Roger wrote:I can see how there's room for subjectivity but this does sound like God is the one causing the state of defilement rather than allowing it to occur. On the other hand, the point Ezekiel is making is that God only does this out of exasperation because the Isrealites constantly want to worship idols. So it sort of boils down to a chicken and egg question with Ezekiel putting the ultimate blame on humans.
As he is won't to do.
Roger wrote:I can certainly understand a less than objective response. These verses are never studied in Sunday School or in Bible study classes.
Very true.
Roger wrote:Which text? Ezekiel or Exodus? It's worded a little odd, but the commentators seem to be suggesting that "the eldest sons" would have been surrendered to idols rather than to YHWH which is what Ezekiel is saying, no?
Ezekiel. No, Ezekiel has absolutely nothing to say about idols. The text refers to sacrifices of children directly to YHWH, as Exod 22 commands.
As Nipper is approaching the Josiah reformation and the discovery of the law in the temple it might be appropriate to keep this discussion alive a bit more. My own puzzlement remains.
I admit I am one who has read the Exodus 22 command through the lense of all the other material elsewhere about redeeming the son. I have also in the past blown past the problematic Ezekiel verses thinking more about all the reference to idols in the surrounding material. I remain with some puzzlement why all the surrounding material points clearly to idols while the one passage is so notable for not doing that.
I understand Mak observation that the Exodus verse is in a distinct statement of Gods legal requirements which would have existed separate from the other legal codes it is now embedded in. I am unsure of the idea that Ezekiel was unaware of other legal concepts of alternatives to actual sacrifice. Ezekiel is passionately against the child sacrifice. There is a lot of divisiveness in Isreal during the monarchy. It seems possible that different people put the laws together differently. Perhaps some understood the laws to mean normally child are not sacriced but upon situations of special need it could be done. Obviously from Biblical statements some people were doing it and others did not approve.
What may be a shock is the realization that those who were doing it likely understood it to be for YHWH not some other god and that is was being done in accordance with the instruction in Exodus.
The usual comment about Josiah and the found legal code speculates it is Deuteronomy. A big production of animal sacrifice would be appropriate to a new realization of the importance of redeeming the child instead of sacricing the child. Stopping the observances at high places would also fit.
But perhaps that did not resolve the question. As military threat to Jerusalem grew perhaps people reverted to the old sacrifice(real chlldren) for special power or influence.
This whole problem is a bit hard on the excuse for killing so many Caananites which sometimes is that Caananites were so bad that they actually sacrificed their own children.
[1] I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.
[2] Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.
[3] And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.
[4] For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.
[5] Wherefore it came to pass that my father, Lehi, as he went forth prayed unto the Lord, yea, even with all his heart, in behalf of his people.
[6] And it came to pass as he prayed unto the Lord, there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him; and he saw and heard much; and because of the things which he saw and heard he did quake and tremble exceedingly.
[7] And it came to pass that he returned to his own house at Jerusalem; and he cast himself upon his bed, being overcome with the Spirit and the things which he had seen.
[8] And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.
[9] And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.
[10] And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.
[11] And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read.
[12] And it came to pass that as he read, he was filled with the Spirit of the Lord.
[13] And he read, saying: Wo, wo, unto Jerusalem, for I have seen thine abominations! Yea, and many things did my father read concerning Jerusalem -- that it should be destroyed, and the inhabitants thereof; many should perish by the sword, and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.
[14] And it came to pass that when my father had read and seen many great and marvelous things, he did exclaim many things unto the Lord; such as: Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty! Thy throne is high in the heavens, and thy power, and goodness, and mercy are over all the inhabitants of the earth, and, because thou art merciful, thou wilt not suffer those who come unto thee that they shall perish!
[15] And after this manner was the language of my father in the praising of his God; for his soul did rejoice, and his whole heart was filled, because of the things which he had seen, yea, which the Lord had shown unto him.
[16] And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account.
[17] But I shall make an account of my proceedings in my days. Behold, I make an abridgment of the record of my father, upon plates which I have made with mine own hands; wherefore, after I have abridged the record of my father then will I make an account of mine own life.
