Therefore say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: You eat flesh with the blood and lift up your eyes to your idols and shed blood; shall you then possess the land?
After Jerusalem fell, the survivors left among the ruins argued that the land was still theirs. God gave the whole country to Abraham, one man; they were many, so their claim looked stronger. God's answer through Ezekiel does not deny that they descend from Abraham. It reads out their conduct, then asks whether people who live like this should hold the land at all.
The Claim Being Answered
In verse 24 they argue that Abraham was one man and received the land, so many descendants must have a stronger right. Commentators say the argument would have been admirable if their lives had matched it.
Numerical Bible NotesIf this had been the boldness of faith, it might still have been admirable. The inheritance, as we know, could never be taken away for good from the children of the man God had promised it to, however long the people might lose hold of it. But this was something else, as the character of the men who said it showed. They were lawless and desperate, and their works proved them to be anything but Abraham's children. So their own conduct is held up in front of them.
Same Words, Opposite Meaning
The same words can be faith or hardness of heart. What decides it is when they are spoken.
J. N. DarbyThe people were now judged. So faith would no longer be shown by counting on the promises made to Israel, or on God stepping in for His people as if they still held those promises. In the time of the promises these same words would have been faith, and one day they will be faith again; but in the time of judgment they are only hardness of heart (v. 24). Compare Isaiah 51:2, a passage often badly misapplied. The small remnant in the last days may trust a God who called out one man on his own and made him into many. But when God was cutting off the mass of the people for their sins, that same thought would only make the judgment felt more sharply.
What Eating Flesh With the Blood Meant
The first charge looks like a rule about food. It reached much further than that.
William KellyIn Israel, as we see in these verses, eating blood provoked Jehovah's jealousy, so that He cut off the offender. It made no difference whether the man was an Israelite or a foreigner staying among them. It denied that man owes it to God to admit that his life is forfeit. God was to be owned openly — if not on the altar, then at least by pouring the blood out on the ground as due to Him, instead of taking it for his own pleasure. Death was a serious thing, and Jehovah would not have it treated lightly.
The three charges in the verse run together. They take the blood God claims. They lift their eyes to idols instead of to Him. They shed human blood. Then comes the question: "shall you then possess the land?"
Claiming the Promises While Living in Sin
They thought well of themselves. One writer sets that opinion beside what they actually were.
William KellyGrace is enough for anyone and for every situation, but it cannot be separated from the faith that gives glory to God, as it did in Abraham. But what were they? What were their ways? What did they think of themselves? Sadly, they were steeped in sin. They despised the Lord's commands and had given themselves up to wickedness. They thought as highly of themselves as they had spoken badly of Him. What else could He announce but judgment from His hand?
Where the Mistake Starts
Their real mistake was not about Abraham. They had lost all sense of the state they were in, and one writer turns the same warning on readers now.
J. N. DarbyThey said there, "we are many," "Abraham was one and he inherited the land" (Ezek. 33:24); God blessed him, so He will bless us even more. Because they had no conscience, they misread the state they were in, and the state God was dealing with. It is the same now. If we lose the sense of our own condition — I mean the condition of the whole professing church we stand in the middle of — we will completely lack spiritual understanding.
Summary
- Claim. They base their right to the land on being Abraham's many descendants. That is a claim about ancestry, not faith.
- Conduct. God answers the claim with their behaviour. Their works showed them to be anything but Abraham's children.
- Conscience. Their root failure is a lost sense of their own condition. With no conscience, they misread the very situation God was dealing with.
- Context. The same appeal to Abraham is faith at one time and hardness of heart at another. Trust in the day of promise becomes presumption in the day of judgment.
- Consequence. Pleading God's promises while living in open sin does not protect; it ruins.