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.