[18] Therefore, I would that ye should know, that after the Lord had shown so many marvelous things unto my father, Lehi, yea, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, behold he went forth among the people, and began to prophesy and to declare unto them concerning the things which he had both seen and heard.
[19] And it came to pass that the Jews did mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the book, manifested plainly of the coming of the Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.
[20] And when the Jews heard these things they were angry with him; yea, even as with the prophets of old, whom they had cast out, and stoned, and slain; and they also sought his life, that they might take it away. But behold, I, Nephi, will show unto you that the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even unto the power of deliverance.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
maklelan wrote:Ezekiel. No, Ezekiel has absolutely nothing to say about idols. The text refers to sacrifices of children directly to YHWH, as Exod 22 commands.
I apologize for being somewhat distracted by life events going on right now but I don't think I'm following you. The way my NEB reads it seems the whole point of Ez. 20 is God's condemnation of Israel because of their constant desire to worship idols. In my version (NEB) idols are mentioned in vs.'s 8, 16, 18, 24, 26, 30 (loathsome gods), 31, 32 (worship wood and stone), and 39. What am I missing?
Which scenario is that?
The scenario that sees Ezekiel as accurately reporting the words of God. It appears to me that Ezekiel has God commanding the Isrealites to sacrifice their firstborn to idols because God is exasperated with them and is finally giving them what they want in the hopes that the horror of it all will turn them back to him. That seems to be the point Ezekiel is making and I'm saying that doesn't seem to fit with the tone of Exodus 22. I think you are suggesting that Ez. 20:25-26 is referring to sacrifices to YHWH... is that correct? But it seems like that interpretation doesn't fit with the rest of the context of Ez. 20.
I consider my testimony of Jesus to be contingent upon my testimony of the restored gospel, so it would seriously problematize things.
I suspected your answer would be something like that. You're using the word "testimony" in an LDS sense. I would suggest that you don't have "a testimony of Jesus" in the normal sense of the term (i.e. you had some sort of tangible interaction with Jesus that you can testify to) If that is correct, then it would seem that your "testimony" of Jesus is not any different from any of the rest of us non-LDS Christians. You accept the idea that Jesus rose from the dead on faith, just as we do. You simply put a different label on it and instead think of it as a "testimony." Am I wrong?
The irony is that you and I agree that Jesus rose from the dead. We just agree on that for radically different reasons. Your reasons, it would seem, hinge almost entirely (if not entirely) on the reliability of Joseph Smith. Mine hinge almost entirely on the reliability of the Bible with some additional logic and one piece of tangible evidence thrown in.
I don't think there's a sharp dichotomy between Joseph Smith as prophet or fraud, and I don't know what kind of circumstances or evidence would be needed to definitively prove one over and against the other.
As a non-LDS this is baffling to me - especially considering how skeptical you seem to be otherwise. How could he be both a prophet and a fraud? Or sort-of a prophet and sort-of a fraud?
What evidence are you combining with faith?
Mainly the actions of the apostles, the lack of a tomb that contains the bones of Christ, the mention by neutral or hostile sources of Jesus and a concession that something unusual had taken place - or at least an acknowledgement that unusual claims were being made - and the Shroud of Turin.
I am a staunch skeptic
See? : ) I think you just agreed with my earlier point. : )
when it comes to just about any notion of inerrancy, and I don't believe there's any evidence at all to support it. This is one of the reasons I am astonished when fundamentalists insist the evidence problematizes the Latter-day Saint worldview but doesn't do the same for the mainstream Christian worldview. Both are equally and unilaterally undermined by the evidence.
I disagree. There may be problems with textual transmission when it comes to the Bible and it may or may not be true that the original texts were "inerrant" but there is no question the texts are legitimately ancient and were written by real people who believed in what they were producing. There are very few credible people who suggest that Jesus Christ wasn't a real person. The same simply cannot be said for the Book of Mormon. There is simply no evidence at all to support the notion that there ever were pre-Columbian Christian prophets in America - not to mention pre-Christian Christian prophets. At least with the Christian worldview we don't have to speculate whether or not there ever were ancient Isrealites who actually wrote their religious ideas down. This is not the case with the Book of Mormon. We do have to speculate whether there ever was a Lehi or a Nephi and at some point a complete lack of supporting evidence becomes compelling. Then, if we add to that Joseph Smith's changing testimony, changing revelations and the incredibility of some of his claims along with logical comparisons to contemporary false prophets like Warren Jeffs, his stories become even more difficult to accept.
