6
I'm sure both Canada and Australia are like, WTF? But I'm sure Canaan is lovely. The point is God, when calling out his people from a land that was, let's face it, rich, but oppressive, also called them into a land that was rich, and less oppressive.
vs 7
That wasn't all he said, but it was one of the things he said, and you know when God says stuff, it's worth remembering and taking particular interest in. So God says "no idols", you should really be thinking, "Yeah, no idols, right on." I can't remember off the top of my head how long it took them to walk to Mount Sinai, but Moses spent about 40 days up there, so let's give them two months between escaping Egypt and making the first idol. It seems awful, but you know this is probably the longest they have held out without a king telling them not to.
vs 8
This verse, though, seems to be talking about an idolatry that was taking place inside Egypt, before they were even removed from her. Now we see the full on mercy of God. Because God could have said, "Okay, I'll save you from Egypt, but not until you've cleaned up your act." And Israel would have then perished in Egypt, because we all know how good they are at cleaning up their act. Or they might have done it long enough to get out of Egypt, and then still made the gold calf when they got to Sinai. Who knows, since it didn't happen that way. God was so upset that at some point he talks about just pouring out his wrath on his own people in Egypt and letting it all come to naught.
vs 9
It was not his love for Israel that stayed his hand. Well, that's not the element that he is focusing on, anyway. No, it was his desire for the glory of his name to continue among the nations. God is not fickle, in that he chooses his actions based on a popularity poll from the other nations. He's not saying, "Oh, I won't wipe out Israel today, because the other nations will think bad of me, and I couldn't stand that, they might vote me off the show".
It's almost like - but I still think off the mark - God is involved in some sort of cosmic damage control of his name. Having sworn to be Israel's people already, God is now sort of stuck with them, and so he is trying to limit the damage to his name that they are producing, and so releases them from Egypt instead of keeping them in captivity, despite their less-than-perfect nature.
In reality, though, God has everything under total control. God could have smote the Israelites in Egypt, but he wanted the nations to see that he keeps his promises, and that he is slow to anger. He wanted them to see just how far he would stretch his love and his covenant for them.
vs 10
Now the wilderness wasn't exactly flowing with milk and honey. It was going to be the stage of some of Israel's big failures, a lot of whinging, and a big number of displays of power by God. The story continues, as we all know, but it will be interesting to see what God highlights for Ezekiel to tell these elders at this time.
What is interesting, and this point is often made again and again by scholars, is just how grounded in the pentateuch the prophets are. What is Ezekiel's answer to the elders to be? Well, start with Jacob, and Egypt, and tell them about how God saved them way back then. This is living history, but also showing the long memory of God, and the enduring importance of the Mosaic covenant in the era of the major prophets.
vs 1
This isn't the first time, you'll recall. And you remember what God's attitude was last time.
vs 2
What else did we expect by now?
vs 3
God is not happy with the leaders of Israel, and if they think they can ask him 'what up', they're in for a surprise.
vs 4
Does God want Ezekiel to judge them? I guess it's more of a symbolic judgment with information given from God, so it's not like it's going to be wrong. The reason God doesn't want to talk to them is because of their detestable practices, and those of their ancestors. Now, God just spent the whole of last chapter (or was it the chapter before) talking about how a father's sins don't spread to the son, so this might seem a bit weird. But he also talked earlier about repentance, and the need for us to turn away from past actions - and this includes, I guess, the actions of past generations.
vs 5
So God made a covenant, which he swore 'with uplifted hand', which I assume means that he symbolically meant it. He wasn't messing around when he called Israel his people.
vs 6
I'm sure both Canada and Australia are like, WTF? But I'm sure Canaan is lovely. The point is God, when calling out his people from a land that was, let's face it, rich, but oppressive, also called them into a land that was rich, and less oppressive.
vs 7
That wasn't all he said, but it was one of the things he said, and you know when God says stuff, it's worth remembering and taking particular interest in. So God says "no idols", you should really be thinking, "Yeah, no idols, right on." I can't remember off the top of my head how long it took them to walk to Mount Sinai, but Moses spent about 40 days up there, so let's give them two months between escaping Egypt and making the first idol. It seems awful, but you know this is probably the longest they have held out without a king telling them not to.
vs 8
This verse, though, seems to be talking about an idolatry that was taking place inside Egypt, before they were even removed from her. Now we see the full on mercy of God. Because God could have said, "Okay, I'll save you from Egypt, but not until you've cleaned up your act." And Israel would have then perished in Egypt, because we all know how good they are at cleaning up their act. Or they might have done it long enough to get out of Egypt, and then still made the gold calf when they got to Sinai. Who knows, since it didn't happen that way. God was so upset that at some point he talks about just pouring out his wrath on his own people in Egypt and letting it all come to naught.
vs 9
It was not his love for Israel that stayed his hand. Well, that's not the element that he is focusing on, anyway. No, it was his desire for the glory of his name to continue among the nations. God is not fickle, in that he chooses his actions based on a popularity poll from the other nations. He's not saying, "Oh, I won't wipe out Israel today, because the other nations will think bad of me, and I couldn't stand that, they might vote me off the show".
It's almost like - but I still think off the mark - God is involved in some sort of cosmic damage control of his name. Having sworn to be Israel's people already, God is now sort of stuck with them, and so he is trying to limit the damage to his name that they are producing, and so releases them from Egypt instead of keeping them in captivity, despite their less-than-perfect nature.
In reality, though, God has everything under total control. God could have smote the Israelites in Egypt, but he wanted the nations to see that he keeps his promises, and that he is slow to anger. He wanted them to see just how far he would stretch his love and his covenant for them.
vs 10
Now the wilderness wasn't exactly flowing with milk and honey. It was going to be the stage of some of Israel's big failures, a lot of whinging, and a big number of displays of power by God. The story continues, as we all know, but it will be interesting to see what God highlights for Ezekiel to tell these elders at this time.
What is interesting, and this point is often made again and again by scholars, is just how grounded in the pentateuch the prophets are. What is Ezekiel's answer to the elders to be? Well, start with Jacob, and Egypt, and tell them about how God saved them way back then. This is living history, but also showing the long memory of God, and the enduring importance of the Mosaic covenant in the era of the major prophets.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 19
vs 1
Well, this is a new start to a chapter at least. Now we're talking about taking up laments. Interesting and different, at least.
vs 2
Is that a compliment? It sounds like a compliment to me.
vs 3
Surely a good lioness is the one that rears strong cubs. So so far it actually sounds like things are starting well. But then, if it's a lament, I guess you have to show that things were good and now are bad.
vs 4
Ack! Poor lion.
vs 5
Interesting idea we have now - so the lioness raises another strong cub, because the first has been captured by the nations and led away to Egypt.
vs 6
Repetitive, but we get the idea.
vs 7
That's one scary ass lion. I don't want to live in a place where lions actually break down walls and come into towns to eat people.
vs 8
Once again, the nations are too strong. It is, after all, just a lion.
vs 9
So I think it's pretty obvious by now that the lion is Israel. The first time she goes into captivity in Egypt. But then the second time it will be in Babylon. Israel may have been powerful and rich, but it was still never more than a relatively small country.
vs 10
Okay, I think we're going onto a new analogy here.
vs 11
I didn't know vine wood was used to make handles for scepters. Doesn't this sort of cancel out what he said about vine wood being useless? Perhaps this is the mark of just how healthy the vine is - so healthy that its wood actually becomes useful for something.
vs 12
What the hell? Who gets angry against a vine that is healthy and produces lots of fruit? Was it the unwitting result of a marriage dispute or something?
vs 13
Ahhhh. I mean, I still don't know who would do this to a vine, but if you were to have a beef with a vine, this would be a fitting punishment.
vs 14
And so the vine is quite obviously owned, some pretty serious punishment there, vinewise. So there are some laments for Israel to sing at this point - their land was fertile, they were strong, but now they are captive in the lands of the nations, now their vine grows weak and on fire in the desert. Why? Well, you'd have to be totally ignorant of the previous chapters to not have any idea. Because they have disobeyed God's covenant and turned away from him, of course.
