25<\/strong>. Wherefore I gave also<\/em> ] Moreover also I gave<\/strong>, see Eze 20:23<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n statutes not good<\/em> ] These statutes are of a kind contrary to those given before ( Eze 20:11<\/em><\/span>) which were good. These points seem plain: 1. The practice referred to is that of passing the firstborn male children through the fire as a burnt-offering to the deity. 2. The law in Israel was that all the male firstborn of men and the male firstlings of beasts were the Lord’s. The firstborn of men were to be redeemed, as also the firstlings of unclean animals, but the firstlings of clean animals were to be offered in sacrifice to Jehovah (Exo 13:2<\/span>; Exo 13:12-13<\/span>; Exo 22:29<\/span>, cf. Num 3:46-47<\/span>; Num 18:15-16<\/span>). The law requiring the sacrifice of the firstborn had become extended, so as to include children. The practice was one prevailing among the peoples around Israel, and probably it first crept into use in Israel and was then justified by the law or custom relating to cattle, of which it might seem a natural extension; but in Jer 7:31<\/span>; Jer 19:5<\/span> Jehovah vehemently protests that to command it never came into his mind. The question to whom the children were offered, lit. passed over in the fire, is not quite easy to decide. In passages where the practice is condemned it is represented as a sacrifice to “the Molech,” Lev 18:21<\/span>; Deu 12:31<\/span>; Deu 18:10<\/span>, or to the Baal, Jer 7:31<\/span>, or generally, to the idols, Eze 16:21<\/span>; Psa 106:38<\/span> (idols of Canaan). Though the spelling of the name Molech is peculiar, the word probably means “the king” originally, just as the Baal means “the lord,” both names being descriptive of the same deity. In Isa 57:9<\/span> “the king” has the ordinary spelling. Though borrowing the practice from the Canaanites it is probable that in Israel the sacrifice was offered to Jehovah, particularly as the law under which it was made was considered given by him. On the other hand Jer., though repudiating this popular inference, speaks of the offering as being made to Baal. The name “Baal,” however, from Hosea downwards is used somewhat laxly, including the images of Jehovah, and all heathenish ceremonies in his service are called worship of Baal. 3. This law is described as not good, one by which men could not live. The effect of it was that men were polluted in their gifts ( Eze 20:26<\/em><\/span>), and the purpose of it was to destroy them. This evil law, entailing this consequence, was a judicial punishment of them for their former sins, just as the “deception” of the false prophets was, ch. Eze 14:9<\/span>. Whether the people, familiar with the Baal worship, drew the false inference from the law of the firstborn, or whether false teachers set the idea before them, is uncertain (Jer 8:8<\/span> appears to refer to written perversions of the law). The sacrifice of children was a practice that gained ground in the disastrous times before the exile (Hos 13:2<\/span> has another meaning: men who sacrifice kiss calves; it is the irrationality of men<\/em> kissing calves that the prophet mocks, not the enormity of human sacrifices). Ezekiel appears to regard the practice as ancient, as he connects it with the second generation in the wilderness. The instances noted in early history are transjordanic (Jephthah and king of Moab), and possibly, though the practice became aggravated only at a later period, the prophet may have considered that the people became acquainted with it on the other side of the Jordan.<\/p>\n Eze 20:25<\/span><\/p>\n I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The judgment of invincible ignorance<\/strong><\/p>\n These words have often formed the ground of infidel cavils, and therefore require perhaps to be explained; also they open up to us a very important subject, namely, that of our responsibility to God, not only for our actions, but for our opinions. There is a great tendency now to consider that moral guilt can hardly be incurred by a purely intellectual act. It is assumed by the majority that no alarm need he felt about the future life on the score of a mans principles. If he is mistaken in his ideas of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, his mistake, it is urged, will not injure him. Now we believe the tenour of Scripture to be opposed to this. It distinctly states that the thoughts of the heart and the words of the mouth shall be brought into judgment; and it speaks of false opinions on points of religion as strongly as of unrighteous actions. Ezekiel announces a very solemn judgment of God upon those who refuse truth. The chiefs of the nation are before the prophet, requiring to know how God might be propitiated, so as to bring them again to their country and their homes. Then, it is written, came the word of the Lord to Ezekiel. Suddenly, yet perceptibly to himself and them, the Eternal Spirit entered into him, so that the words he spake were no longer his own. Possessed by this awful Indweller, he recapitulates the history of the Jews from the beginning; their repeated sins, Gods reiterated forgiveness; their falls, their chastisements, their restoration to favour. Amongst these mingled visitations of wrath and mercy is described that on which we propose now to dwell.