It's legitimately debatable whether the Bible is "undermined by the evidence" but, in my opinion, that is not the case with the Book of Mormon.
And then the text I quoted above puts the blame pretty squarely on God, showing how there are conflicting conceptualizations of God and his nature in the Bible. There's a chapter in Samuel where the text says God does not repent, but within five or ten verses (I don't remember exactly), it says God repented.
It may be that there are conflicting conceptualizations of God in the Bible. For me, if that's the case, then I have to question whether one or the other should not have been included in the canon.
All the best.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
maklelan wrote:Ezekiel. No, Ezekiel has absolutely nothing to say about idols. The text refers to sacrifices of children directly to YHWH, as Exod 22 commands.
I apologize for being somewhat distracted by life events going on right now but I don't think I'm following you. The way my NEB reads it seems the whole point of Ez. 20 is God's condemnation of Israel because of their constant desire to worship idols. In my version (NEB) idols are mentioned in vs.'s 8, 16, 18, 24, 26, 30 (loathsome gods), 31, 32 (worship wood and stone), and 39. What am I missing?
While it is true that idol worship is condemned elsewhere in the chapter, the offering up of the firstborn is mentioned immediately after "I gave them statutes / I defiled them" and just before "in order that I might horrify them / so that they might know that I am YHWH." Idols are not mentioned in this particular passage.
And even if it were about idols, it would mean that Ezekiel portrays YHWH as ordering his own people to sacrifice their children to competing gods, which makes no sense.
2 Kings 15:1-38 Jeroboam king of Israel reigned 27 years when Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah began to reign. Azariah was 16 years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-two years. His mother’s name was Jekoliah; she was from Jerusalem. He did what was righteous in the Lord, just as his father Amaziah had done. But the high places, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.
The Lord afflicted the king with leprosy his entire life, and he lived in a separate house. Jotham the king’s son had charge of the palace and governed the people of the land. As for the other events of Azariah’s reign, and all he did are written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah. Azariah rested with his ancestors and was buried near them in the City of David. Jotham his son succeeded him as king.
Azariah king of Judah reigned 38 years when Zechariah son of Jeroboam became king of Israel in Samaria, and he reigned six months. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, as his ancestors did. He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he influenced Israel to do. Shallum son of Jabesh conspired against Zechariah. He attacked him in front of the people, assassinating him and succeeded him as king. The other events of Zechariah’s reign are written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah. So the word of the Lord spoken to Jehu was fulfilled: “Your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.”
Shallum son of Jabesh became king in the 39 year of Uzziah king of Judah, and he reigned in Samaria one month. Then Menahem son of Gadi went from Tirzah up to Samaria. He attacked Shallum son of Jabesh in Samaria, assassinating him --- succeeded him as king. Other events of Shallum’s reign, and the conspiracy he led, are written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its suburbs, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women.
In the 39th year of Azariah king of Judah, Menahem son of Gadi became king of Israel, and he reigned in Samaria 10 years. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord. During his entire reign he did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he influenced Israel commit.
Pul king of Assyria invaded the land, and Menahem gave him 1000 talents of silver to gain his support and strengthen his own control of the kingdom. Menahem collected this money from Israel. Every wealthy person had to contribute 50 shekels of silver to be given to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria withdrew and stayed in the land no longer. Other events of Menahem’s reign, and all he did, are written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? Menahem rested with his ancestors. Pekahiah his son succeeded him as king.
In the 15th year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekahiah son of Menahem became king of Israel in Samaria, and he reigned 2 years. Pekahiah did evil in the eyes of the Lord. He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he influenced Israel to commit. One of his chief officers, Pekah son of Remaliah, conspired against him. Taking 50 men of Gilead with him, he assassinated Pekahiah, along with Argob and Arieh, in the citadel of the royal palace at Samaria. Pekah killed Pekahiah and succeeded him as king. Other events of Pekahiah’s reign, and all he did,are written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel.