Now here's a question for you: who is the mother? Is the mother God? Or is the mother the leadership of Israel? I can't see an easy answer here. In the context of what we've read so far, I would say God. The only reason I would say the leaders is because the lament is concerning them.
Well, this is a new start to a chapter at least. Now we're talking about taking up laments. Interesting and different, at least.
vs 2
Is that a compliment? It sounds like a compliment to me.
vs 3
Surely a good lioness is the one that rears strong cubs. So so far it actually sounds like things are starting well. But then, if it's a lament, I guess you have to show that things were good and now are bad.
vs 4
Ack! Poor lion.
vs 5
Interesting idea we have now - so the lioness raises another strong cub, because the first has been captured by the nations and led away to Egypt.
vs 6
Repetitive, but we get the idea.
vs 7
That's one scary ass lion. I don't want to live in a place where lions actually break down walls and come into towns to eat people.
vs 8
Once again, the nations are too strong. It is, after all, just a lion.
vs 9
So I think it's pretty obvious by now that the lion is Israel. The first time she goes into captivity in Egypt. But then the second time it will be in Babylon. Israel may have been powerful and rich, but it was still never more than a relatively small country.
vs 10
Okay, I think we're going onto a new analogy here.
vs 11
I didn't know vine wood was used to make handles for scepters. Doesn't this sort of cancel out what he said about vine wood being useless? Perhaps this is the mark of just how healthy the vine is - so healthy that its wood actually becomes useful for something.
vs 12
What the hell? Who gets angry against a vine that is healthy and produces lots of fruit? Was it the unwitting result of a marriage dispute or something?
vs 13
Ahhhh. I mean, I still don't know who would do this to a vine, but if you were to have a beef with a vine, this would be a fitting punishment.
vs 14
And so the vine is quite obviously owned, some pretty serious punishment there, vinewise. So there are some laments for Israel to sing at this point - their land was fertile, they were strong, but now they are captive in the lands of the nations, now their vine grows weak and on fire in the desert. Why? Well, you'd have to be totally ignorant of the previous chapters to not have any idea. Because they have disobeyed God's covenant and turned away from him, of course.
Now here's a question for you: who is the mother? Is the mother God? Or is the mother the leadership of Israel? I can't see an easy answer here. In the context of what we've read so far, I would say God. The only reason I would say the leaders is because the lament is concerning them.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 18
vs 21
Repentance has always been a part of God's plan for wicked people. This really is all God demands - that the wicked repent of their ways and turn to God's righteous ways before him. In this way, Jesus' ministry was nothing new.
vs 22
And there it is, the remission of sins, the forgetting of iniquities. The challenge to our way if thinking about how God works in salvation and faith and righteousness is here presented in the way perhaps James would present it were he and OT prophet and not a NT letter writer.
vs 23
God has his will, and his will includes the penalty for sin being death, and the just judgment of all wickedness. That doesn't mean he takes a perverse pleasure in it. Rather, God demands it out of the need for perfection. But what tickles God's fancy, what he really wants, is for people to turn to him, give up their wicked ways, and be saved through righteousness and trust in God. Because all of this, of course, relies on trusting God. The righteous acts themselves won't save you if God doesn't save you.
vs 24
So the opposite also applies. Righteousness and wickedness are not just actions, they are states of being. They can be adhered to or turned from. Your actions play a part, but they are not all pervasive measurements. We know this, because we know that even wicked people can do the occasional righteous thing, and righteous people can do the occasional wicked thing. This is Hebrew culture, not Greek. It's not in stricter philosophical delination. It's earthy and gritty and real - if chapter 16 didn't convince you of that already.
vs 25
This is not just a 'your momma' contest. One of the ways that people try and justify their deeds is by changing the goal posts on what is considered righteous. It's interesting, actually, because this is the first time I've seen this challenge to God in black and white, that I can remember, from the Bible. I mean, I've heard it posed philosophically, and the closest argument that challenges it is the ontological argument, but it really only does so on a theoretical basis. But God relies on the truth of his justice to speak for itself. Will not truth stand out from error?
The thing is, it won't always. Truth is always truth, but we aren't always perfect to see it. It's up to God ultimately whether we see it or not.
vs 26
This is God's justice, and the proof of his justice.
vs 27
This is proof of God's mercy - that those who have been deserving of just retribution can be forgiven.
vs 28
This is a strong passage. To me, it sounds like it indicates that repentance is not just a turning away from the point at which you do it, but it is retrospective - you turn away from previous actions of wickedness. This of course makes sense, because you can't exactly go on as righteous whilst giving creedence to wicked acts of the past. I've never really thought of that.
vs 29
The repeat of this idea I guess signals the completeness of this little section. Would people prefer justice without mercy? Or mercy without justice? No, really God's way is the best. Not really unexpected.
vs 30
God still, still! STILL! calls for people to repent, even in this great book of judgment, where he is going to destroy his city, his temple, his people. The call truly never goes away. It might be to late for the temple, too late for Jerusalem, too late for Israel, too late for the exiles in one sense - but it's never too late to repent.
vs 31
God shows that the choice for life or death is still in the hands of his people. Why would they choose death, when God is calling out to them to live? This is, of course, the exact same call God made to the people at the end of the law in Deuteronomy. Will they choose death or life?
vs 32
God doesn't want them to die. He wants them to repent and live! In fact, you could go so far as to say that God commands them to do this, as it is his will. Most people probably wouldn't put it in those terms, because they like the idea of a God softly gently catchy monkey. But if you're going to be wicked and rebel against God, then you're going to rebel against his command to repent too, aren't you? So he can command it all he wants. He has the authority to do so. There is a relationship at stake too, but the relationship is one of authority, in the same way that a father has authority over a son and so can give commands, or can kick them out of the family. It doesn't mean the father doesn't love his son.