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>It has been supposed by some that the statutes and judgments here alluded to were those of the Mosaic Law, and that in describing them as statutes not good, the Almighty designed to express their deficiency, as contrasted with the Gospel system, in future times to be made known. A short consideration, however, of the context will show that this theory is unsound, and at the same time explain the real meaning of the text. God having first promulgated to the Israelites laws of life, upon their indifference to these gave them laws of death; and the general principle here involved is, that the punishment of transgressing or refusing holy laws is to have unholy laws assigned us. If we will reject truth we shall be caused to take falsehood for our guide. If a man have truth proposed for his acceptance, and reject it; if he turn away through carelessness, or shut his heart through perverseness of will to the truth as it is in Jesus, what we should most fear for such an one is not famine, or pestilence, or sword. There is a more terrible vial still than these in the treasury of God. Of those who having ears hear not, the punishment would appear to be, that eventually the capacity of understanding shall be taken from them. We cannot, of course, in any particular case pronounce whether the curse of invincible ignorance has been poured out, and the veil drawn finally over the heart; but we urge it upon yea as strong ground for never playing with your convictions, or shutting your souls against the voice of instruction.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>But now we can imagine that many and great objections present themselves to your minds in connection with the foregoing doctrine. Is this, you ask, agreeable to the goodness and justice of the Deity? Can it be reconciled with His attributes, that He should thus, at any period of human life, take away the power of belief, and Himself blind the soul and make dull the heart? Now let us pause for a moment upon the nature of Gods punishment, so far as we may discover it. We may trace one grand principle pervading and colouring all the visitations of Divine vengeance; the principle is this, that the punishment should in its quality bear a resemblance to the sin. Adam and Eve, presuming to eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil, were debarred access to the tree of life. Jacob, deceiving his father Isaac, was in his turn deceived by his own sons. And it is not difficult to perceive why this should be. The punishment of sin is to preach against sin. How much more striking this preaching becomes when the penalty inflicted is of a sort to call to remembrance the precise iniquity of which it is the penalty. Now, if this be correct, the particular judgment spoken of in the text is just what we might expect would overtake those who will not when they may amend their opinions and embrace the truth. If the sin be to resist truth, what should the penalty be but the being incapacitated from embracing truth? (Bishop Woodford.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 25<\/span>. I gave them also statutes<\/B><\/I> that were <\/B>not good<\/B><\/I>] What a foolish noise has been made about this verse by critics<\/I>, believers and infidels! How is it that God can be said “to give a people statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they could not live?” I answer, in their sense<\/I> of the words, God never gave any such, at any time, to any people. Let any man produce an example<\/I> of this kind if he can; or show even the fragment<\/I> of such a law, sanctioned by the Most High! The simple meaning of this place and all such places is, that when they had rebelled against the Lord, despised his statutes, and polluted his Sabbaths – in effect cast him off, and given themselves wholly to their idols, then he abandoned<\/I> them, and they abandoned themselves to the customs and ordinances of the heathen. That this is the meaning of the words, requires no proof to them who are the least acquainted with the genius<\/I> and idioms<\/I> of the Hebrew language, in which God is a thousand times said to do<\/I>, what in the course of his providence<\/I> or justice<\/I> he only permits<\/I> to be done.<\/P> <\/p>\n Because they did by such perverse obstinacy reject the statutes I did in mercy give them; my good laws and judgments, saith God, they despised; for this cause God proceeds to punish them in a dreadful kind and manner, <\/P> Gave them; <\/B>not by appointing or enjoining, but by permitting them to make such for themselves, much like that Rom 1:24<\/span>, giving up to a reprobate sense, or that 2Th 2:11<\/span>; Psa 81:11<\/span>,12<\/span>, as a governor or father, after long and fruitless strivings with an obstinate and unruly youth, gives him up at last as hopeless, and casts off the care and guidance of him. <\/P> Statutes; <\/B>orders and rules about their religious worship, which they first invented, next approved, and lastly made their established religion, where all they could love in it was, that it was their own. <\/P> Were not good; <\/B>had nothing in them that was morally good, pious, or suited to the spiritual nature of God; that were unprofitable, and ministered nothing to the edifying and bettering of men, nor could commend the users of them to God; that were indeed pernicious to the users, and increased their sins, being superstitious and idolatrous: so the not good is very bad, inconvenient, and hurtful. <\/P> Whereby they should not live:<\/B> if it be not explicatory of the former, it may, it is possible, refer distinctly to the inconvenient, oppressive, and unsafe courses, decrees, and edicts about civil matters, which were such as they could never thrive under; for however some heathen nations