In the 52nd year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekah son of Remaliah became king of Israel in Samaria, and he reigned twenty years. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord. He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, etc...
In the reign of Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maakah, Janoah, Kedesh and Hazor. He took Gilead and Galilee, including all the land of Naphtali, and deported the people to Assyria. Then Hoshea son of Elah conspired against Pekah son of Remaliah. He attacked and assassinated him, and then succeeded him as king in the 20th year of Jotham son of Uzziah. Other events of Pekah’s reign, and all he did, are written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel.
In the 2nd year of Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel, Jotham son of Uzziah king of Judah began to reign. He was 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem 16 years. His mother’s name was Jerusha daughter of Zadok. 34 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father Uzziah had done. The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there. Jotham rebuilt the Upper Gate of the temple of the Lord. Other events of Jotham’s reign, and what he did, are written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah. (In those days the Lord began to send Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah.) Jotham rested with his ancestors and was buried with them in the City of David, the city of his father. Ahaz his son succeeded him as king.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
1 In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned hath Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah,
2 a son of sixteen years was he in his reigning, and fifty and two years he hath reigned in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother [is] Jecholiah of Jerusalem,
3 and he doth that which [is] right in the eyes of Jehovah, according to all that Amaziah his father did,
4 only, the high places have not turned aside -- yet are the people sacrificing and making perfume in high places.
5 And Jehovah smiteth the king, and he is a leper unto the day of his death, and he dwelleth in a separate house, and Jotham son of the king [is] over the house, judging the people of the land.
6 And the rest of the matters of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah?
7 And Azariah lieth with his fathers, and they bury him with his fathers, in the city of David, and reign doth Jotham his son in his stead.
8 In the thirty and eighth year of Azariah king of Judah reigned hath Zechariah son of Jeroboam over Israel, in Samaria, six months,
9 and he doth the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, as did his fathers, he hath not turned aside from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he caused Israel to sin.
10 And Shallum son of Jabesh conspireth against him, and smiteth him before the people, and putteth him to death, and reigneth in his stead.
11 And the rest of the matters of Zechariah, lo, they are written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel.
12 It [is] the word of Jehovah that He spake unto Jehu, saying, `Sons of the fourth [generation] do sit for thee on the throne of Israel;' and it is so.
13 Shallum son of Jabesh hath reigned in the thirty and ninth year of Uzziah king of Judah, and he reigneth a month of days in Samaria;
14 and go up doth Menahem son of Gadi from Tirzah and cometh in to Samaria, and smiteth Shallum son of Jabesh in Samaria, and putteth him to death, and reigneth in his stead.
15 And the rest of the matters of Shallum, and his conspiracy that he made, lo, they are written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel.
16 Then doth Menahem smite Tiphsah, and all who [are] in it, and its borders from Tirzah, for it opened not [to him], and he smiteth [it], all its pregnant women he hath ripped up.
17 In the thirty and ninth year of Azariah king of Judah reigned hath Menahem son of Gadi over Israel -- ten years in Samaria.
18 And he doth the evil in the eyes of Jehovah, he hath turned not aside from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he caused Israel to sin, all his days.
19 Pul king of Asshur hath come against the land, and Menahem giveth to Pul a thousand talents of silver, for his hand being with him to strengthen the kingdom in his hand.
20 And Menahem bringeth out the silver [from] Israel, [from] all the mighty men of wealth, to give to the king of Asshur, fifty shekels of silver for each one, and the king of Asshur turneth back and hath not stayed there in the land.
21 And the rest of the matters of Menahem, and all that he did, are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel?
22 And Menahem lieth with his fathers, and reign doth Pekahiah his son in his stead.
23 In the fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah hath Pekahiah son of Menahem reigned over Israel, in Samaria -- two years,
24 and he doth the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, he hath not turned aside from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he caused Israel to sin.