Repentance has always been a part of God's plan for wicked people. This really is all God demands - that the wicked repent of their ways and turn to God's righteous ways before him. In this way, Jesus' ministry was nothing new.
vs 22
And there it is, the remission of sins, the forgetting of iniquities. The challenge to our way if thinking about how God works in salvation and faith and righteousness is here presented in the way perhaps James would present it were he and OT prophet and not a NT letter writer.
vs 23
God has his will, and his will includes the penalty for sin being death, and the just judgment of all wickedness. That doesn't mean he takes a perverse pleasure in it. Rather, God demands it out of the need for perfection. But what tickles God's fancy, what he really wants, is for people to turn to him, give up their wicked ways, and be saved through righteousness and trust in God. Because all of this, of course, relies on trusting God. The righteous acts themselves won't save you if God doesn't save you.
vs 24
So the opposite also applies. Righteousness and wickedness are not just actions, they are states of being. They can be adhered to or turned from. Your actions play a part, but they are not all pervasive measurements. We know this, because we know that even wicked people can do the occasional righteous thing, and righteous people can do the occasional wicked thing. This is Hebrew culture, not Greek. It's not in stricter philosophical delination. It's earthy and gritty and real - if chapter 16 didn't convince you of that already.
vs 25
This is not just a 'your momma' contest. One of the ways that people try and justify their deeds is by changing the goal posts on what is considered righteous. It's interesting, actually, because this is the first time I've seen this challenge to God in black and white, that I can remember, from the Bible. I mean, I've heard it posed philosophically, and the closest argument that challenges it is the ontological argument, but it really only does so on a theoretical basis. But God relies on the truth of his justice to speak for itself. Will not truth stand out from error?
The thing is, it won't always. Truth is always truth, but we aren't always perfect to see it. It's up to God ultimately whether we see it or not.
vs 26
This is God's justice, and the proof of his justice.
vs 27
This is proof of God's mercy - that those who have been deserving of just retribution can be forgiven.
vs 28
This is a strong passage. To me, it sounds like it indicates that repentance is not just a turning away from the point at which you do it, but it is retrospective - you turn away from previous actions of wickedness. This of course makes sense, because you can't exactly go on as righteous whilst giving creedence to wicked acts of the past. I've never really thought of that.
vs 29
The repeat of this idea I guess signals the completeness of this little section. Would people prefer justice without mercy? Or mercy without justice? No, really God's way is the best. Not really unexpected.
vs 30
God still, still! STILL! calls for people to repent, even in this great book of judgment, where he is going to destroy his city, his temple, his people. The call truly never goes away. It might be to late for the temple, too late for Jerusalem, too late for Israel, too late for the exiles in one sense - but it's never too late to repent.
vs 31
God shows that the choice for life or death is still in the hands of his people. Why would they choose death, when God is calling out to them to live? This is, of course, the exact same call God made to the people at the end of the law in Deuteronomy. Will they choose death or life?
vs 32
God doesn't want them to die. He wants them to repent and live! In fact, you could go so far as to say that God commands them to do this, as it is his will. Most people probably wouldn't put it in those terms, because they like the idea of a God softly gently catchy monkey. But if you're going to be wicked and rebel against God, then you're going to rebel against his command to repent too, aren't you? So he can command it all he wants. He has the authority to do so. There is a relationship at stake too, but the relationship is one of authority, in the same way that a father has authority over a son and so can give commands, or can kick them out of the family. It doesn't mean the father doesn't love his son.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 18
vs 11
So this father, who is righteous, has a son who is... shall we say less than righteous? A total let down, and quite corrupt.
vs 12
Detestable is used quite a lot in Ezekiel. I think it describes this son pretty well.
vs 13
I love this verse. "Will he live?" and you're thinking, "Oh, he'll be happy for a while, in his selfish ways, doing these awful practices." But God's like, "Wrong! He'll die!" Wickedness gets punished.
vs 14
And you think this is crazy, but not only does it happen in real life, but we also see it happen with the kings of Israel - well, Judah. The kings of Israel are basically all detestable. But the kings of Judah have some good seeds, even after they have really, really bad fathers.
vs 15
The repetition here is quite obvious, and we assume purposeful. It lets us know what kinds of things are being done in Ezekiel's time, I assume - because they are the things he is picking on. Idolatry obviously being big, along with sexual immorality (if you didn't pick that up from, say, chapter 16).
vs 16
You notice, though, how much of it revolves around oppression of the weak and poor. This is the injustice and oppression that Ezekiel talks about so much. God's society might have rich and poor, but it was not meant to oppress the poor and delinate class structures so heavily. It had a generational reset button!
vs 17
God has shown quite strongly here that, over three generations, he will judge only the sin of the individual. Of course, those of us who read more broadly know that this doesn't mean that the sin of person number 2 doesn't hurt both person number 1 and person number 3 in the generational chain. But that doesn't mean it will condemn them. That's the point here. Yes, grandchild (3) might grow up in an abusive household, or grandparent (1) might get assaulted by child (2), just to give obvious examples. But 1 and 3 won't be condemned for the actions of 2 unless they also act in those ways.
vs 18
Now of course 1 and 3 will also die - I mean, everyone was expecting that anyway. But they won't die in God's judgment. The thing is that, reading this description, how many people do you know who it fits now, let alone that it would have fit at the time this prophecy was being given? Exactly.
It's easy for us now to say things like, "Bad people go to hell, and righteous people go to heaven", the idea of eternal punishment or reward guiding where such people go (yes, oversimplified). It's a lot harder when you're talking in terms of just life and death to see the deliniation, isn't it? Because everyone dies. So the term must have a more pregnant meaning. It's like saying that, "DUI drivers die" or "Smokers die" or "People with AIDS die" or "Starving kids die". I mean, of course they die, everyone dies (rapture excepted). But you know what I mean when I say those things - I'm saying that "those practices lead to death". There's a difference.
vs 19
Because basically God is awesome.
vs 20
Yes, those acts will have temporal consequences - righteous things will affect people generally positively, and wickedness will make life harder for lots of people. But it won't affect God's judgment of people ultimately. CS Lewis thinks it will in a way - the idea being that God knows the situation of the individual and judges them according to what God gave them and how they dealt with that. I don't have a problem with that, because it allows for both a subjective and objective judgment within the one action, which is paradoxical, and therefore fits God perfectly.
And yes, I know it's not necessarily paradoxical, but it certainly has some problematic overlap which would not be easily resolvable if you weren't God.Luckily for us, God is God. Makes things easier.
So this father, who is righteous, has a son who is... shall we say less than righteous? A total let down, and quite corrupt.
vs 12
Detestable is used quite a lot in Ezekiel. I think it describes this son pretty well.
vs 13
I love this verse. "Will he live?" and you're thinking, "Oh, he'll be happy for a while, in his selfish ways, doing these awful practices." But God's like, "Wrong! He'll die!" Wickedness gets punished.
vs 14
And you think this is crazy, but not only does it happen in real life, but we also see it happen with the kings of Israel - well, Judah. The kings of Israel are basically all detestable. But the kings of Judah have some good seeds, even after they have really, really bad fathers.
vs 15
The repetition here is quite obvious, and we assume purposeful. It lets us know what kinds of things are being done in Ezekiel's time, I assume - because they are the things he is picking on. Idolatry obviously being big, along with sexual immorality (if you didn't pick that up from, say, chapter 16).
vs 16
You notice, though, how much of it revolves around oppression of the weak and poor. This is the injustice and oppression that Ezekiel talks about so much. God's society might have rich and poor, but it was not meant to oppress the poor and delinate class structures so heavily. It had a generational reset button!
vs 17
God has shown quite strongly here that, over three generations, he will judge only the sin of the individual. Of course, those of us who read more broadly know that this doesn't mean that the sin of person number 2 doesn't hurt both person number 1 and person number 3 in the generational chain. But that doesn't mean it will condemn them. That's the point here. Yes, grandchild (3) might grow up in an abusive household, or grandparent (1) might get assaulted by child (2), just to give obvious examples. But 1 and 3 won't be condemned for the actions of 2 unless they also act in those ways.
vs 18
Now of course 1 and 3 will also die - I mean, everyone was expecting that anyway. But they won't die in God's judgment. The thing is that, reading this description, how many people do you know who it fits now, let alone that it would have fit at the time this prophecy was being given? Exactly.