have thrived under an evident blessing from Heaven, though their religion were idolatrous, yet I do not remember that an apostate nation ever retained their good government and civil prosperity under their apostacy from God; thus the judgments given were such they could not live in them; they made grievous and destructive laws for themselves and theirs. <\/P> <\/p>\n 25. I gave them . . . statutes . . .not good<\/B>Since they would not follow My statutes that weregood, “I gave them” their own (Eze20:18<\/span>) and their fathers’ “which were not good”;statutes spiritually corrupting, and, finally, as the consequence,destroying them. Righteous retribution (Psa 81:12<\/span>;Hos 8:11<\/span>; Rom 1:24<\/span>;2Th 2:11<\/span>). Eze20:39<\/span> proves this view to be correct (compare Isa63:17<\/span>). Thus on the plains of Moab (Nu25:1-18<\/span>), in chastisement for the secret unfaithfulness to God intheir hearts, He permitted Baal’s worshippers to tempt them toidolatry (the ready success of the tempters, moreover, proving theinward unsoundness of the tempted); and this again ended necessarilyin punitive judgments.<\/P><\/p>\n Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good<\/strong>,…. Yea, were very bad; not the moral law, and the statutes of it; for that is holy, just, and good, though the killing letter and ministration of condemnation and death to the transgressors of it; indeed those laws were both good and bad to different persons, as Abendana observes; good to those that observed them, but not good to those that transgressed them, the issue of which was death: rather these were the statutes and rites of the ceremonial law, which were not in their own nature good; nor did they arise from the nature and holiness of God, but from his will; and though very good and useful under the legal dispensation, until the Messiah came, especially when attended to by faith, and with a view to him; yet had the sanction of death to many of them, that a man could not live by them: but it may be, the punishments inflicted on them for their sins, by the plague, by fire, and by serpents, are meant; which may be called “statutes” and “judgments”, because ordered and appointed by the Lord, and according to justice: or, as many, both Jews and Christians, think, the idolatrous laws, usages, and customs of other nations, the traditions of their fathers, their wicked laws and statutes, and their own; which, being left to a reprobate mind, they were suffered to walk in, to their hurt and ruin; which is sometimes the sense of the word give; and so here, he “gave”, that is, he permitted them to observe such statutes; and this sense is countenanced and confirmed by Eze 20:26<\/span>; to which agrees Jarchi’s note,<\/p>\n “I delivered them into the hand of their imagination (or corrupt nature) to stumble at their iniquity;”<\/p>\n see Ro 1:28<\/span>. Kimchi interprets them of laws, decrees, tribute, and taxes, imposed upon them by their enemies that conquered them. The Targum is,<\/p>\n “and I also, when they rebelled against my word, and would not obey my prophets, cast them far off, and delivered them into the hands of their enemies; and they went after their foolish imagination, and made decrees which were not right:”<\/p>\n and judgments, whereby they should not live<\/strong>; yea, which were deadly and destructive to them; which brought ruin, destruction, and death upon them; for more is designed than is expressed: this was the effect of following the customs of the nations, and of walking in the statutes of their fathers, and of their own; whereas, had they walked according to the judgments and statutes of God, moral and ceremonial, they had lived comfortably and prosperously.<\/p>\n Here God announces that he had taken vengeance upon people so hard and obstinate, by permitting them to endure another yoke, since they would not be ruled by the doctrine of the law; for we saw that, when God imposed the law upon the Israelites, they would have been extremely happy, had they only considered how honorable it was to be in covenant with God, who deigned to bind them to himself in mutual fidelity. This was a remarkable honor and privilege, since God not only showed them what was right, but promised them a reward which he by no means owed them. But what was the conduct of that unteachable nation? It threw off the yoke of the law; hence it deserved to experience a different government. God, therefore, gave them laws that were not good, when he suffered them to be miserably subjected to an immense heap of errors: such laws as these were not good. Some writers have violently distorted this passage, by thinking the law itself, as promulgated by Moses, “not good,” since Paul calls it deadly; but they corrupt the Prophet’s sense, since God is comparing his law with the superstitions of the Gentiles: others explain it of the tributes which the people were compelled to pay to foreigners. But, first of all, God does not speak here of only one age; nay, during the, time of the Israelites’ freedom his vengeance was nevertheless severe. <\/p>\n Thus, in the next verse, the Prophet confirms what I have briefly touched on, namely, that the laws called not good are all the fictions of men, by which they harass themselves, while they think that God is worshipped acceptably in this way: for we know how miserably men labor and distract themselves when Satan has fascinated them with his toils, and when they anxiously invent numerous rites, because there is no end of their superstitions; hence these statutes are not good: for when they have undergone