The Narrow Path Ministries

Emmet and I were discussing this chapter in another thread and I felt Ezekiel 18 warranted its own topic. I'd also like others to chime in. I was making the point that we are saved through faith because Christ mediated for us (and for those before and after his own time). Emmet challenged me on this by bringing up Ezekiel 18 so I'd like to open a discussion here.

Unlike much of Ezekiel, the context of chapter 18 is surprisingly easy to grasp. He opens thusly, "The word of the Lord came to me: "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: "'The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'?"

We see here that God is concerned that those in Israel were holding onto a belief that the children pay for the crimes of the preceding generations. God then goes on to expound on the inaccuracy of this view. He speaks for 30 verses and tells Ezekiel that if an unrighteous person repents and turns from evil, they will be accepted. Likewise, if a righteous person turns from good and practices evil, he will be rejected by God and die.

Given the fact that we all face physical death, perhaps the word "die" in Ezekiel 18 is meant to convey God's rejection of a person. Emmet, could you help me with the Hebrew here and let me know if this strikes you as accurate?

As to how this relates to a person being saved by faith, my opinion is that someone only turns from sin when faith is present. In Zeke's day, they didn't have the light of Messiah. However, everyone knows when they've offended their conscience by wronging someone. If this isn't repented of it's probably due to the fact that their faith is empty. If they do repent and choose to do good, it's only because they believed that doing so would be pleasing to God and somehow "restore order." God doesn't have to accept repentence because he can still justly hold our past crimes against us like our current legal system does. However, I believe that Christ's sacrifice makes faith/repentence acceptable to God, through the remission of past sins.

Anyone following Ezekiel's mandate, given by God, would have been accepted by God. One might then wonder why sacrificial mediation is needed at all since God tells Ezekiel that anyone who turns from evil will live. My counter-question would be... did God still require the Mosaic laws pertaining to animal sacrifice at that time?

JC, thanks for bringing this up. You might find some comments on the following thread useful:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1703

Shalom
Ely

Why should anyone have to "pay" for past sin? If someone has stolen your car and wrecked it, does it give you "satisfaction" if the thief is caught and imprisoned for two years? That doesn't give you your car back. But what if the thief should repent (have a change of heart and mind) and try to make it up to you by giving you monthly payments --- as much as he can afford? You still wouldn't have you car back, but could you not forgive a man who had changed his ways?

George MacDonald stated (I'm quoting from memory) that It is not for past dead sins that God holds a man accountable. Rather it is his present live sins that indicate that there is something wrong in the man's heart and mind. His basic character must be corrected, and that is God's concern.

Jesus died that "we might die to sin and live to righteousness". Jesus died to deliver us from sin ... not merely to forgive us.

Hi, Paidion. I'm wondering what you do with the entire book of Hebrews then? Was it not written to explain how Christ reconciled us to God through his death and resurrection? What do you make of Jesus fulfilling the shadows of sacrifical atonement in the Mosaic covenant? Is Jesus not called the “propitiation for the sins of the people” in Hebrews 2:17?

You and Emmet have posed a philisophical argument, not a biblical one. I don't understand the philosophy by which God chooses what is acceptable and what is not, though I could venture a guess. Rather, I'm more interested in what the writers of scripture have revealed to us.

Jesus died that "we might die to sin and live to righteousness". Jesus died to deliver us from sin ... not merely to forgive us


I still don't know why you seem to suggest it's one or the other instead of both forgiveness and deliverance. Does'nt the Lord's prayer say we owe a debt to God?

I still don't know why you seem to suggest it's one or the other instead of both forgiveness and deliverance. Does'nt the Lord's prayer say we owe a debt to God?

Yes it does. And that fact supports my belief.

For If Jesus paid our debt by his death, why do we still owe it? Why do we still pray, "Forgive us our debts"?

For If Jesus paid our debt by his death, why do we still owe it? Why do we still pray, "Forgive us our debts"?



I would think for the debt created by new sins we made after we became believers. Like a reaffirmation or like an acknowledgment that we still do sin and we still will sin in the future and when that happens "Lord please forgive us our debts."

I would think for the debt created by new sins we made after we became believers. Like a reaffirmation or like an acknowledgment that we still do sin and we still will sin in the future and when that happens "Lord please forgive us our debts."

So Jesus had to die in order for our past sins to be forgiven. But present or future sins are forgiven just for the asking. Do I understand you correctly?

So Jesus had to die in order for our past sins to be forgiven. But present or future sins are forgiven just for the asking. Do I understand you correctly?


As you know this subject is difficult but since Jesus was called the second Adam by Paul then apparently there is a link between Jesus's life and death to Adam's.
Adam's life caused sin to enter the world as well as death to pass to every man so apparently Jesus's life and death was as a contrast or undoing of Adam's. Therefore Jesus's life eternal allows for our life eternal and just as Adam's sin affected us then Jesus's sinlessness is credited to us if we are "in Him." So i perceive Jesus's sinlessness being credited to us as the equivalent of the forgiveness of sins.
As far as present and future sins being forgiven "just for the asking" i would add only if you ask with a repentent heart.

Hello, JC,

A tardy response here.

Anyone following Ezekiel's mandate, given by God, would have been accepted by God. One might then wonder why sacrificial mediation is needed at all since God tells Ezekiel that anyone who turns from evil will live. My counter-question would be... did God still require the Mosaic laws pertaining to animal sacrifice at that time?

It might seem from Ezra 3 that the sacrificial cult lapsed sometime during the exile.

But my first counter-counter-question would be: who mediated for the priest under the Mosaic laws?

And my second counter-counter-question would be: who mediated for the Chinese, and for the Native Americans, and the Norwegians (etc.) at that time?

You and Emmet have posed a philisophical argument, not a biblical one. I don't understand the philosophy by which God chooses what is acceptable and what is not, though I could venture a guess. Rather, I'm more interested in what the writers of scripture have revealed to us.

And what of that which the writer of the Qur'an has "revealed" to us? Or that which the writer of the Urantia Book has "revealed" to us?

If we cannot philosophically vet the content of "scripture," how are we to responsibly place ourselves under its direction and invest into its authority?


Shlamaa,
Emmet