Ezekiel, the Exodus, and child sacrifice

[Difflugia]

In Ezekiel 20:23-26, an angry Yahweh said the following through the mouth of the prophet:

I also lifted up my hand against them in the desert, that I would scatter them among the nations, and disperse them through the countries ; because they did not observe mine ordinances, but despised my statutes, and polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after the idols of their fathers. Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances by which they should not live. And I polluted them in their offerings, in that they caused every first-born child to pass through the fire, that I might destroy them, to the end that they might know that I am Jehovah.

The question for debate is, "what do these verses mean?"

[Difflugia]

This looks to me like during the Exodus ("in the desert," or, as some translations have it, "in the wilderness"), at least some of the laws given by Yahweh were specifically bad laws to increase the hardship of the Israelites. This apparently included a law that caused them to sacrifice children to Yahweh.

Did some of the Israelites sacrifice their children in the desert because they thought Yahweh commanded them to? Did Ezekiel perhaps know a somewhat different Exodus tradition in which Yahweh did command human sacrifice? I notice that in the various versions of the "sacrifice the firstborn" verses, the bit about redeeming human children by substituting a lamb seems almost tacked on. There's evidence that at least one of the prophets (Amos 5:25) knew a somewhat different Exodus story, so was Ezekiel's different, as well?

Thinking along these lines, it occurs to me that instead of the "lamb's blood on the lintel" protecting the Israelites, perhaps the plague that killed the Egyptian firstborn didn't affect the Israelites because all of their firstborn, both people and livestock, had already been sacrificed.

[Mithrae]

In Ezekiel 20:23-26, an angry Yahweh said the following through the mouth of the prophet:

I also lifted up my hand against them in the desert, that I would scatter them among the nations, and disperse them through the countries ; because they did not observe mine ordinances, but despised my statutes, and polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after the idols of their fathers. Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances by which they should not live. And I polluted them in their offerings, in that they caused every first-born child to pass through the fire, that I might destroy them, to the end that they might know that I am Jehovah.

The question for debate is, "what do these verses mean?"

Checking some different translations (eg. NKJV, NASB) it seems the passage is only problematic depending on the translation/interpretation of how God "gave" them these bad statutes. If sacrifice of the firstborn is evil associated with idol worship (as in Ezekiel 16:20-21 and later in this chapter, 20:31) then these verses read that God lifted up his hand against the Israelites because they rejected his statutes, and he polluted them in their sin of child sacrifice in order to destroy/desolate/horrify them. If verse 25 is read as saying that God directly commanded them to obey statutes that weren't good, then and only then does it look as if God told them to sacrifice children. Elsewhere in the chapter that same word is used for things which God directly commanded them to obey (vs. 11-12), but it's also used for the land of Canaan, something which belonged to another people which God allowed/helped them to possess (v 15, 28, 42). If verse 25 were read more in that latter sense it would simply imply that because the Israelites had rejected Jehovah's statutes, in his anger he let them take up again the bad statutes associated with the idols of their fathers. Obviously that would seem to be much more consistent with the rest of Ezekiel.

There's evidence that at least one of the prophets (Amos 5:25) knew a somewhat different Exodus story, so was Ezekiel's different, as well?

Is that evidence Amos knew a different version? It seems to continue the same theme from verses 21-23.

[Clownboat]

In Ezekiel 20:23-26, an angry Yahweh said the following through the mouth of the prophet:

I also lifted up my hand against them in the desert, that I would scatter them among the nations, and disperse them through the countries ; because they did not observe mine ordinances, but despised my statutes, and polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after the idols of their fathers. Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances by which they should not live. And I polluted them in their offerings, in that they caused every first-born child to pass through the fire, that I might destroy them, to the end that they might know that I am Jehovah.

The question for debate is, "what do these verses mean?"

Hard to say for sure, but child sacrifice cannot be excluded as it is included elsewhere.

“If you give the Ammonites into my hands,” he vowed, “whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering” (Judges 11:30-31).

Scripture reports, “Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands” (Judges 11:32 NIV). The victory was so decisive that he “devastated” 20 Ammonite towns and “Thus Israel subdued Ammon” (Judges 11:33 NIV).

Judges 11:37 reports that Jephthah’s daughter was young—not yet married, but old enough to be thinking of marriage and family. In the ancient Middle East, girls commonly married in their early to mid-teens, usually becoming engaged after they first started menstruating. So, although we can’t know for sure this girl’s age, we can safely assume she was under 14, probably around 12 years or so.

Jephthah’s little princess was given two months to mourn with her friends “because she would never marry” (Judges 11:38 NIV). Then, in sham service to God, Gilead’s new king lit the flame that gruesomely burned his daughter to ashes in a pagan-style ritual of human sacrifice (Judges 11:39).
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/peopl ... ghter.html

Judges 11:39 ►
And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,

The real question that I have is what gives with all the gods and their desire for virgin girls?
Makes me wonder if all those god concepts are pedophiles or if ancient humans were just projecting their desires. One idea sure does make more sense then the other IMO.

[Mithrae]

The real question that I have is what gives with all the gods and their desire for virgin girls?
Makes me wonder if all those god concepts are pedophiles or if ancient humans were just projecting their desires. One idea sure does make more sense then the other IMO.

There's nothing in that story suggesting that the Yahweh character wanted a human sacrifice of any kind. Perhaps there is some projection here... by critics rather than by the authors?