It's easy for us now to say things like, "Bad people go to hell, and righteous people go to heaven", the idea of eternal punishment or reward guiding where such people go (yes, oversimplified). It's a lot harder when you're talking in terms of just life and death to see the deliniation, isn't it? Because everyone dies. So the term must have a more pregnant meaning. It's like saying that, "DUI drivers die" or "Smokers die" or "People with AIDS die" or "Starving kids die". I mean, of course they die, everyone dies (rapture excepted). But you know what I mean when I say those things - I'm saying that "those practices lead to death". There's a difference.
vs 19
Because basically God is awesome.
vs 20
Yes, those acts will have temporal consequences - righteous things will affect people generally positively, and wickedness will make life harder for lots of people. But it won't affect God's judgment of people ultimately. CS Lewis thinks it will in a way - the idea being that God knows the situation of the individual and judges them according to what God gave them and how they dealt with that. I don't have a problem with that, because it allows for both a subjective and objective judgment within the one action, which is paradoxical, and therefore fits God perfectly.
And yes, I know it's not necessarily paradoxical, but it certainly has some problematic overlap which would not be easily resolvable if you weren't God.Luckily for us, God is God. Makes things easier.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 18
vs 1
As is to be expected by now.
vs 2
I assume the proverb means the parents do something, the children reap the results of it.
vs 3
Ahh yes, because God plans on making the results come home to roost for this generation of parents.
vs 4
I will point out that this is normative - in that everyone dies. But direct correlation is not normative, even here. God is punishing these people for the sins of generations that have heaped up. Now, if they'd been righteous too, he might have held back, but they're not.
vs 5
Oh, speaking of righteous people.
vs 6
All just rules relating to cleanliness and purity and following Mosaic law.
vs 7
So he's also kind to the poor and needy.
vs 8
Fairness and justice, and also assistance. Anyone can lend money to the poor. It's lending money without getting a profit that's the key to helping someone.
vs 9
So even if there is a righteous person, he shouldn't fear, for God will spare him. Well, he will live. "Spare him" may be too generous a term. The thing is, God can pick the righteous people... if there are any.
vs 10
Oh dear, now we're upping the ante a little. What will it mean for the righteous man with the violent son?
As is to be expected by now.
vs 2
I assume the proverb means the parents do something, the children reap the results of it.
vs 3
Ahh yes, because God plans on making the results come home to roost for this generation of parents.
vs 4
I will point out that this is normative - in that everyone dies. But direct correlation is not normative, even here. God is punishing these people for the sins of generations that have heaped up. Now, if they'd been righteous too, he might have held back, but they're not.
vs 5
Oh, speaking of righteous people.
vs 6
All just rules relating to cleanliness and purity and following Mosaic law.
vs 7
So he's also kind to the poor and needy.
vs 8
Fairness and justice, and also assistance. Anyone can lend money to the poor. It's lending money without getting a profit that's the key to helping someone.
vs 9
So even if there is a righteous person, he shouldn't fear, for God will spare him. Well, he will live. "Spare him" may be too generous a term. The thing is, God can pick the righteous people... if there are any.
vs 10
Oh dear, now we're upping the ante a little. What will it mean for the righteous man with the violent son?
Friday, July 09, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 17
vs 13
It sounds like a fairly forced treaty we're talking about. It's very common to take a member of the royal family who isn't far off succession and make them king, then force them to make a treaty with you since you made them king instead of the rightful king, who you killed or something.
The idea of taking leading men of the land is not uncommon for the age - basically you take the best and brightest (usually indicated by wealth and rank - it's not like they did IQ and skills tests beforehand) and you educate them and make them your own, get them to work for your cause, hence weakening the vassal state further. In other words, the country in question is boned.
vs 14
There you go, that's pretty much what I was talking about. Skim off the cream of the population, and the workers pretty much just keep doing what they're doing.
vs 15
This is one of those stupid things puppet kings can do to get themselves into a world of trouble. The rhetorical questions I think here are to be answered in the negative. Little vassal states don't survive when they try to break free and are still weak. And even if they did, they would only become a vassal to Egypt.
Now we can get a little theological. God had told Israel not to go back to Egypt, not to get horses from them, not to ask them for help. So this vassal is now doubly boned, because he's rebelling against both God and Babylon.
vs 16
Hey, look, an answer to a rhetorical question. Yay!
vs 17
The only reason Egypt would go to war to save Israel is because they were looking for an excuse to fight Babylon.
vs 18
The funny thing is that God is upset that, even though the Israeli king was forced into the treaty more or less against his will, he didn't stick to it. I can't say for sure why, but my opinion is that people always have a choice. He could have said, "I'd rather die than sign this treaty" - and then been killed - but at least that's a choice. Christians have had to make that decision in the past, and have died rather than bowing to Allah or the emperor or whatever. You might think that's not exactly the same as keeping a treaty here, but the politics of Israel is very much wed to her allegience to God, so I think this is legitimate.
vs 19
You see, the leader of Israel is not just a breaker of treaties and covenants with other nations - he has broken his treaty with God. All the people have, really. So this picture is of what has actually already happened I believe, or is going to happen soon, but God is using it to describe why he is also angry with his people. And if you would expect Babylon to be angry, then you should expect God to be angry too.
vs 20
God will in fact use Babylon as his punishment sphere, so that Babylon and God get their just desserts at the same time. Efficient!
vs 21
So this is going to happen, it seems, and God is making a proclamation about the result. Israel will lose all its good troops, whether it be her own or those she borrows of Egypt, and will be scattered and broken.
vs 22
God is like an eagle that does horticulture, you see.
vs 23
He's talking about Israel. He might even be talking about Mount Zion, and talking about the future Israel where all people will come to him. We'd call it heaven.
vs 24
As nation trees go, the heavenly tree will be the most glorious. I think I can safely say that it's heaven and a new Israel, because Israel has not really become a jewel of nations again, like it was under Solomon. If Israel goes through a second golden age, then I'll be proved wrong. But I would honestly be surprised, because my view is that Israel as a nation is passed, and Israel as a "people of God" is now Christianity, the new Israel. And our hope is in heaven, not in an earthly city.
It sounds like a fairly forced treaty we're talking about. It's very common to take a member of the royal family who isn't far off succession and make them king, then force them to make a treaty with you since you made them king instead of the rightful king, who you killed or something.