much labor in their idolatry, no other reward awaits them than God’s appearance against them as an avenger to punish the profanation of his own lawful worship. They indeed by no means look for this, but they utterly deceive themselves; hence they must hope for no reward but what is founded on the covenant and promise of God; for all false and vicious forms of worship, all adventitious rites, which men heap together from all sides, have no promise from God, and hence they vainly trust to them for life. God began to show them this in the wilderness; but in succeeding ages he did not fail to exercise the same vengeance. We see how they fell in with the superstitions of the Moabites; and why so? unless God blinded them by his just judgments. (Num 25:1<\/span>.) He had experienced their untamed dispositions, and so he set them free from control; and not only so, but afterwards gave them up to Satan, and so he says that he gave them laws that were not good. The Prophet might indeed have said, that they despised God’s law through their own wisdom, that they foolishly and rashly legislated for themselves: this was indeed true; but he wished to express the penalty of which Paul speaks, when he says that the impious were delivered to a reprobate mind, and to obedience to a lie, (Rom 1:24<\/span>,) since they did not submit to the truth, and did not suffer themselves to be ruled by God, and thus were given up to the tyranny of Satan and to the service of mere creatures. Now, therefore, we understand the Prophet’s meaning, I have given them also, says he, laws not good, as if he had said that the people so threw themselves into various idolatries, that God desired in this way to avenge their incredible obstinacy; for if the Jews had calmly acquiesced in God’s sovereignty, he had not given them evil laws, that is, he had not suffered them to be so tormented under Satan’s tyranny; but when they were entangled in his snares, God openly shows them to be unworthy of his government and care, since they were too refractory. It follows — <\/p>\n (25) Statutes that were not good.<\/strong>In this verse the general statement is made of which a particular instance is given in the next. The statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live, cannot be the same with those described in Eze. 20:11<\/span> as judgments which, if a man do, he shall even live in them. They are not, therefore, to be understood (as many of the fathers took them) of any part of the Mosaic law. Neither is it a sufficient explanation to say that God gave them what was intrinsically good, but it became evil to them through their sins; such a view of the law is emphatically discarded in Rom. 7:13<\/span>. The statutes of the Mosaic law are not intended here at all, as is plain from the particular instance of the consecration of children to Moloch in the next verse. These evil statutes and judgments were those adopted from the heathen whom they had suffered to dwell among them, and from the surrounding nations. But how can the Lord say that He <\/em>gave these to them? In the same way that it is said in Isa. 63:17<\/span>, O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from Thy ways, and hardened our heart from Thy fear? So also St. Paul says of the heathen (Rom. 1:21-28<\/span>) that God gave them up to uncleanness, unto vile affections, to a reprobate mind; and of certain wicked persons (2Th. 2:11-12<\/span>) God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believe not the truth. And St. Stephen says of these very Israelites at this very time, God gave them up to worship the host of heaven (Act. 7:42<\/span>). It is part of that universal moral government of the world, to which Ezekiel so frequently refers, that the effect of disobedience and neglect of grace is to lead the sinner on to greater sin. The Israelites rebelled against the Divine government, and neglected the grace given them; the natural consequence was that they fell under the influence of the heathen. Comp. Note on Eze. 14:9<\/span>.<\/p>\n 25<\/strong>. <\/strong> Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good <\/strong> Does this refer to certain Mosaic regulations which were “permitted because of the hardness of their hearts?” (Mat 19:8<\/span>.) Or does it express the common Scripture truth that Jehovah is so fully the supreme ruler of Israel that when the people attempt to escape from his rule the edicts of evil kings (such as the “statutes of Omri” (Mic 6:16<\/span>) and Jeroboam (1Ki 12:28-33<\/span>), the utterances of false prophets (Eze 14:9<\/span>), and even the cruel statutes and ordinances of the heathen worship which they chose to obey, become really divine chastisements which Jehovah gives to them? (Eze 5:8<\/span>; Eze 5:10<\/span>; Eze 7:4<\/span>; Eze 7:9<\/span>; Eze 7:22<\/span>; Eze 7:26-27<\/span>; see especially, note Eze 14:9<\/span>.) Or does it only mean that Jehovah has given up these willful transgressors to the unclean law which has been written by persistent sin upon the tablets of their hearts? (Compare 2Th 2:11<\/span>.) In either case the ethical principles justifying Jehovah’s action are nearly the same. Laws for the disobedient and criminal cannot be the same as for the obedient and pure. Such laws are not “good,” but they are the best possible under the circumstances. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Eze 18:4<\/span>), is just as truly a divine law as that which offers life through obedience (Eze 20:11<\/span>). It is God’s law that the man who willfully follows the false will finally lose the power to follow or even to know the true. Since God is the author of this law the New Testament rightly declares that it is God who blinds the eyes and hardens the heart of the impenitent. This does not mean that God desires any man to lose his spiritual eyesight. It simply means that, by refusing to obey God’s laws of mercy obedience to which might have saved him his sight he has necessarily become subject to God’s law of judgment under which he must inevitably, if unrepentant, suffer the penalty of blindness. (See notes Mar 4:12<\/span>; Luk 8:10<\/span>; Joh 12:40<\/span>; Rom 1:21-28<\/span>; Rom 11:9<\/span>.) Because of willful rejection of the truth he has become unable to see and therefore unable to obey the truth. The very agencies which were intended to be to him a savor of life unto life have become a savor of death unto death (2Co 2:16<\/span>; Exo 14:4<\/span>). He has brought himself under the dominion of the divine statutes which were ordained for the government of incorrigibles, and he finds them to be hard and painful.<\/p>\n “Moreover I also gave them statutes which were not good, and judgments in which they would not live, and I polluted them in their own gifts in that they caused to pass through the fire all who opened the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am Yahweh.”<\/p>\n Finally because of their failure to respond to Him truly He left them to follow their own ways. This is depicted as the positive act of Yahweh. In the end all was seen as Yahweh’s doing. He allowed false prophets to rise, He allowed false teaching to be given, He allowed them to partake in the most degrading religions of Canaan. He withdrew His guidance and protection and admonition (although they were never fully withdrawn for He also sent true prophets to plead with them). Thus would follow the awful consequences depicted in Lev 26:14-45<\/span>; Deu 28:15<\/span> Eze 29:19<\/span>)<\/p>\n Man’s evil heart continually distorts truth. Left to himself he brings harm on his own head, thinking all the time that it will benefit him. He softens the requirements of God’s laws and suffers the consequences. In the case of Israel it even led them to offer up their firstborn children to the gods in sacrifice (Lev 18:21<\/span>; Deu 18:10<\/span>; 2Ki 21:6 ; 2Ch 28:3<\/span>; Jer 7:31<\/span>; Jer 19:5<\/span>; Jer 32:35<\/span>). ‘Passing through the fire’ usually refers to the worship of Melek (Molech – the vowels, being the vowels of bosheth’ (shame) changed to reflect ‘shame’) although the idea of child sacrifice is occasionally referred to the worship of Baal (Jer 19:5<\/span>) probably through syncretism.<\/p>\n ‘I polluted them in their own gifts.’ Their very worship had become polluted. Instead of the joyous gifts and offerings to Yahweh, and the redemption of the firstborn through sacrifices, allowing them to express their worship fully and without restraint while at the same time preventing the heartbreak of actually losing their children, they chose to enter into the painful, heartbreaking ways of sacrificing their own firstborn children, ways that brought them only desolation, and they did this in direct disobedience to the command of Yahweh because they thought that they knew better than He did.<\/p>\n This passage stresses the overall sovereignty of God. The same prophet who could stress the responsibility of each individual person to respond, also stressed that in the end all, including man’s ways, was under the control of God, for they could do nothing without His permissive will. Thus when Israel came to their senses they would recognise that all this had happened to them through Yahweh’s doing. Because of their sin and rebellion He had stood aside and left them to their own ways, thus bringing on them the consequences of their own actions. This finally brought home His sovereignty and purity in contrast with the degradation that their disobedience had brought. Then they would know that He was Yahweh, totally distinct from all the gods that they had served.<\/p>\n Their Behaviour on Entering in the Land of Canaan.<\/p>\n Israel were no more obedient when they entered Canaan, as the Book of Judges makes clear.<\/p>\n Eze 20:25<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>I gave them also statues that were not good<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> This passage has given great handle to infidels and free-thinkers, though certainly it will admit of more interpretations than one, clear and consistent, and sufficient to remove every objection. I will subjoin two; the first espoused by Dr. Waterland and Vitringa; the second by Spencer, Bishop Warburton, and others; leaving the decision to the reader’s judgment. I. God intends not here his own statutes or judgments, but the idolatrous and corrupt principles and practices of the heathens, to which he sometimes abandoned the Israelites, because they had first deserted him. That this is the genuine sense of the text, may be made appear as follows. 