25 And Pekah son of Remaliah, his captain, doth conspire against him, and smiteth him in Samaria, in the high place of the house of the king with Argob and Arieh, and with him fifty men of the sons of the Gileadites, and he putteth him to death, and reigneth in his stead.
26 And the rest of the matters of Pekahiah, and all that he did, lo, they are written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel.
27 In the fifty and second year of Azariah king of Judah, reigned hath Pekah son of Remaliah over Israel, in Samaria -- twenty years,
28 and he doth the evil thing in the eyes of Jehovah, he hath not turned aside from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, that he caused Israel to sin.
29 In the days of Pekah king of Israel hath Tiglath-Pileser king of Asshur come, and taketh Ijon, and Abel-Beth-Maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and removeth them to Asshur.
30 And make a conspiracy doth Hoshea son of Elah against Pekah son of Remaliah, and smiteth him, and putteth him to death, and reigneth in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham son of Uzziah.
31 And the rest of the matters of Pekah, and all that he did, lo, they are written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel.
32 In the second year of Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel reigned hath Jotham son of Uzziah king of Judah.
33 A son of twenty and five years was he in his reigning, and sixteen years he hath reigned in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother [is] Jerusha daughter of Zadok,
34 and he doth that which [is] right in the eyes of Jehovah, according to all that Uzziah his father did he hath done.
35 Only, the high places have not turned aside -- yet are the people sacrificing and making perfume in high places; he hath built the high gate of the house of Jehovah.
36 And the rest of the matters of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah?
37 In those days hath Jehovah begun to send against Judah Rezin king of Amram and Pekah son of Remaliah.
38 And Jotham lieth with his fathers, and is buried with his fathers, in the city of David his father, and reign doth Ahaz his son in his stead.
Bret Ripley wrote:While it is true that idol worship is condemned elsewhere in the chapter, the offering up of the firstborn is mentioned immediately after "I gave them statutes / I defiled them" and just before "in order that I might horrify them / so that they might know that I am YHWH." Idols are not mentioned in this particular passage.
And even if it were about idols, it would mean that Ezekiel portrays YHWH as ordering his own people to sacrifice their children to competing gods, which makes no sense.
Some very good observations. I'm not sure either way works very well but considering the context, it seems to makes better sense that YHWH, out of exasperation (which is certainly what he is expressing in the rest of the chapter) says, in effect, okay, go for it, sacrifice your first born to idols.
According to mak:
maklelan wrote:The sentence literally reads, "I defiled them in their gifts and in the causing to pass through of the firstborn in order to desolate/appall them . . ." The verb has reference to turning over an offering or sacrifice to the altar or fire and is the same exact verb used in Exod 13:12 (KJV):
This doesn't make sense if YHWH is saying that sacrifices to him are not good and do not lead to life. Even if we accept that there is an older version of Exodus that does not contain the "redeem" rather than sacrifice disclaimer, it would still logically follow that YHWH is indicating (in Exodus) that sacrifice of the firstborn is a good and necessary thing. But that's not what Ezekiel is having him say. There he says he gave them statutes that were not good and do not lead to life. So in that context, it would seem (to me anyway - to the extent that any of this makes sense) that YHWH can only be saying I imposed on them exactly what they wanted, the sacrifice of their children to idols in the hopes that the horror of it all would return them to me.
To me, this is the only way the passage makes sense - and even then it is still something that I have an extremely difficult time thinking that God would ever do.
mak wrote:
maklelan wrote:
That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD'S.
This is unquestionably a reference to sacrificial offerings.
I agree that this is referring to sacrificial offerings and that it reads in a nonchalant way rather than "I'm giving you the disgusting thing you want" but the sacrifice of the firstborn sons is forbidden by Exodus 13:13. Mak believes that is a later addition, and he may or may not be correct. A lot hangs on a correct interpretation but I don't think there's any way to know for sure. So it would seem we ought to give Exodus the benefit of the doubt since child sacrifice is blatantly condemned in the rest of the Bible and Ex. 22:29 is clearly negated by 13:13.
If that is reasonable, then we have to ask what on earth is Ezekiel referring to? And that's where the context of Ezekiel 20 takes on relevance. He seems to be indicating that YHWH, out of extreme exasperation, goes ahead and commands the sacrifice of children to idols in an effort to horrify the Isrealites into realizing that he, YHWH, is God and not the idols.