The idea of taking leading men of the land is not uncommon for the age - basically you take the best and brightest (usually indicated by wealth and rank - it's not like they did IQ and skills tests beforehand) and you educate them and make them your own, get them to work for your cause, hence weakening the vassal state further. In other words, the country in question is boned.
vs 14
There you go, that's pretty much what I was talking about. Skim off the cream of the population, and the workers pretty much just keep doing what they're doing.
vs 15
This is one of those stupid things puppet kings can do to get themselves into a world of trouble. The rhetorical questions I think here are to be answered in the negative. Little vassal states don't survive when they try to break free and are still weak. And even if they did, they would only become a vassal to Egypt.
Now we can get a little theological. God had told Israel not to go back to Egypt, not to get horses from them, not to ask them for help. So this vassal is now doubly boned, because he's rebelling against both God and Babylon.
vs 16
Hey, look, an answer to a rhetorical question. Yay!
vs 17
The only reason Egypt would go to war to save Israel is because they were looking for an excuse to fight Babylon.
vs 18
The funny thing is that God is upset that, even though the Israeli king was forced into the treaty more or less against his will, he didn't stick to it. I can't say for sure why, but my opinion is that people always have a choice. He could have said, "I'd rather die than sign this treaty" - and then been killed - but at least that's a choice. Christians have had to make that decision in the past, and have died rather than bowing to Allah or the emperor or whatever. You might think that's not exactly the same as keeping a treaty here, but the politics of Israel is very much wed to her allegience to God, so I think this is legitimate.
vs 19
You see, the leader of Israel is not just a breaker of treaties and covenants with other nations - he has broken his treaty with God. All the people have, really. So this picture is of what has actually already happened I believe, or is going to happen soon, but God is using it to describe why he is also angry with his people. And if you would expect Babylon to be angry, then you should expect God to be angry too.
vs 20
God will in fact use Babylon as his punishment sphere, so that Babylon and God get their just desserts at the same time. Efficient!
vs 21
So this is going to happen, it seems, and God is making a proclamation about the result. Israel will lose all its good troops, whether it be her own or those she borrows of Egypt, and will be scattered and broken.
vs 22
God is like an eagle that does horticulture, you see.
vs 23
He's talking about Israel. He might even be talking about Mount Zion, and talking about the future Israel where all people will come to him. We'd call it heaven.
vs 24
As nation trees go, the heavenly tree will be the most glorious. I think I can safely say that it's heaven and a new Israel, because Israel has not really become a jewel of nations again, like it was under Solomon. If Israel goes through a second golden age, then I'll be proved wrong. But I would honestly be surprised, because my view is that Israel as a nation is passed, and Israel as a "people of God" is now Christianity, the new Israel. And our hope is in heaven, not in an earthly city.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 17
I would have started Ezekiel 17 yesterday, but there was a blackout! Which is good really, because I needed the sleep in.
vs 1
Indeed.
vs 2
The KJV and NASB use the word 'riddle', so we'll see if it's a riddle or an allegory when we get there. No doubt the word for 'allegory' in ancient Hebrew is fairly similar to 'riddle', seeing as it's an ancient language that was based primarily on a spoken form.
vs 3
Okay, picture one in our story is an eagle with various colours, that flies into Lebanon and grabs the top of a tree - even if you have no idea what cedar trees are, if you read enough of the Bible you learn pretty quick that Lebanon is famous for them.
vs 4
The eagle takes this topshoot of the tree, breaks it off, and plants it in another land, a land of merchants and traders... where is this? Perhaps we'll get more hints.
vs 5
Because, you know, eagles are masters of horticulture. The point being that the seed is being well planted in a good spot.
vs 6
It's not a tree, but hey, it is an allegory. A spreading vine that sounds pretty healthy, well rooted, and has lots of leaves and... vines.
vs 7
Okay, we have a second great eagle, also rather splendid, and the vine seems to be growing out towards this new eagle, looking for water. The vine had already grown out towards the first eagle (I'm not sure why vines would grow towards people - er, eagles - that sounds very triffidy to me. I must admit when plants start doing things like growing towards people, it makes me think of kudzu or something. I doubt this is the effect that Ezekiel is going for.
vs 8
This verse is retelling the earlier point - is it showing that the vine is making the wrong decision growing towards the new eagle, since it should just look to its planted position for everything it needs, given to it by the first eagle?
vs 9
Damn you, Ezekiel, and your rhetorical questions! The thing is of course that by now we know that the rhetorical questions are pretty much always answered the same way. There is usually an obvious negative, followed by a few positives. So in this case, will the vine thrive? The answer is no, it will wither. The reason is because it will be uprooted, because it is easily uprooted.
The question for us is, why? Is it because it was reaching out for water in a place it shouldn't have been? That seems to be the picture of Israel that I expect, anyway.
vs 10
Because of the way the vine grew, it will whither - not because of where it was planted, or because of who planted it. i think that's the lesson.
vs 11
More word.
vs 12
OH! Snap, so we're talking about the first exile to Babylon here. Oh, this is going to be good. I'm looking forward to reading more of this. Tomorrow, we learn what this parable/riddle/allegory means.
vs 1
Indeed.
vs 2
The KJV and NASB use the word 'riddle', so we'll see if it's a riddle or an allegory when we get there. No doubt the word for 'allegory' in ancient Hebrew is fairly similar to 'riddle', seeing as it's an ancient language that was based primarily on a spoken form.
vs 3
Okay, picture one in our story is an eagle with various colours, that flies into Lebanon and grabs the top of a tree - even if you have no idea what cedar trees are, if you read enough of the Bible you learn pretty quick that Lebanon is famous for them.
vs 4
The eagle takes this topshoot of the tree, breaks it off, and plants it in another land, a land of merchants and traders... where is this? Perhaps we'll get more hints.
vs 5
Because, you know, eagles are masters of horticulture. The point being that the seed is being well planted in a good spot.
vs 6
It's not a tree, but hey, it is an allegory. A spreading vine that sounds pretty healthy, well rooted, and has lots of leaves and... vines.
vs 7
Okay, we have a second great eagle, also rather splendid, and the vine seems to be growing out towards this new eagle, looking for water. The vine had already grown out towards the first eagle (I'm not sure why vines would grow towards people - er, eagles - that sounds very triffidy to me. I must admit when plants start doing things like growing towards people, it makes me think of kudzu or something. I doubt this is the effect that Ezekiel is going for.
vs 8
This verse is retelling the earlier point - is it showing that the vine is making the wrong decision growing towards the new eagle, since it should just look to its planted position for everything it needs, given to it by the first eagle?
vs 9
Damn you, Ezekiel, and your rhetorical questions! The thing is of course that by now we know that the rhetorical questions are pretty much always answered the same way. There is usually an obvious negative, followed by a few positives. So in this case, will the vine thrive? The answer is no, it will wither. The reason is because it will be uprooted, because it is easily uprooted.