Most readers of Judges would legitimately presume that Yahweh was going to save Israel and deliver the Ammonites into Jephthah's hands, just as He had done for Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Tola and Jair previously; no bargaining required, just faithful worship of Yahweh. It was a unilateral decision by Jephthah - a mighty warrior and leader of a gang of scoundrels (bandits?) - to try to make a bargain for his victory, just as he'd bargained for leadership of Gilead if he helped them. If anything, the story reads as more of a cautionary tale against unwise promises or trying to tempt God with some kind of feeble negotiation offer.

More broadly it's one of numerous stories in the Hebrew canon dealing with moral ambiguities, such as when (if ever) is instant blind obedience to God appropriate; for example contrast Ezekiel's protests against merely cooking food over his own faeces and God's acquiescence to Ezekiel's morals, against Abraham's immediate acquiescence in the far higher-stakes case of a voice telling him to kill his own son! The question of when if ever to make a vow and when if ever to break an unwise vow seems to be raised by this Jephthah story, and probably influenced the similar conclusions which many Jews and Christians alike reached:

• https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... and-oaths/
  Vows and Oaths are both considered weighty matters in Jewish thought. Breaking either is explicitly forbidden by the Bible in Numbers 30:3: “If a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath imposing an obligation on himself, he shall not break his pledge; he must carry out all that has crossed his lips.” . . . .
  
  While there are examples in the Bible of individuals making vows, by the rabbinic period the practice was deeply frowned upon. The Talmud states that the punishment for breaking a vow is the death of one’s children. The Shulchan Aruch explicitly warns people not to regularly make vows, and states that someone who does — even if they fulfill the vow — is called wicked and a sinner. Many observant Jews have the practice of saying b’li neder (“without a vow”) whenever they promise to do something to make explicit that they are not making a vow.
  
  
  Matthew 5:33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one.

Obviously there's a certain irony in the custom of swearing a vow on the bible in a courthouse.

[Clownboat]

The real question that I have is what gives with all the gods and their desire for virgin girls?
Makes me wonder if all those god concepts are pedophiles or if ancient humans were just projecting their desires. One idea sure does make more sense then the other IMO.

There's nothing in that story suggesting that the Yahweh character wanted a human sacrifice of any kind. Perhaps there is some projection here...

In that story, I would agree that the god did not order a virgin to be sacrificed to himself, but if you look above, you failed to address "the real question".

The idea of projection is not appreciated and an undesireable thing for you to suggest even flippantly.

Throwing Virgins into the Sea and Other Ways to Appease the Gods:
The Ancient Reasons behind Virgin Sacrifice
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history ... ice-021653

Maiden goddesses and virgin sacrifice - Marado and Gwancheong Halmang
http://www.jejuweekly.com/news/articleV ... idxno=3098

There are more examples (some assumed) of ancient gods and stories surrounding virgins. This is what I am alluding to.

[Mithrae]

The idea of projection is not appreciated and an undesireable thing for you to suggest even flippantly.

Well then, that which you hate do not do to your fellow. That's the whole of the Law, according to early 1st century Jewish sage Hillel the Elder.

There are more examples (some assumed) of ancient gods and stories surrounding virgins. This is what I am alluding to.

So, something unrelated to the thread topic or even the story from Judges? Possibly wasn't worth mentioning, nor complaining that I responded under the assumption that it had some relevancy.

[theophile]

Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances by which they should not live. And I polluted them in their offerings, in that they caused every first-born child to pass through the fire, that I might destroy them, to the end that they might know that I am Jehovah.

I am with Mithrae on this one, I believe.

More broadly it's one of numerous stories in the Hebrew canon dealing with moral ambiguities, such as when (if ever) is instant blind obedience to God appropriate

If we assume that the bible was meant to edify us, or teach us to do what is right, then a key stage in its instruction - or God's instruction of us - would be focused on developing our ability to discern what is wrong.

As such, I would fully expect to see the bible / God test us with false ordinances. Especially during our time in the wilderness. So that we can develop and demonstrate our wisdom, and through that our worthiness for the promised land.

[Clownboat]

The idea of projection is not appreciated and an undesireable thing for you to suggest even flippantly.

Well then, that which you hate do not do to your fellow.

If you ever feel that I have accused you of being a pedophile or desiring virgin girls, then you would have my appologies.

Clownboat: "The real question that I have is what gives with all the gods and their desire for virgin girls? Makes me wonder if all those god concepts are pedophiles or if ancient humans were just projecting their desires."

Mithrae: "There's nothing in that story suggesting that the Yahweh character wanted a human sacrifice of any kind. Perhaps there is some projection here... by critics rather than by the authors?"

What you imply here with the projection statement is not appreciated and I believe you would not be so cavalier in saying such a thing if not protected behind your keyboard. Also ironic that you would then quote Hillel as I'm sure you would not appreciate such a thing.

As far as being on topic, please see the title:
"Ezekiel, the Exodus, and child sacrifice"

[Mithrae]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #9]

Perhaps you would not be so cavalier about insulting the dead if they weren't... well... too dead to speak in their own defense. It's always safest to attack those who can't protect themselves, I suppose Crying foul when the impolite nature of your comments is pointed out to you is a little disappointing, and to then boast about what a physical threat you might pose to anyone who questions you when your words aren't up to the task seems even less impressive.



Anyways, did you actually have anything relevant to say about child sacrifice in Ezekiel and the Exodus?