his blood I will require at your hand?

[kyredneck]

From the comments so far I am still not clear as to the meaning of the subject phrase.

Is God telling Ezekiel that if he does not warn the people (both the wicked and the righteous) of their sin, then he will be eternally punished?

Thanks for the help with this phrase.

Is there something in the text surrounding these passages that justifies the insertion of eternal consequences into the interpretation? I don't see it, these are ISRAELITES that Ezekiel was sent to, which to me typically [by type] is very significant. He wasn't sent to the Babylonians, he was sent to the Israelites.

I've already stated my opinion, no eternal consequences; and provided the example of Jonah having the blood of the Ninevites brought upon him.

 

[Reformed]

From the comments so far I am still not clear as to the meaning of the subject phrase.

Is God telling Ezekiel that if he does not warn the people (both the wicked and the righteous) of their sin, then he will be eternally punished?

Thanks for the help with this phrase.

What is the context of Ezekiel 3? Who is the object? Who is the subject?

In Ezekiel 3 the Lord is having a dialog with Ezekiel. He informs Ezekiel about Israel's disobedience (vs. 7-9). God warns Ezekiel that he needs to discharge his duties faithfully or God will hold him accountable if he does not (vs. 18, 20). It is the same thing in Ezekiel 33. God is not telling Ezekiel that he will be eternally punished. God is telling Ezekiel he will be held accountable. If God wanted to, he could have taken Ezekiel's life because of his disobedience had he not carried out the Lord's command.

Look at the story of Jonah. Jonah was told to go preach to Nineveh, but he refused and fled instead. God held Jonah accountable for his actions by having him swallowed by a great fish (Jonah 1:17).

In Ezekiel the text does not indicate that if Ezekiel disobeyed God's command that his eternal life would be forfeit. We need to be careful not to exceed what scripture reveals about itself.

 

[Van]

What does "his blood I will require at your hand" mean?

Ezekiel 3:18. "When I say to the wicked, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand."

Ezekiel 3:20. "(When) a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand."

Ezekiel 33:6. "(If) the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman’s hand."

Ezekiel 33:8. "When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand."

Hello Carpenter's Apprentice:

I did not read the thread, but I suspect you got differing answers:

1) We suffer loss in this life, but our eternal rewards are unaffected.
2) Since, by our inaction, we contributed to the loss of a soul, and God does not desire any to be lost, we suffer loss of rewards for our failures to warn the lost.​

Answer #1 would tend to come from Calvinists, and answer #2 would tend to come from non-Calvinists.

So lets try another tact, what does scripture say? If we look at 2 Samuel 4:11 we see the phrase appears to refer to a death sentence. Could this support the Old Covenant loss of salvation for unfaithfulness theory, perhaps. But obviously it has no application, other than loss of rewards, for those with eternal life under the New Covenant. John 3:16 precludes that application to born anew believers.

 

[kyredneck]

What is the context of Ezekiel 3? Who is the object? Who is the subject?

In Ezekiel 3 the Lord is having a dialog with Ezekiel. He informs Ezekiel about Israel's disobedience (vs. 7-9). God warns Ezekiel that he needs to discharge his duties faithfully or God will hold him accountable if he does not (vs. 18, 20). It is the same thing in Ezekiel 33. God is not telling Ezekiel that he will be eternally punished. God is telling Ezekiel he will be held accountable. If God wanted to, he could have taken Ezekiel's life because of his disobedience had he not carried out the Lord's command.

Look at the story of Jonah. Jonah was told to go preach to Nineveh, but he refused and fled instead. God held Jonah accountable for his actions by having him swallowed by a great fish (Jonah 1:17).

In Ezekiel the text does not indicate that if Ezekiel disobeyed God's command that his eternal life would be forfeit. We need to be careful not to exceed what scripture reveals about itself.

Excellent articulation Ref.

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this were unprofitable for you. Heb 13:17

 

[JeremyV]

Ah, I forgot how irrelevant audience relevance is to you.

You go ahead, expound and add to it and make it to include anything and apply to anyone that you think it should. Make it mean what you want it to mean, as if Christianity has not already had enough of that.

I'll stick to originalism as held by Hodge and Bork as my first rule of interpretation.

How nice. You can't prove your point by scripture so you instead throw insults. This may make you feel better but it is not conducive to a constructive discussion. You continue to make assertions with not Biblical backup. The only example you provide that seems to prove your point is that of Jonah, but there was no need for eternal consequences in tat case ( and by this I do not mean eternal damnation but loss of rewards as I have stated already) as he did eventually obey and did preach. Nowhere in scripture does the Bible call what Jonah went through in the belly of the fish as having anything to do with the blood of the Ninevites. If we take the scriptures in Ezekiel for what they say, such punishment does not come until after the people die in their sins and only if Jonah had not preached. This is what the word of God says, not me. Jonah simply does not apply.