Even if that's the correct interpretation, it is still pretty hard to swallow, but that's the only way it makes sense to me.
All the best.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
Huckelberry wrote:I admit I am one who has read the Exodus 22 command through the lense of all the other material elsewhere about redeeming the son. I have also in the past blown past the problematic Ezekiel verses thinking more about all the reference to idols in the surrounding material. I remain with some puzzlement why all the surrounding material points clearly to idols while the one passage is so notable for not doing that.
No doubt mak will have something to say about this, but so far I don't see the evidence that Ez. 20:25-26 is not referring to idol worship. I don't see anything explicitly stating that the sacrifice of the firstborn mentioned in v26 is to be for YHWH as opposed to idols which is what the rest of the chapter is condemning.
I understand Mak observation that the Exodus verse is in a distinct statement of Gods legal requirements which would have existed separate from the other legal codes it is now embedded in.
I'm still not sold on this. There are no original versions of Exodus in existence. It may be that scholars have - or think they have - a pretty decent idea of what exactly was contained in the original version and what wasn't, but without the actual hard copy, one can never be sure. The rest of the Bible unequivocally condemns child sacrifice as an abomination.
I am unsure of the idea that Ezekiel was unaware of other legal concepts of alternatives to actual sacrifice. Ezekiel is passionately against the child sacrifice.
Excellent point. It seems unlikely we would have a clearer picture of Isreal's pre-historical religious practices than Ezekiel would have had and even if that is the case, it seems even more unlikely that the concept of redemption of the eldest sons would have been completely unknown by Ezekiel.
There is a lot of divisiveness in Isreal during the monarchy. It seems possible that different people put the laws together differently. Perhaps some understood the laws to mean normally child are not sacriced but upon situations of special need it could be done. Obviously from Biblical statements some people were doing it and others did not approve.
Agreed. The Bible clearly indicates that some Isrealites were engaging in the practice, but, other than Ex. 22:29 (which is negated by 13:13) I am not aware of a single instance in which we are to believe that the sacrifice was being made to YHWH and sanctioned by him as a good and necessary thing.
mak brings up the case of Jepthah, but that doesn't imply to me that YHWH commanded it or received it as a good thing. It seems to read more like a condemnation of making really stupid vows.
What may be a shock is the realization that those who were doing it likely understood it to be for YHWH not some other god and that is was being done in accordance with the instruction in Exodus.
That's really the key question, and again, I'm not convinced the evidence backs that interpretation.
The usual comment about Josiah and the found legal code speculates it is Deuteronomy. A big production of animal sacrifice would be appropriate to a new realization of the importance of redeeming the child instead of sacricing the child. Stopping the observances at high places would also fit.
Yes, but again, it would also seem to "fit" if God had instructed the redemption of the firstborn from the start whereas the Canaanite deities had always required actual sacrifice. It seems to me that the constant complaint of YHWH was that too many Israelites were following after other gods and engaging in the evil practices such devotion required, not that sacrificing their kids was a good thing but they were just doing it for the wrong god. The only hint we have (from what I can tell) that God ever might have thought actual sacrificing of the firstborn to him was a good thing, is Ex. 22:29 and that is negated by 13:13. Otherwise, it's associated with false gods and condemned.
But perhaps that did not resolve the question. As military threat to Jerusalem grew perhaps people reverted to the old sacrifice(real chlldren) for special power or influence.
Possibly. The Bible pretty much acknowledges that child sacrifice was taking place, but it also condemns it.
This whole problem is a bit hard on the excuse for killing so many Caananites which sometimes is that Caananites were so bad that they actually sacrificed their own children.