1. It is observable, that God here describes these statutes and judgments by characters directly opposite to what he gives of his own. In Eze 20:11<\/span>; Eze 20:13<\/span>; Eze 20:21<\/span> he says; I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments; which if a man do, he shall even live in them; <\/em>characters conformable to what he had given in Lev 18:4-5<\/span> where he says, Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances to walk therein; I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments; which if a man do, he shall live in them: <\/em>(Compare Rom 10:5<\/span>. <\/span>Gal 3:12<\/span>.) which is plainly to be understood of the whole system of the Jewish laws; to the keeping of which life was promised, as to the breach of any of them a curse was annexed. See Deu 27:26<\/span>. Gal 3:10<\/span>. The character then of God’s laws, ritual as well as others, was, that a man shall live in them. <\/em>But in the verse before us, God says, I gave them also statutes <\/em>[not my statutes<\/em>] and judgments <\/em>[not my judgments<\/em>] whereby they should<\/em> not live; <\/em>directly contrary to what he had before said both here and in Leviticus, of his own <\/em>statutes at large. So that it is highly unreasonable, or rather absurd, to understand both of God’s own statutes. 2. In Eze 20:11<\/span>. God had spoken of giving his own laws to his people; and Eze 20:13<\/span> he proceeds to speak of their frowardness, and contemning those his laws, and of his forbearance with them in the wilderness notwithstanding. But at length, in punishment to them, he did what he mentions in the verse before us. So that these statutes cannot be the same with those laws of Moses given before, but must be different. 3. God immediately adds, Eze 20:26<\/span>. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire <\/em>(to be sacrificed, or consecrated in fire to Moloch) all that openeth the womb, that<\/em> I might make them desolate. <\/em>This may be sufficient to intimate what kind of statutes and judgments God is here speaking of; namely, the rites and practices of the heathen, whereby he polluted <\/em>them, that is, gave them up to their own heart’s lusts, to defile and pollute <\/em>themselves: wherefore it is said, Eze 20:31<\/span>. When ye offer your gifts, <\/em>&c. ye pollute yourselves, <\/em>&c. The Israelites had provoked God many ways, and more especially by their frequent idolatries; and therefore God gave them up to the vilest and most deplorable idolatry, namely, that of sacrificing their sons and daughters to devils, <\/em>offering them up as burnt-offerings to Moloch. These were the statutes not good; <\/em>that is to say, the worst that could be, <\/em>for such is the force of that expression according to the Hebrew idiom. It is said moreover, Eze 20:18<\/span>. Walk not in the statutes of your fathers, <\/em>&c. Here we have mention of statutes and judgments by the same words in the Hebrew as in the present verse; not meaning, however, God’s <\/em>statutes or judgments, but the corrupt customs of their idolatrous ancestors; such as God permitted, <\/em>or gave them up to, because they chose such, as is here intimated. The original word natan, <\/em>is frequently used in the permissive <\/em>sense; and therefore I gave them, <\/em>may amount to no more than, I suffered <\/em>such things. See Poole’s Annotations. 4. St. Stephen, Act 7:42<\/span> seems to have been the best interpreter of the text before us, who says, God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, <\/em>&c. This was giving them up to statutes that were not good, <\/em>and to judgments whereby they should not live; to the corrupt customs and impure rites of the heathen. <\/em>To confirm this, we may observe, that God, by the prophet Jeremiah, (chap. Eze 16:13<\/span> compare Deu 4:27-28<\/span>; Deu 28:36-37<\/span>.) threatens the like judgments to his offending people: and in like manner of Ezekiel in the 39th verse of this very chapter. The Chaldee paraphrast interprets the text before us thus; I cast them out, and delivered them into the hand of their enemies; and they went after their own foolish lusts, and made statutes which were not right, and laws by which you shall not live. <\/em>See Waterland’s Scripture Vindicated, part 3: p. 104. &c. and Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. lib. 2: cap. 1.II. Bishop Warburton’s interpretation is as follows. Their fathers, says he, left their bones in the wilderness; but this perverse race, being pardoned as a people, and still possessed of the privilege of a select and chosen nation, were neither to be scattered among the heathen, nor to be confined for ever in the wilderness. Almighty wisdom, therefore, ordained that their punishment should be such as should continue them, even against their wills, a separated race in possession of the land of Canaan; a punishment declared by these words, Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, <\/em>&c. that is to say, “Because they had violated my first <\/em>system of laws, the decalogue, <\/em>I added to them, [I gave them also, <\/em>words which imply the giving as a supplement] my second <\/em>system, the ritual law; <\/em>very aptly characterised (when set in opposition to the moral law<\/em>) by statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.” <\/em>What is here observed opens to us the admirable reasons of both punishments, and why there was a forbearance, or a second trial, before the yoke of ordinances <\/em>was imposed: for we must never forget, that the God of Israel transacted with his people according to the mode of human governors. Let this be kept in mind, and we shall see the admirable progress of the dispensation. God brought the fathers <\/em>out of Egypt, to put them in possession of the land of Canaan. He gave them the moral law, <\/em>to distinguish them for the worshippers of the true God; and he gave them the positive <\/em>law of the sabbath, to distinguish them for God’s peculiar people. These fathers <\/em>proving perverse and rebellious, their punishment was death in the wilderness, and exclusion from that good land which was reserved for their