As for Hodge and Bork, I don't care what they think. In rightly dividing the word of God we are not called to heed man's interpretation but the word of God itself. The idea that we should give credence to how the original audience interpreted the scriptures is simply wrong and downright dangerous. I have shown you in other discussions that even the Bible tells us that the original audience often got it wrong, very wrong (a point that you have neglected to even try to refute). We must interpret scripture according to what the author intended the audience to understand, not how they decided to understand it. It is the author that was inspired, not the audience. I do not add to the scriptures and I do not make it mean whatever I want it to, as you claim I do. I simply prefer the word of God over the word of man. If you prefer the advice of men over the instruction of the word of God, I feel that there is little common ground that we can come to. If this is not the case then I am glad of it and sorry to make such an accusation. As for myself I will continue to use the word of God as the only ruler by which all doctrine must be measured.

This does not mean that I am always correct. In fact far from it. I am more often wrong then right. But if you want to prove to me that I am wrong, do not bring me what man says, bring me what God says through his written word. Do this and I will believe.

Is there something in the text surrounding these passages that justifies the insertion of eternal consequences into the interpretation? I don't see it, these are ISRAELITES that Ezekiel was sent to, which to me typically [by type] is very significant. He wasn't sent to the Babylonians, he was sent to the Israelites..

Not all of Israel was saved. Being "righteous" did not even mean that they were saved (as works do not save). The fact that they could die in their sins indicates the opposite. One who is saved has no sins attributed to them (as they have been covered by the blood of Christ). These Israelites would have died and being in sin would have suffered eternal damnation.

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
(Rom 6:23)

I've already stated my opinion, no eternal consequences; and provided the example of Jonah having the blood of the Ninevites brought upon him.

Yes, you have stated your opinion and given an example that has nothing to do with the situation. For me, this is not enough.

What is the context of Ezekiel 3? Who is the object? Who is the subject?

In Ezekiel 3 the Lord is having a dialog with Ezekiel. He informs Ezekiel about Israel's disobedience (vs. 7-9). God warns Ezekiel that he needs to discharge his duties faithfully or God will hold him accountable if he does not (vs. 18, 20). It is the same thing in Ezekiel 33. God is not telling Ezekiel that he will be eternally punished. God is telling Ezekiel he will be held accountable. If God wanted to, he could have taken Ezekiel's life because of his disobedience had he not carried out the Lord's command.

Look at the story of Jonah. Jonah was told to go preach to Nineveh, but he refused and fled instead. God held Jonah accountable for his actions by having him swallowed by a great fish (Jonah 1:17).

In Ezekiel the text does not indicate that if Ezekiel disobeyed God's command that his eternal life would be forfeit. We need to be careful not to exceed what scripture reveals about itself.

As I mentioned above, Jonah's punishment could not be what is referred to in Ezekiel as he did eventually preach to them. The scriptures quoted from Ezekiel speak of a people that die in sin because no one ever brought them the message of warning. If Jonah had not eventually gone to Nineveh, then we would be talking about the same scenario.

As far as I can tell, no one is saying that Ezekiel's eternal life would have been forfeit had he not preached to the Israelites. What is being said is that some of his rewards would have been forfeit. I hope this help to clarify the discussion.

 

[JeremyV]

Hello Carpenter's Apprentice:

I did not read the thread, but I suspect you got differing answers:

1) We suffer loss in this life, but our eternal rewards are unaffected.
2) Since, by our inaction, we contributed to the loss of a soul, and God does not desire any to be lost, we suffer loss of rewards for our failures to warn the lost.​

Answer #1 would tend to come from Calvinists, and answer #2 would tend to come from non-Calvinists.

So lets try another tact, what does scripture say? If we look at 2 Samuel 4:11 we see the phrase appears to refer to a death sentence. Could this support the Old Covenant loss of salvation for unfaithfulness theory, perhaps. But obviously it has no application, other than loss of rewards, for those with eternal life under the New Covenant. John 3:16 precludes that application to born anew believers.

Well said. To me the key difference between the punishments of these situations is that in murder you are fully responsible for the act, but in Ezekiel, most of the blame falls on the one that died in sin as they could have rejected the warning even if it had been given to them and it was their own sin that caused them to die in their sin.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Hello Carpenter's Apprentice:

I did not read the thread, but I suspect you got differing answers:

1) We suffer loss in this life, but our eternal rewards are unaffected.
2) Since, by our inaction, we contributed to the loss of a soul, and God does not desire any to be lost, we suffer loss of rewards for our failures to warn the lost.​

Answer #1 would tend to come from Calvinists, and answer #2 would tend to come from non-Calvinists.

So lets try another tact, what does scripture say? If we look at 2 Samuel 4:11 we see the phrase appears to refer to a death sentence. Could this support the Old Covenant loss of salvation for unfaithfulness theory, perhaps. But obviously it has no application, other than loss of rewards, for those with eternal life under the New Covenant. John 3:16 precludes that application to born anew believers.

And whether it is you who gave the answer or Jeremy or your hated Cal inists the conclusion is still that hell and damnation was NOT the consequence so your divisive points of comparison was UNCALLED FOR AND PROVOCATEURIST.

 

[kyredneck]

How nice. You can't prove your point by scripture so you instead throw insults.

No insult, a gouge or a probe maybe, but no insult intended. If you're gonna carry your feelings around in your hands here on the BB, guess what's going to happen?