The question for us is, why? Is it because it was reaching out for water in a place it shouldn't have been? That seems to be the picture of Israel that I expect, anyway.
vs 10
Because of the way the vine grew, it will whither - not because of where it was planted, or because of who planted it. i think that's the lesson.
vs 11
More word.
vs 12
OH! Snap, so we're talking about the first exile to Babylon here. Oh, this is going to be good. I'm looking forward to reading more of this. Tomorrow, we learn what this parable/riddle/allegory means.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 16
vs 51
Oh, that's not good. It boggles the mind really how Israel could fall so far. The apple of God's eye, his chosen people, and yet they manage to stray and become worse than the peoples around her. I guess it's like the rebellious kids of church pastors. Although I can't say I know any, I'm getting that picture entirely from TV.
vs 52
So now Israel should be upset about its disgrace, and bearing it with sorrow, because where she should have been the righteous one, whom people should have looked to to see how to live properly, instead she has become so wanton that people look to non-godly people for a good role model!
vs 53
This is an interesting verse. The NASB and KJV talk about God restoring the "captivity" of these places, whereas the (T)NIV talks about restoring the "fortunes", obviously meaning fairly different things. At least, I don't see the overlap - but then, I don't know the history of Samaria and Sodom really, do I? The history of Israel I know a bit more about, and restoring their captivity would obviously mean a reference back to Egypt, which is exactly what's going to happen to them - they're going back into captivity.
vs 54
So it's not good fortune being returned. It's bad fortune, the kind of fortune that makes Israel bear their shame and disgrace for all they have done against God.
vs 55
Oooh, so Israel returns to being a slave, and I guess Sodom and Samaria return to being bad examples? Probably mostly because people can't turn and point to Israel, because it's no longer a nation after it gets captured and exiled.
vs 56
"Hey, have you met my sister Sodom? She likes to be totally immoral and is basically vile." Yeah, not the sort of thing you say at a church function.
vs 57
Now this nation, who used to talk about how God was with them, and would protect them and enlarge their territory, and how they were basically better than the other nations because they were God's treasured possession, have been uncovered over the centuries to be just like everyone else - or even worse.
vs 58
I suppose some adulteresses can hide their lewdness, but Israel certainly can't. In fact, just think about the fact that I'm reading about how horribly sinful they are right here in their own holy book. That's been immortalised for them forever. Yay.
vs 59
I don't know what happens to covenant breakers. According to my lessons, the reasons covenants were marked with blood was because it was like saying, "This is what will happen to you if you break this covenant." So that's obviously not going to go well for Jerusalem. In the vassal-suzerain covenantal idea, I suppose the suzerain just punishes you, or conquers you and flattens you to the ground.
vs 60
Only God would do that, and I don't say that lightly. What other covenant does humanity make that we would not break with someone who was so terrible, so infidelous, so selfish and despicable? I mean, I can't even say it's like a marriage covenant, because I think most people would have divorced Israel long ago.
vs 61
What an interesting statement. Back in the day, of course, Israel was its own little kingdom and ruled over the surrounding mini-nations. But I don't think God is promising that again, because he's saying it won't be on the same terms. Now, the sisters of Israel will become her daughters - I wonder if God means spiritually, as in when he calls the nations to himself through Christ?
vs 62
This is the good bit. The bad bit is everything that God has promised leading up to this bit.
vs 63
Israel - or what was left of them - really did change, too. I mean, no, they did not become God's perfect poeple. But something did change for them after their exile. Just like they changed during the 400 years of silence, the intertestamental period. I'd be humiliated if I were described in these terms, for sure.
Oh, that's not good. It boggles the mind really how Israel could fall so far. The apple of God's eye, his chosen people, and yet they manage to stray and become worse than the peoples around her. I guess it's like the rebellious kids of church pastors. Although I can't say I know any, I'm getting that picture entirely from TV.
vs 52
So now Israel should be upset about its disgrace, and bearing it with sorrow, because where she should have been the righteous one, whom people should have looked to to see how to live properly, instead she has become so wanton that people look to non-godly people for a good role model!
vs 53
This is an interesting verse. The NASB and KJV talk about God restoring the "captivity" of these places, whereas the (T)NIV talks about restoring the "fortunes", obviously meaning fairly different things. At least, I don't see the overlap - but then, I don't know the history of Samaria and Sodom really, do I? The history of Israel I know a bit more about, and restoring their captivity would obviously mean a reference back to Egypt, which is exactly what's going to happen to them - they're going back into captivity.
vs 54
So it's not good fortune being returned. It's bad fortune, the kind of fortune that makes Israel bear their shame and disgrace for all they have done against God.
vs 55
Oooh, so Israel returns to being a slave, and I guess Sodom and Samaria return to being bad examples? Probably mostly because people can't turn and point to Israel, because it's no longer a nation after it gets captured and exiled.
vs 56
"Hey, have you met my sister Sodom? She likes to be totally immoral and is basically vile." Yeah, not the sort of thing you say at a church function.
vs 57
Now this nation, who used to talk about how God was with them, and would protect them and enlarge their territory, and how they were basically better than the other nations because they were God's treasured possession, have been uncovered over the centuries to be just like everyone else - or even worse.
vs 58
I suppose some adulteresses can hide their lewdness, but Israel certainly can't. In fact, just think about the fact that I'm reading about how horribly sinful they are right here in their own holy book. That's been immortalised for them forever. Yay.
vs 59
I don't know what happens to covenant breakers. According to my lessons, the reasons covenants were marked with blood was because it was like saying, "This is what will happen to you if you break this covenant." So that's obviously not going to go well for Jerusalem. In the vassal-suzerain covenantal idea, I suppose the suzerain just punishes you, or conquers you and flattens you to the ground.
vs 60
Only God would do that, and I don't say that lightly. What other covenant does humanity make that we would not break with someone who was so terrible, so infidelous, so selfish and despicable? I mean, I can't even say it's like a marriage covenant, because I think most people would have divorced Israel long ago.
vs 61
What an interesting statement. Back in the day, of course, Israel was its own little kingdom and ruled over the surrounding mini-nations. But I don't think God is promising that again, because he's saying it won't be on the same terms. Now, the sisters of Israel will become her daughters - I wonder if God means spiritually, as in when he calls the nations to himself through Christ?
vs 62
This is the good bit. The bad bit is everything that God has promised leading up to this bit.
vs 63
Israel - or what was left of them - really did change, too. I mean, no, they did not become God's perfect poeple. But something did change for them after their exile. Just like they changed during the 400 years of silence, the intertestamental period. I'd be humiliated if I were described in these terms, for sure.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 16
v 41
That's one hell of a punishment. Economically, publicly, libertarily punished. I don't know if that's a word, but I know what it means.
v 42
Well, isn't that nice to know... seriously, we would tell each other that if we get angry, we should calm down before we lose it and beat our wives, or we would say that if we're going to punish someone for wrongdoing (say a child) we should do it out of righteousness, not in anger.