children. <\/em>But then these children <\/em>in that very wilderness, the scene of the fathers’ crime and calamity, fell into the same transgressions. What was now to be done? It was plain, that so inveterate an evil could be only checked or subdued by the curb of some severe institution. A severe institution was prepared, and the ritual law <\/em>was established. For the first offence the punishment was personal; <\/em>but when a repetition shewed it to be inbred, and, like the leprosy, sticking to the whole race, the punishment was properly changed to national. <\/em>How clear! How coherent is every thing, as here explained! How consonant to reason! How full of divine wisdom! Yet we are told by the Rabbens, who hold the perfection and eternal obligation of their law, that the statutes not good,<\/em> were the tributes imposed on the Israelites while in subjection to their pagan neighbours. And Christian writers, who did not attend to the subtilty of this explication, have pretended that the statutes given, <\/em>which were not good, <\/em>were pagan idolatries, not given, <\/em>but suffered; <\/em>indeed not suffered; <\/em>because severely, and almost always immediately punished. But the absurdity of this supposition is best exposed by the prophet himself, as his words lie in the text. God’s first intention with respect to these rebels, is represented to be the renouncing them for his people, and scattering them among the nations; Eze 20:21<\/span>. But his mercy prevails; Eze 20:22<\/span>. In these two verses we see, that the punishment intended, and the mercy shewn, are delivered in general, without the circumstances of the punishment, or the conditions of the mercy. The three next verses, in the mode of eastern composition, which delights in repetition, inform us more particularly of these circumstances, which were dispersion, <\/em>&c. and of these conditions, which were the imposition of a ritual law, <\/em>&c. The intended punishment is explained specifically, that is, with its circumstances; the mercy follows, and the terms on which it was bestowed are likewise explained. Whatever is meant by statutes not good, <\/em>the end of giving them, we see, was, to preserve the Israelites a peculiar people of the Lord; for the punishment of dispersion was remitted to them. But if by statutes not good, <\/em>be meant the permitting them to fall into idolatries, God is absurdly represented as decreeing an end<\/em>the keeping of his people separateand at the same time providing means <\/em>to defeat it: for every lapse into idolatry was a step to their dispersion, and utter consumption, <\/em>by absorbing them into the nations. We must needs conclude therefore, that by statutes not good, <\/em>is meant the ritual law; <\/em>the only means of attaining that end of mercy; the preserving them a separate people. See Div. Leg. vol. 3: book 4: p. 394, &c. <\/p>\n Eze 20:25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;<\/p>\n Ver. 25. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good.<\/strong> ] i.e.,<\/em> I gave them up to their own inventions and hearts’ lusts (which was worse than to be delivered up to Satan), because they were ingrati gratiae Dei,<\/em> as Ambrose hath it; they received the grace of God in vain. By “statutes not good,” some understand the ceremonial laws, which commanded neither virtue nor vice in themselves. Others, such decrees and ordinances of God in the wilderness as were not good for them, but hurtful; as that for the execution of the calf worshippers, of the Baalpeorites, of Korah and his company, of the murmurers at Kibrothhattaavah, &c. Solon being asked whether he had given the best laws to the Athenians? answered, The best that they could bear.<\/p>\n I gave them also statutes, its. In Hebrew idiom = I suffered others to give them statutes, it,: i.e. in their captivity. Active verbs in Hebrew were used to express not only the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do. The verb nathan, to give, is therefore often rendered to suffer in this sense. See Gen 31:7. Jdg 15:1. 1Sa 24:7. 2Sa 21:10. Where not so actually rendered it means permission. Compare Eze 14:9 Exo 4:21; Exo 5:22. Psa 16:10. Jer 4:10. The some idiom is used in N.T. (Mat 6:13; Mat 11:25; Mat 13:11. Rom 9:18; Rom 11:7, Rom 11:8; 2Th 2:11). <\/p>\n I gave: The simple meaning of this place is, that when the Israelites had rebelled against God, despised his statutes, and polluted his sabbaths, in effect cast him off, and given themselves up wholly to their idols, then He, in a just judgment for their disobedience, abandoned them, “gave them up to a reprobate mind,” – Rom 1:28, and suffered them to walk after the idolatrous, cruel, and impious customs and ordinances of the heathen; by which they were ripened for the destruction which he intended to bring upon them, that they might learn to know God by his judgments, seeing they had despised his mercies. In the same sense God is said judicially to “send a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie,” to those who “received not the love of the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Eze 20:26, Eze 20:39, Eze 14:9-11, Deu 4:27, Deu 4:28, Deu 28:36, Psa 81:12, Isa 66:4, Rom 1:21-28, 2Th 2:9-11 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Exo 21:1 – the judgments 2Sa 12:11 – I will take 2Sa 16:11 – the Lord 2Sa 24:1 – moved Act 7:42 – and gave<\/p>\n Eze 20:25. It might puzzle us to read that God would give people a law that was not good. The key to the verse is the sense in which the word gave is used. The lexicon says the original has a wide range of meanings. One way in which a thing may be “given is to step out of the way and let a person who is stubborn have his own way in Order that he may be taught a lesson by his own experience. God has used such a plan more than once when his creatures persisted in walking according to their own rules which are designated statutes in this verse. (See Psa 81:12; Act 7:42; Rom 1:24; 2Th 2:11.)