Nowhere in scripture does the Bible call what Jonah went through in the belly of the fish as having anything to do with the blood of the Ninevites.

OK, big deal, I think Reformed crystalized it pretty well, it's simply an idiom for those chosen by God for a specific task being held accountable to carry out that task.

As for Hodge and Bork, I don't care what they think.

OK, as opposed to that, I believe their first approach by originalism, whether it be the Bible or the Constitution, is extremely important and is something that is sorely lacking in Christianity and American government today. We desperately need to return to 'original intent'.

I have shown you in other discussions that even the Bible tells us that the original audience often got it wrong, very wrong (a point that you have neglected to even try to refute).

You're a very windy wordy sort of feller. I haven't time or the will to read posts that the point could be made in 10 words instead of 10,000. Exercise yourself in brevity in your posts, be concise in making your point. More people will read and digest them.

We must interpret scripture according to what the author intended the audience to understand, not how they decided to understand it.

Zactly what I've been saying. What's your problem?

It is the author that was inspired, not the audience. I do not add to the scriptures and I do not make it mean whatever I want it to, as you claim I do.

So just how far do you intend to apply these commands given to Ezekiel the prophet? I was raised in an extreme evangelical missionary SB church where these very passages were horribly abused to burden the flock with the eternal destiny of others in order to raise money for missions. Do you agree with this application of them?

 

[JeremyV]

No insult, a gouge or a probe maybe, but no insult intended. If you're gonna carry your feelings around in your hands here on the BB, guess what's going to happen?

Whether the comments were meant as an insult or "gouge" I fail to see how they add to the discussion.

OK, big deal, I think Reformed crystalized it pretty well, it's simply an idiom for those chosen by God for a specific task being held accountable to carry out that task.

It is a big deal. When we start to apply scriptures to situations that they simply don't apply, we are in big trouble.

I agree with your summary in principle. I go farther though, in recognizing that we have been chosen for a task, sharing the gospel with those around us. As such these words apply to us as well. We see a picture of this working out in I Corinthians 3:11-15. If we build on the foundation of Christ with worthy works, such as sharing the gospel, we will be rewarded in heaven. If not, we will have no such rewards. I can think of few things worse for a Christian then to enter heaven empty handed, with nothing to law at Jesus' feet. Law on this the eternal knowledge that we had the opportunity to share the gospel with someone and we did not.

OK, as opposed to that, I believe their first approach by originalism, whether it be the Bible or the Constitution, is extremely important and is something that is sorely lacking in Christianity and American government today. We desperately need to return to 'original intent'.

"Original intent" I agree with. We have been arguing over a quote you posted which had nothing to do with original intent but everything to do with original perception, something that has no place in interpretation. This is what I have been saying from the start. If original intent is what you truly hold to, then we have no argument and you should consider choosing your quotes more carefully.

You're a very windy wordy sort of feller. I haven't time or the will to read posts that the point could be made in 10 words instead of 10,000. Exercise yourself in brevity in your posts, be concise in making your point. More people will read and digest them.

In my experience, if we do not take the time to fully explain our points and give the other people the respect of carefully considering their words, misunderstandings will abound, as well may be the case here.

Zactly what I've been saying. What's your problem?

My problem is that this is not exactly what you have been saying. Perhaps you have been too brief.

So just how far do you intend to apply these commands given to Ezekiel the prophet? I was raised in an extreme evangelical missionary SB church where these very passages were horribly abused to burden the flock with the eternal destiny of others in order to raise money for missions. Do you agree with this application of them?

I fail to see how this would apply to raising money. God's words in Ezekiel speaks to one's personal responsibility to those around them, not in supporting a missionary. I am responsible for those that I personally have the opportunity to minister to, not for those that M. Smith may come in contact with.

 

[kyredneck]

...."Original intent" I agree with. We have been arguing over a quote you posted which had nothing to do with original intent but everything to do with original perception, something that has no place in interpretation. This is what I have been saying from the start. If original intent is what you truly hold to, then we have no argument and you should consider choosing your quotes more carefully.....

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed. - Charles Hodge

BTW, this is Hodge's first rule of interpretation, not his only rule.

Check out the 'original perception' here in this parable:

40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.
45 And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. Mt 21

Did 'the audience' perceive correctly? Or do you totally disregard their perception?

 

[JeremyV]

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed. - Charles Hodge

BTW, this is Hodge's first rule of interpretation, not his only rule.

Check out the 'original perception' here in this parable:

40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.
45 And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. Mt 21

Did 'the audience' perceive correctly? Or do you totally disregard their perception?

I agree that here the original perception was correct, but this is only one instance. For Hodge's rule to be helpful and not harmful, all original perceptions would have to be correct.

Check out this other original perception:

"Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" (John 2:18-20)

The original perception here is that Jesus was speaking of the physical temple. Was this original perception correct? John goes on to say:

"But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said." (John 2:21-22)

The original perception in this instance is clearly incorrect. How then can we say that we must read scripture in the light of the original perception? If we did that here we would be in terrible error. This is why I say we must read scripture in the light of original intent, not the original perception.