But God can never do anything wrong. So he can punish someone while angry, and his anger will then subside, and the punishment was still perfect.
v 43
God punishes his people because they have forgotten their roots, and forgotten him. And they were lewd about it, to add insult to injury.
v 44
But wait, who was her mother? The metaphor is stretching here, and I hope it gets explained.
v 45
Okay. So basically out of the people of the earth came Israel (or more correctly Jerusalem) and of course all the people of the earth are sinful and turn their backs on God.
v 46
Basically a bunch of peoples who never really cared that much about God. But that was just the city surely. I mean, David would have no doubt cleaned it out of its former inhabitants. But I guess God's point is that the new ones that moved in weren't any better.
v 47
See, this is the thing. Israel inherited an empty city (well, cleaned it out, but you know what I mean). And yet, they still ended up living like the people who lived there before, and even became worse. This is not what you expect of the people of God.
v 48
That's pretty harsh. We're talking about a city that God destroyed by raining down sulfur and fire on it. And his own people were even more despicable. And he's telling them so.
v 49
So for your information, it wasn't just about the surprise buttsex. That was a symptom of the real problem - arrogant, overfed and unconcerned. An "abundance of idleness" as the KJV says. They didn't help the poor and needy, they just lived their fatcat lives, and thought they could do whatever they wanted.
v 50
And so God wiped them out. Bam. This would tell plenty of us today that we are overdue for an ass kicking, surely. I'm not the kind of person to harp on this point, but really as the last vestiges of Christian culture disappear, things do get worse. Don't get me wrong, I don't think culture saves people, I think Christ saves people. And culture alone didn't prevent heinous acts either, I'll bet. But a majority of believing Christians in population probably helped. How did they lose power? I guess because they ignored the Shema, and they didn't pass it on to their kids properly. Bam.
Yes, that's two bams.
That's one hell of a punishment. Economically, publicly, libertarily punished. I don't know if that's a word, but I know what it means.
v 42
Well, isn't that nice to know... seriously, we would tell each other that if we get angry, we should calm down before we lose it and beat our wives, or we would say that if we're going to punish someone for wrongdoing (say a child) we should do it out of righteousness, not in anger.
But God can never do anything wrong. So he can punish someone while angry, and his anger will then subside, and the punishment was still perfect.
v 43
God punishes his people because they have forgotten their roots, and forgotten him. And they were lewd about it, to add insult to injury.
v 44
But wait, who was her mother? The metaphor is stretching here, and I hope it gets explained.
v 45
Okay. So basically out of the people of the earth came Israel (or more correctly Jerusalem) and of course all the people of the earth are sinful and turn their backs on God.
v 46
Basically a bunch of peoples who never really cared that much about God. But that was just the city surely. I mean, David would have no doubt cleaned it out of its former inhabitants. But I guess God's point is that the new ones that moved in weren't any better.
v 47
See, this is the thing. Israel inherited an empty city (well, cleaned it out, but you know what I mean). And yet, they still ended up living like the people who lived there before, and even became worse. This is not what you expect of the people of God.
v 48
That's pretty harsh. We're talking about a city that God destroyed by raining down sulfur and fire on it. And his own people were even more despicable. And he's telling them so.
v 49
So for your information, it wasn't just about the surprise buttsex. That was a symptom of the real problem - arrogant, overfed and unconcerned. An "abundance of idleness" as the KJV says. They didn't help the poor and needy, they just lived their fatcat lives, and thought they could do whatever they wanted.
v 50
And so God wiped them out. Bam. This would tell plenty of us today that we are overdue for an ass kicking, surely. I'm not the kind of person to harp on this point, but really as the last vestiges of Christian culture disappear, things do get worse. Don't get me wrong, I don't think culture saves people, I think Christ saves people. And culture alone didn't prevent heinous acts either, I'll bet. But a majority of believing Christians in population probably helped. How did they lose power? I guess because they ignored the Shema, and they didn't pass it on to their kids properly. Bam.
Yes, that's two bams.
Friday, July 02, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 16
vs 31
Yeah, we have a word for that now - slut. I know, it's an awful and derogatory term, but that is what God is meaning. You read this passage and tell me God isn't being derogatory.
vs 32
I don't even know what to say here. The fact is that regardless of whether the stranger is Elle McPherson (wow, she must be old now - insert young good looking model here) or David Beckham (or some other young stud guy here), or whoever, your spouse alone gets that spot, it's specific for them. This goes just as much for mind space and stuff to really (cf Jesus). So God is saying in the same way that there is a spot that only a husband should fill, there is a religious spot that only God can fill. He has a right to it that no-one or nothing else has.
vs 33
No doubt that there were sleazeball men about who had their bits on the side, giving their little gifts and such, and no doubt there was the occasional woman who was the same. It's interesting how it works - there must be more to affairs than just the sex, because the gift giving and the roles that people fall into (from what I can gather from stories I've heard and read about) seems like it is there to meet a need that goes beyond a simple "I'm not getting any at home". A really interesting show at the moment is Misfits, where this group of criminal children gets superpowers based on how they think about themselves or something. One girl who thinks she's hot and God's gift to men gets the power that whenever someone touches her they want to have sex with her, and this feeds something in her - some desire to be wanted and special and important. I wonder if a similar feeling is met in idolatry? Money definitely makes us feel important and in charge, for example.
vs 34
I don't know what you call a woman who basically hires men as prostitutes all day long. Men are so easily swayed into this sort of thing though. To quote Clerks, they'll sleep with anything that says 'yes'.
vs 35
Oh, this isn't going to be good.
vs 36
That's quite a laundry list of bad things - a summary of all we've heard so far.
vs 37
O...kay? I don't know that this works so well in a modern cultural context. I think it's supposed to be shaming. But if they've already seen her naked... see, I think the idea is that as a nation, this sort of naked shaming is far more shameful.
What interests me is the "those you loved and those you hated" bit. Jerusalem, it seems, was not very discerning - prostituting herself to both allies and enemies. If you think about her history, this is true too - her kings had become vassals to her enemies, but then had also sought alliances with Egypt, and so on.
vs 38
I don't think 'blood vengance' is going to be a happy vengance. Well, okay, I don't think any vengance is happy vengance. But 'blood vengance' sounds particularly nasty. My assumption is it's got to do with the killing of children, and a sort of blood price for such killing.
vs 39
Perhaps they will do this because they all thought they were the only one? Or perhaps because it's the only public response that's allowed to the shaming of a prostitute or adulterous woman?
vs 40
Well... that was the sort of punishment that occurred back in the day. It's nasty to have it described to you before it happens. And this is what is going to happen to Jerusalem, in a manner of speaking. It's quite awful to think about a whole nation's prostitution before other gods and political allies being stripped and shown for all to see, and then being punished.
Yeah, we have a word for that now - slut. I know, it's an awful and derogatory term, but that is what God is meaning. You read this passage and tell me God isn't being derogatory.
vs 32
I don't even know what to say here. The fact is that regardless of whether the stranger is Elle McPherson (wow, she must be old now - insert young good looking model here) or David Beckham (or some other young stud guy here), or whoever, your spouse alone gets that spot, it's specific for them. This goes just as much for mind space and stuff to really (cf Jesus). So God is saying in the same way that there is a spot that only a husband should fill, there is a religious spot that only God can fill. He has a right to it that no-one or nothing else has.
vs 33
No doubt that there were sleazeball men about who had their bits on the side, giving their little gifts and such, and no doubt there was the occasional woman who was the same. It's interesting how it works - there must be more to affairs than just the sex, because the gift giving and the roles that people fall into (from what I can gather from stories I've heard and read about) seems like it is there to meet a need that goes beyond a simple "I'm not getting any at home". A really interesting show at the moment is Misfits, where this group of criminal children gets superpowers based on how they think about themselves or something. One girl who thinks she's hot and God's gift to men gets the power that whenever someone touches her they want to have sex with her, and this feeds something in her - some desire to be wanted and special and important. I wonder if a similar feeling is met in idolatry? Money definitely makes us feel important and in charge, for example.
vs 34
I don't know what you call a woman who basically hires men as prostitutes all day long. Men are so easily swayed into this sort of thing though. To quote Clerks, they'll sleep with anything that says 'yes'.
vs 35
Oh, this isn't going to be good.
vs 36
That's quite a laundry list of bad things - a summary of all we've heard so far.
vs 37
O...kay? I don't know that this works so well in a modern cultural context. I think it's supposed to be shaming. But if they've already seen her naked... see, I think the idea is that as a nation, this sort of naked shaming is far more shameful.
