Board index ‹ Bible

[Dominator]

The quote from Ezekiel confirms that it was child sacrifice at one point in time. If Ex 22:20 wasn't supposed to be child sacrifice, what was supposed to be done with the firstborn humans? What was supposed to be done with the firstborn animals?

[jimwalton]

The quote from Ezekiel does not confirm that it was child sacrifice at one time. There are no fewer than eight different interpretations of the Ezekiel text. That text has been wrestled with for millennia, and there is nothing certain about it.

As far as Exodus, what patently does not make sense is that God would spare the firstborn of the children of Israel (Ex. 12.13) in the Passover, only to turn around a short time later and demand they all be slaughtered. There is no logic to that supposition.

[Dominator]

> the quote from Ezekiel does not confirm that it was child sacrifice at one time. There are no fewer than eight different interpretations of the Ezekiel text.

Go ahead an make an argument.

> As far as Exodus, what patently does not make sense is that God would spare the firstborn of the children of Israel (Ex. 12.13) in the Passover, only to turn around a short time later and demand they all be slaughtered. There is no logic to that supposition.

Then what is it saying?

[jimwalton]

Ezekiel:

His point is the judgment of rebellious Israel. He likens the disobedient people now (early 6th c. BC) to the disobedient people of the wilderness. He is showing that God has not changed—what was wrong then is just as wrong now. The whole chapter preceding vv. 25-26is rehashing the wilderness wanderings and the people's sin, and how they are worthy of judgment. He particularly mentions the desecration of the Sabbaths and their idolatrous practices. At that time there were incidents where he withheld his protective hand and allowed destructive forces to come against them (disease and military incursions) so that they would repent and return to him.

This is the point of vv. 25-26. In recent history (for Ezekiel) God withheld his protective hand so that the Babylonians could come and conquer the nation. This is what is meant by "I gave them statutes that were not good." He withheld his hand (Ezk. 20.22). The statute he gave them was a judicial sentence of dispersion (See also 2 This. 2.11; Acts 7.42). He decreed events that were not in their favor and did not lead them to life and blessing.

Then in v. 26 he gives examples. The allusion is not to Ex. 13.12 but to its perversion by them in idolatry (because the words "to the Lord" that are present in Ex. 13 are not here in Ezk. 20.26). His purpose was to excite horror in them so they would return to him. By picking the worst example of their disobedience and sin (child sacrifice, practiced by Ahaz and others against God's laws). In both cases (Exodus and Ezekiel), God judged the people by allowing their sin to take its course—the law of natural consequences.

> Exodus: "Then what is it saying?"

It is defined and elaborated on by Ex. 13.2, 12-13 and Lev. 27.26. It means that the firstborn were dedicated to the Lord as a sign of the continuance of the covenant.