Agreed. That argument loses its punch if YHWH himself commanded child sacrifice. So far I just don't see the evidence that he did. It seems that the only way to make that stick is to assume we can know for sure that Ex 13:13 was not a part of the original version of Exodus. Clearly 13:13 negates Ex. 22:29. So the notion that YHWH commanded child sacrifice to himself and saw the practice as a good and necessary thing seems tenuous.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
I apologize for being somewhat distracted by life events going on right now but I don't think I'm following you. The way my NEB reads it seems the whole point of Ez. 20 is God's condemnation of Israel because of their constant desire to worship idols. In my version (NEB) idols are mentioned in vs.'s 8, 16, 18, 24, 26, 30 (loathsome gods), 31, 32 (worship wood and stone), and 39. What am I missing?
I'm sorry, I could have been more specific. I meant the text of vv. 25-26 don't mention idols anywhere. If the NEB says "idols" in v. 26 it's because t has added it. It's not in the Hebrew. The surrounding context mentions idols, but the idea of vv. 25-26 is that YHWH just got so sick of it that he commanded Israel to sacrifice their children to him. There is no commandment anywhere to sacrifice children to idols, so Ezekiel's reference is a mystery. There is a commandment to sacrifice children to YHWH, though.
Roger wrote:The scenario that sees Ezekiel as accurately reporting the words of God. It appears to me that Ezekiel has God commanding the Isrealites to sacrifice their firstborn to idols because God is exasperated with them and is finally giving them what they want in the hopes that the horror of it all will turn them back to him. That seems to be the point Ezekiel is making and I'm saying that doesn't seem to fit with the tone of Exodus 22. I think you are suggesting that Ez. 20:25-26 is referring to sacrifices to YHWH... is that correct? But it seems like that interpretation doesn't fit with the rest of the context of Ez. 20.
The context is about YHWH's relationship with Israel, and about how he was expected to respond to their disobedience. In v. 21 he says he thought about pouring out his wrath upon them, but he withheld his hand (v. 22). In v. 23 he warns that he would scatter them among the nations. In vv.25-26 he explains that he gave them bad commandments in order to desolate them and make clear who's in charge. Idols were their preferred mode of rebellion, but the notion that YHWH said "Fine, sacrifice to idols" is not found within the text.
Roger wrote:I suspected your answer would be something like that. You're using the word "testimony" in an LDS sense.
Of course I do. All people use words in ways that have currency in their social circles.
Roger wrote:I would suggest that you don't have "a testimony of Jesus" in the normal sense of the term (i.e. you had some sort of tangible interaction with Jesus that you can testify to) If that is correct, then it would seem that your "testimony" of Jesus is not any different from any of the rest of us non-LDS Christians. You accept the idea that Jesus rose from the dead on faith, just as we do. You simply put a different label on it and instead think of it as a "testimony." Am I wrong?
I would suggest you're homogenizing a rather broad swath of Christian devotional experience, but if you want to get into specifics, Latter-day Saints conceive of a testimony as something given by the Spirit, not an arbitrary decision.
Roger wrote:The irony is that you and I agree that Jesus rose from the dead. We just agree on that for radically different reasons. Your reasons, it would seem, hinge almost entirely (if not entirely) on the reliability of Joseph Smith.
I wouldn't agree. For me it has nothing to do with Smith's reliability. It has entirely to do with whether or not the Spirit inspired me.
Roger wrote:Mine hinge almost entirely on the reliability of the Bible with some additional logic and one piece of tangible evidence thrown in.
So what convinces you of the reliability of the Bible?
Roger wrote:As a non-LDS this is baffling to me - especially considering how skeptical you seem to be otherwise. How could he be both a prophet and a fraud? Or sort-of a prophet and sort-of a fraud?
Quite easily. No one's entire life is reducible to a single black and white judgment. He could very easily have been a prophet one moment while addressing an audience and a fraud the next while trying to show off for some kind of visitor or challenger. We like to think of categories as convenient little boxes to which an entity either entirely belongs or entirely does not belong, but that's simply not how categories work. They have fuzzy boundaries, they run together, and they are constituted by complex and often illogical conceptual relationships.
Roger wrote:Mainly the actions of the apostles, the lack of a tomb that contains the bones of Christ, the mention by neutral or hostile sources of Jesus and a concession that something unusual had taken place - or at least an acknowledgement that unusual claims were being made -
But this is all contingent upon the accuracy of the biblical text. There very well may have been no empty tomb whatsoever.