What interests me is the "those you loved and those you hated" bit. Jerusalem, it seems, was not very discerning - prostituting herself to both allies and enemies. If you think about her history, this is true too - her kings had become vassals to her enemies, but then had also sought alliances with Egypt, and so on.
vs 38
I don't think 'blood vengance' is going to be a happy vengance. Well, okay, I don't think any vengance is happy vengance. But 'blood vengance' sounds particularly nasty. My assumption is it's got to do with the killing of children, and a sort of blood price for such killing.
vs 39
Perhaps they will do this because they all thought they were the only one? Or perhaps because it's the only public response that's allowed to the shaming of a prostitute or adulterous woman?
vs 40
Well... that was the sort of punishment that occurred back in the day. It's nasty to have it described to you before it happens. And this is what is going to happen to Jerusalem, in a manner of speaking. It's quite awful to think about a whole nation's prostitution before other gods and political allies being stripped and shown for all to see, and then being punished.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Ezekiel chapter 16
vs 21
A father's shock and rage is equivalent to God's shock and rage at this situation. Israel's children are God's children, and he finds the practice of their sacrifice despicable.
vs 22
God places a big emphasis on remembering where we come from, remembering his faithfulness, his promises, and his actions. Yet it is so difficult for us to look at anything except what is happening right the hell now, and even then we find it so easy to ask someone else for help rather than God!
This always puzzles me, but I have two ideas about it. One is that the way God works - graciously and somewhat imperiously - confuses us, and feels counterintuitive. We naturally feel, due to our sinful nature, that we have to do something, or give something up, or achieve or accomplish or give something in order to get something. God just gives, though.
The other is that we don't like the disempowerment that God demands, and so we'd rather turn to idols and try and control them (which of course doesn't work either).
The third thing, of course, is that we don't like the rules that God demands of us, and so we seek to follow the rules of idols that sound more reasonable (even though they can be so much more burdensome or onerous).
vs 23
When God starts declaring woes, it is woeful indeed.
vs 24
Which of course God hates, because the shrines are not to him! Not that he wants shrines, he wants worship the way he has established it.
vs 25
Okay, I have to take issue with the old NIV here - you sanitised Ezekiel! And so purposelessly too. Wow, purposelessly, that's quite a word. Anyway, for shame - even the KJV says it with more aplomb. Thank you TNIV for bringing the smackdown - although the NASB did it first.
This verse is just wrong. The inclusion of the shrine makes it sound like it's temple prostitution now. Whatever it is is detestable and public and blergh.
vs 26
Ezekiel gets pretty foul sometimes (unless you're the NIV or NASB, where they are just 'lustful'). Remember, though, this is God's image, not his. Although no doubt he chose a prophet who could deal it out well. So not only is God's wife Jerusalem whoring it out with everyone closeby, she's even travelling to Egypt to get a piece of their 'great of flesh' action. Political as well as religious prostitution.
vs 27
Now this is a fantastic line. God got so angry with his people that he gives them over to the Philistines, and even they are shocked at how vile the actions of the Israelites have become. How low can you go?
vs 28
The nature of Israel was to cast about for anyone who could offer help - anyone but God - even if it meant going into vassalage.
vs 29
The prostitution analogy has become quite weak by now, because you've got to imagine a prostitute that is so insatiable that when Jerusalem can't satisfy her, she goes to Egypt, then to Assyria, then to Babylon! It's like a series of porn movies. Imagine how badly this speaks of God, that his city is this adulterous.
vs 30
I prefer the 'filled with fury' reading, because by now even I am angry with Israel of old for all their adulterous ways. It's a dreadful, disgusting, awful picture that God has drawn. And yet this chapter shows no signs of abating. The real anger of God is pouring out here.
A father's shock and rage is equivalent to God's shock and rage at this situation. Israel's children are God's children, and he finds the practice of their sacrifice despicable.
vs 22
God places a big emphasis on remembering where we come from, remembering his faithfulness, his promises, and his actions. Yet it is so difficult for us to look at anything except what is happening right the hell now, and even then we find it so easy to ask someone else for help rather than God!
This always puzzles me, but I have two ideas about it. One is that the way God works - graciously and somewhat imperiously - confuses us, and feels counterintuitive. We naturally feel, due to our sinful nature, that we have to do something, or give something up, or achieve or accomplish or give something in order to get something. God just gives, though.
The other is that we don't like the disempowerment that God demands, and so we'd rather turn to idols and try and control them (which of course doesn't work either).
The third thing, of course, is that we don't like the rules that God demands of us, and so we seek to follow the rules of idols that sound more reasonable (even though they can be so much more burdensome or onerous).
vs 23
When God starts declaring woes, it is woeful indeed.
vs 24
Which of course God hates, because the shrines are not to him! Not that he wants shrines, he wants worship the way he has established it.
vs 25
Okay, I have to take issue with the old NIV here - you sanitised Ezekiel! And so purposelessly too. Wow, purposelessly, that's quite a word. Anyway, for shame - even the KJV says it with more aplomb. Thank you TNIV for bringing the smackdown - although the NASB did it first.
This verse is just wrong. The inclusion of the shrine makes it sound like it's temple prostitution now. Whatever it is is detestable and public and blergh.
vs 26
Ezekiel gets pretty foul sometimes (unless you're the NIV or NASB, where they are just 'lustful'). Remember, though, this is God's image, not his. Although no doubt he chose a prophet who could deal it out well. So not only is God's wife Jerusalem whoring it out with everyone closeby, she's even travelling to Egypt to get a piece of their 'great of flesh' action. Political as well as religious prostitution.
vs 27
Now this is a fantastic line. God got so angry with his people that he gives them over to the Philistines, and even they are shocked at how vile the actions of the Israelites have become. How low can you go?
vs 28
The nature of Israel was to cast about for anyone who could offer help - anyone but God - even if it meant going into vassalage.
vs 29
The prostitution analogy has become quite weak by now, because you've got to imagine a prostitute that is so insatiable that when Jerusalem can't satisfy her, she goes to Egypt, then to Assyria, then to Babylon! It's like a series of porn movies. Imagine how badly this speaks of God, that his city is this adulterous.
vs 30
I prefer the 'filled with fury' reading, because by now even I am angry with Israel of old for all their adulterous ways. It's a dreadful, disgusting, awful picture that God has drawn. And yet this chapter shows no signs of abating. The real anger of God is pouring out here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)