Ezekiel's 'Not Good' Laws and the Torah
An Intertextual Perspective
Few passages in scripture have provoked more thought and more controversy than Ezekiel 20:25-26. This perplexing section has had no shortage of interpretations as readers from all backgrounds and traditions have attempted to find its many possible points of intersection with the Torah in an effort to resolve its meaning(s).
Adding complexity and controversy to this discussion, scholars have many perspectives on the relationship between Ezekiel and the past practices of the Israelites, including human sacrifice. Is Ezekiel reacting to a sordid history from a unique theological perspective? Does this text reflect a tradition at odds with earlier Israelite traditions as recorded in the Torah, or does its use of legal language reflect an intertextual relationship that expressly harmonizes with the texts and traditions that preceded it?
The book of Ezekiel, dated in the first decade of the 6th century BCE, is set after the defeat of Judah by the Babylonians in the years 597 and 587 BCE. These events were catastrophic and much of the populace was sent to greater Mesopotamia, thousands of miles away. While the actual physical deportation was indeed terrible and, in many ways, unimaginable, Ezekiel reflects that the disaster at hand was just as much psychological, emotional, and theological.1 Judah was robbed of the primary elements that established its identity: land, status, cities, monarchy, and temple.
Against this backdrop, towards the middle of the book, stands a potentially shocking statement about the relationship of the divine to the Torah:
I also swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them throughout the lands. I did this because they did not observe my regulations, they rejected my statutes, they desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes were fixed on their fathers’ idols. I also gave them decrees that were not good and regulations by which they could not live. I declared them to be defiled because of their sacrifices—they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire—so that I might devastate them, so that they would know that I am the Lord.’ (Ezekiel 20:23-26)
What is meant by a “not good” decree or regulation? At first glance, the text appears to relate to laws previously given in the Torah, but how certain is that? Potential clues can be found in the relationship between this text and legal texts such as found in Leviticus:
You must observe my regulations, and you must be sure to walk in my statutes. I am the Lord your God. So you must keep my statutes and my regulations; anyone who does so will live by keeping them. (Leviticus 18:4-5)2
Leviticus 18:4-5 represents a notable parallel as it demonstrates that Ezekiel is echoing the language here. Leviticus describes what is given in a legal context, typically translated as some combination of “statutes”, “ordinates”, or “judgements which are the same terms used in Ezekiel 20. Whatever Ezekiel may be describing, scholars are generally in agreement that Ezekiel is intentionally using the same language.
However, scholars also note that Ezekiel has a particular relationship with the legal context of Deuteronomy. While the details are technical and require a knowledge of biblical Hebrew to fully appreciate, they are important clues that help establish this relationship. Scott Hahn and John Bergsma note the details:
“It is also significant that in 20:25 Ezekiel uses the masculine plural חקים to describe the ‘not good’ laws, while everywhere else in the chapter he refers to God’s ‘statutes’ using the feminine plural. Likewise, the masculine form חקים is the term used in Deuteronomy 11:32 and 12:1 to introduce the Deuteronomic code proper (Deuteronomy 12-26). Masculine forms of this word occur elsewhere in Deuteronomy (4:1, 6, 40, 45; 5:28; 6:1, 20, 24; 7:11; 16:12; 17:11, 19; 26:12, 16, 17; 27:10) ... In contrast, חקים occurs only twice in Leviticus (10:11; 26:46), while the feminine חקות occurs eleven times) 18:4-5, 26; 19:19, 37; 20:8, 22; 25:18; 26:3, 15, 43). Moreover, חקים appears here in Ezekiel 20:25 paired with משפטים, and ‘the expression חקים ומשפטים is found exclusively in [Deuteronomy]’. This corroborates the sense that Ezekiel refers here to Deuteronomic rather than Priestly laws.”3
Be certain to keep all the statutes and ordinances that I am presenting to you today ... These are the statutes and ordinances you must be careful to obey as long as you live in the land the Lord, the God of your ancestors, has given you to possess. (Deuteronomy 11:32-12:1)
What Hahn’s and Bergsma’s analysis suggests is that the text from Ezekiel has a stronger and unique relationship with Deuteronomy compared to its relationship with Leviticus, and in the context of source criticism of the Hebrew Bible, this would imply that Ezekiel potentially favors Leviticus if the language is indeed pushing back against Deuteronomy.4
What can we determine from these literary relationships with Ezekiel? Scholars have proposed a number of potential readings5 that take into account the degree of expressed intertextuality:
Harmonizing the relationship to the Torah by softening the language or even emending the text to express that the Hebrew text itself may have shifted over time. This includes moves such as changing the order of the words or even removing words that may not be original.