<\/p>\n Eze 20:25-26. Wherefore I gave them statutes that were not good, &c. This some understand of the ceremonial law, as if it were given purely to be a check and restraint to that perverse people, consisting of numerous rites and observances, many of which had no intrinsic good in them. But I conceive, says Lowth, the statutes here spoken of to be of a different nature from those mentioned Eze 20:11, because they have a quite contrary character given of them; and therefore I take the words to import, that God, in a just judgment for their disobedience to his own laws, gave them up to a reprobate mind, and suffered them to walk after the idolatrous and impious customs of the heathen around them. And whereas, by obeying the laws and ordinances which he had given them, they might have lived happily, (Eze 20:11,) they became slaves to the vile and cruel practices of the heathen idolatries, so as to offer up their very children in sacrifice to idols, to the utter destruction of themselves and their posterity, Eze 20:26. This will appear to be the sense of the text, if we compare it with Eze 20:39, and with Deu 4:28; Deu 28:36; Jer 16:13; in which texts God threatens them, as a punishment for their neglect of his worship, to disperse them into the heathen countries, and thereby deprive them of an opportunity of serving him in public, and expose them to the peril of being seduced to idols. Just as David complains to Saul of the hardship of his exile, that it laid him open to the temptation of serving the heathen gods, 1Sa 26:19. In the same light Bishop Newcome views the passage, interpreting the sense to be, I permitted them to observe statutes, or idolatrous rites, of an evil and execrable nature. And I polluted them in their own gifts I suffered them to pollute themselves in offering abominable sacrifices. In that they caused to pass through the fire, &c. In offering their firstborn sons in sacrifice to Moloch. That I might make them desolate Which occasioned the destruction of great numbers of them, and made a desolation in the land. That they might know that I am the Lord This I permitted, that they might be made sensible that I am the living and true God, and a being infinitely more excellent than any or all of the idols, to the worship of which they had foolishly addicted themselves: or, that they might be compelled to acknowledge, that I am a mighty king in punishing those that would not have me for a gracious king in governing them.<\/p>\n 20:25 Wherefore I gave {l} them also statutes [that were] not good, and judgments by which they should not live;<\/p>\n (l) Because they would not obey my laws, I gave them up to themselves that they should obey their own fantasies, as in Eze 20:39, Rom 1:21; Rom 1:24 .<\/p>\n The Lord also gave them statutes that were not good for them in the sense that He allowed them to choose to live by worldly rules that caused them misery and death (cf. Leviticus 26; Deu 28:15 to Deu 29:19; 2Ki 17:26-41). He also gave them ordinances that were too difficult for them to keep in that He did not lighten the burden of responsibility that the Mosaic Law imposed. When the people offered their children as burnt offerings to the idols, the loss of their children was God’s punishment for this sin (cf. Lev 18:21; Deu 18:10; 2Ki 21:6; 2Ch 28:3; Rom 1:24; Rom 1:26; Rom 1:28). He had commanded that they offer their first-born to Him or redeem those children (Exo 13:12; Exo 22:29; Num 18:15-19), but He had not told them to offer their children to Him as burnt offerings. Ezekiel seems to have been countering the people’s claim that because God had commanded them to dedicate their first-born to Him, He was authorizing child sacrifice. Eze 20:25 may reflect a statement of the people that Ezekiel quoted and than rebutted in Eze 20:26. [Note: See Allen, Ezekiel 20-48, p. 12.] <\/span><\/p>\n "A sacrifice as understood by Israel’s pagan neighbors was a way of giving desirable things to the gods. . . . How about really impressing a god with your dedication and sincerity by sending that god something more precious to you than anything else-your own firstborn child? Thinking themselves likely to gain the lifetime favor of the gods in this way, the Israelites borrowed child sacrifice, too, from their neighbors and began killing their firstborn infants and burning them on altars as a means of sending them to the false gods they were worshiping. It is evident that such people really wanted the gods to love them and were willing to ’give their all’ to gain such love." [Note: Stuart, p. 182.] <\/span><\/p>\n Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; 25. Wherefore I gave also ] Moreover also I gave, see Eze 20:23. statutes not good ] These statutes are of a kind contrary to those given before ( Eze 20:11) which were good. These points seem plain: … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezekiel 20:25”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20931","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20931","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20931"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20931\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"