Roger wrote:and the Shroud of Turin.
Roger wrote:See? : ) I think you just agreed with my earlier point. : )
About what?
Roger wrote:I disagree. There may be problems with textual transmission when it comes to the Bible and it may or may not be true that the original texts were "inerrant" but there is no question the texts are legitimately ancient and were written by real people who believed in what they were producing.
The same could be said about any one of a number of ancient religious texts you reject. Being ancient doesn't really mean much.
Roger wrote:There are very few credible people who suggest that Jesus Christ wasn't a real person.
There's a difference between being a real person and being the Son of God, though.
Roger wrote:The same simply cannot be said for the Book of Mormon. There is simply no evidence at all to support the notion that there ever were pre-Columbian Christian prophets in America - not to mention pre-Christian Christian prophets. At least with the Christian worldview we don't have to speculate whether or not there ever were ancient Isrealites who actually wrote their religious ideas down.
That's not a very handy advantage when you still have to deal with mountains of evidence that flatly and unilaterally undermine all your claims. The exodus is precluded by all physical evidence. It's physically impossible that Moses split the Red Sea, or that Balaam spoke with a talking donkey.When you're making outrageous claims it hardly means anything that the texts are ancient. They're still several centuries later than they purport to be, after all.
Roger wrote:This is not the case with the Book of Mormon. We do have to speculate whether there ever was a Lehi or a Nephi and at some point a complete lack of supporting evidence becomes compelling. Then, if we add to that Joseph Smith's changing testimony, changing revelations and the incredibility of some of his claims along with logical comparisons to contemporary false prophets like Warren Jeffs, his stories become even more difficult to accept.
The same is the case with the Bible. The theology changes with every author, the texts demonstrably don't date to the times to which they purport, and the evidence unilaterally precludes all the faith claims made.
Roger wrote:It's legitimately debatable whether the Bible is "undermined by the evidence" but, in my opinion, that is not the case with the Book of Mormon.
I disagree that it's debatable. I cannot think of a single faith claim from the Bible that has any evidence in its favor that comes anywhere close to a fraction of the evidence that flatly precludes it.
Roger wrote:It may be that there are conflicting conceptualizations of God in the Bible. For me, if that's the case, then I have to question whether one or the other should not have been included in the canon.
All the best.
Why do you presuppose univocality and inerrancy? What compels you to do this?
Roger wrote:This doesn't make sense if YHWH is saying that sacrifices to him are not good and do not lead to life. Even if we accept that there is an older version of Exodus that does not contain the "redeem" rather than sacrifice disclaimer, it would still logically follow that YHWH is indicating (in Exodus) that sacrifice of the firstborn is a good and necessary thing. But that's not what Ezekiel is having him say. There he says he gave them statutes that were not good and do not lead to life. So in that context, it would seem (to me anyway - to the extent that any of this makes sense) that YHWH can only be saying I imposed on them exactly what they wanted, the sacrifice of their children to idols in the hopes that the horror of it all would return them to me.
To me, this is the only way the passage makes sense - and even then it is still something that I have an extremely difficult time thinking that God would ever do.
Hi Roger:
If I recall correctly, you stated earlier that you didn't necessarily believe in inerrancy but it seems your approach here may be informed to some degree by inerrantist thought. If I'm reading you correctly, you are trying to find a way to harmonize the Ezekiel and Exodus passages. However, an approach that denies the possibility that different authors may be in disagreement (in this case over the motives and actions of YHWH) runs the risk of doing a disservice to one or both of the texts.
Reading Ezekiel as a sort of corrective to the Exodus passage makes a lot of sense and does not raise the problems caused by the proposed harmonized reading. As maklelan points out, these problems include positing an otherwise unattested statute in which YHWH commands sacrifices to idols.
You may all wish to read the following which spells out the problem. The message of the Bible and what it says is not up for personal interpretation. Please see: http://bible-truth.org/Principles.htm Please check out chapter one. It is very easy reading. "A good rule is: "A text without a context is only a pretext." The definition of the word "pretext" means a false reason or motive put forth to hide the real one. It is impossible to understand any statement without considering its context. "