Theological harmonization that generally leaves the text as-is, but reads it as the description of the giving of a ‘difficult’ law to Israel in judgment in a way analogous to the hardening of Pharaoh in the Exodus narrative.
Expanding on this concept of a ‘difficult law’, scholars point out that early Christian readers of Ezekiel saw in it a clue that pointed to a ‘second legislation’, identified beginning at Exodus 32, that was given after the initial revelation of the Sinai covenant. This second set of laws would then be what Ezekiel is reflecting on and rejecting.6
For later Jewish and particularly Rabbinic readers of Ezekiel 20, what is being referenced is usually taken to be inappropriate interpretation and application of the Torah (halacha), rather than the Torah itself.7
A more literal reading that accepts that Ezekiel represents a starkly negative view of the Torah and the Mosaic law. This acknowledges the direct literary and intertextual relationship but rejects theological harmonization.
Rejecting any attempt to harmonize that reads Ezekiel’s use of Torah as an “anti-gift” that does not take into account the role of obedience nor accepts the need to describe the text or its relationships as logical. This would read Ezekiel as nothing more than an attempt to express God’s indisputable authority - some scholars even see the need to disassociate this portion of Ezekiel from history and treat it as purely rhetorical.8
While this is far from a complete survey of interpretive options, it does highlight the degree of complexity at work in reading Ezekiel. Scholars and interpreters often discuss in their work the implicit (and sometimes explicit) need to sacrifice something to make potential readings work more seamlessly. Is there a reason to alter the received text? Do we have to ensure textual and/or theological harmonization? Should we at least accept the potential that Ezekiel is intentionally negating some portion of the Torah or the Mosaic law? Among Jewish, Christian, and even non-confessional scholarship there is no single, clear-cut reading that is without some degree of difficulty or controversy.
Even with the volume of literature produced over many centuries that discusses it, Ezekiel 20:25-26 remains an enigmatic and difficult to understand text for many readers. An intertextual approach and an emphasis on its literary and canonical context helps provide clues to add to the many potential interpretive solutions available regardless of tradition.
Careful attention to inner-biblical connections allows Ezekiel's controversial statements to at least be read in light of the textual evidence rather than dismissed, minimized, or especially abused. Even if a satisfactory solution is not found, understanding the role that the text and traditions within the Torah have in the literary structure and narrative sequence of Ezekiel 20 helps guide and shape the search. It also serves to remind of the need for imagination and creativity on the part of readers of all degrees of skill and experience.
Joyce, Paul M. Ezekiel: A Commentary (pp. 3-4) T&T Clark, 2007
Hahn, Scott W. and John S. Bergsma What Laws Were “Not Good”? A Canonical Approach to the Theological Problem of Ezekiel 20:25-26, JBL 123/2 (2004) 201–218
Hahn and Bergsma, Ibid.
Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel. (pp. 638-641) Eerdmans, 2007
Van Der Horst, Pieter W. 'I Gave them Laws that were not Good: Ezekiel 20:25 in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity' in Bremmer, Jan N., et al., editors. Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van Der Woude (pp. 94-118) Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1992
Van Der Horst, ibid.
Davis, Ellen F. Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy (pp. 114-115) Almond Press, 1989