Eze 36:16-21 | KD | STEP | The Lord will extend His forbearance, for the sake of His holy name, to the people who have been rejected on account of their sins. - Eze 36:16. And the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, Eze 36:17. Son of man, the house of Israel dwelt in its land, and defiled it with its way and its doings; like the uncleanness of the unclean woman, was its way before me. Eze 36:18. Then I poured out my fury upon them on account of the blood which they had shed in the land, and because they had defiled it through their idols, Eze 36:19. And scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed in the land; according to their way and their doings I judge them. Eze 36:20. And they came to the nations whither they came, and profaned my holy name, for men said of them, “These are Jehovah’s people, and they have come out of His land.” Eze 36:21. And so I had pity upon my holy name, which the house of Israel profaned among the nations whither they came. - The address commences with a description of the reasons why God had thrust out His people among the heathen, namely, on account of their sins and idolatrous abominations, by which the Israelites had defiled the land (cf. and Num 35:34). Their conduct resembled the most offensive uncleanness, namely, the uncleanness of a woman in her menstruation ( ), to which the moral depravity of the people had already been compared in Isa 64:5. - In the consequence of the defiling of the land by the people is introduced with the impression ואשׁפּך. In , ויטמּאוּ is the continuation of the participle ישׁבים; and the participle is expressive of the condition in the past, as we may see from the words 'ואשׁפּך וגו. The simile in is an explanatory, circumstantial clause. For , compare , and for 'על הדּם וגו, , Eze 22:6. The last clause, “and through their idols they have defiled it,” is loosely appended; but it really contains a second reason for the pouring out of the wrath of God upon the people. For , compare Eze 22:15. ויּבוא in refers to בּית־ישׂראל; but there is no necessity to read ויבאוּ on that account. It is perfectly arbitrary to supply the subject proposed by Kliefoth, viz., “the report of what had happened to Israel” came to the heathen, which is quite foreign to the connection; for it was not the report concerning Israel, but Israel itself, which came to the heathen, and profaned the sacred name of God. This is not only plainly expressed in , but has been already stated in Eze 36:20. The fact that the words of the heathen, by which the name of God was profaned, are quoted here, does not prove that it is the heathen nations who are to be regarded as those who profaned the name of God, as Kliefoth imagines. The words, “these are Jehovah’s people, and have come out of His (Jehovah’s) land,” could only contain a profanation of the holy name of God, if their coming out was regarded as involuntary, i.e., as an exile enforced by the power of the heathen; or, on the other hand, if the Israelites themselves had denied the holiness of the people of God through their behaviour among the heathen. Most of the commentators have decided in favour of the former view. Vatablus, for example, gives this explanation: “if their God whom they preach had been omnipotent, He would not have allowed them to be expelled from His land.” And we must decide in favour of this exposition, not only because of the parallel passages, such as Num 14:16 and , which support this view; but chiefly on account of the verses which follow, according to which the sanctification of the name of God among the nations consists in the fact that God gathers Israel out of its dispersion among the nations, and leads them back into His own land (vid., and ). Consequently the profanation of His name can only have consisted in the fact that Israel was carried away out of its own land, and scattered in the heathen lands. For, since the heathen acknowledged only national gods, and regarded Jehovah as nothing more than such a national god of Israel, they did not look upon the destruction of the kingdom of Judah and the carrying away of the people as a judgment of the almighty and holy God upon His people, but concluded that that catastrophe was a sign of the inability of Jehovah to defend His land and save His people. The only way in which God could destroy this delusion was by manifesting Himself to the heathen as the almighty God and Lord of the whole world through the redemption and glorification of His people. ואחמל על־שׁם ק: so I had pity, compassion upon my holy name. The preterite is prophetic, inasmuch as the compassion consists in the gathering of Israel out of the nations, which is announced in Eze 36:22. as still in the future. The rendering, “I spared (them) for my holy name’s sake” (lxx, Hävernick), is false; for חמל is construed with על, governing the person or the thing toward which the compassion is shown (vid., and , ).

‏ Ezekiel 36:16-21

The Lord will extend His forbearance, for the sake of His holy name, to the people who have been rejected on account of their sins. - Eze 36:16. And the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, Eze 36:17. Son of man, the house of Israel dwelt in its land, and defiled it with its way and its doings; like the uncleanness of the unclean woman, was its way before me. Eze 36:18. Then I poured out my fury upon them on account of the blood which they had shed in the land, and because they had defiled it through their idols, Eze 36:19. And scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed in the land; according to their way and their doings I judge them. Eze 36:20. And they came to the nations whither they came, and profaned my holy name, for men said of them, “These are Jehovah’s people, and they have come out of His land.” Eze 36:21. And so I had pity upon my holy name, which the house of Israel profaned among the nations whither they came. - The address commences with a description of the reasons why God had thrust out His people among the heathen, namely, on account of their sins and idolatrous abominations, by which the Israelites had defiled the land (cf. Lev 18:28 and Num 35:34). Their conduct resembled the most offensive uncleanness, namely, the uncleanness of a woman in her menstruation (Lev 15:19), to which the moral depravity of the people had already been compared in Isa 64:5. - In Eze 36:18 the consequence of the defiling of the land by the people is introduced with the impression ואשׁפּך. In Eze 36:17, ויטמּאוּ is the continuation of the participle ישׁבים; and the participle is expressive of the condition in the past, as we may see from the words 'ואשׁפּך וגו. The simile in Eze 36:17 is an explanatory, circumstantial clause. For Eze 36:18, compare Eze 7:8, and for 'על הדּם וגו, Eze 22:3, Eze 22:6. The last clause, “and through their idols they have defiled it,” is loosely appended; but it really contains a second reason for the pouring out of the wrath of God upon the people. For Eze 36:19, compare Eze 22:15. ויּבוא in Eze 36:20 refers to בּית־ישׂראל; but there is no necessity to read ויבאוּ on that account. It is perfectly arbitrary to supply the subject proposed by Kliefoth, viz., “the report of what had happened to Israel” came to the heathen, which is quite foreign to the connection; for it was not the report concerning Israel, but Israel itself, which came to the heathen, and profaned the sacred name of God. This is not only plainly expressed in Eze 36:21, but has been already stated in Eze 36:20. The fact that the words of the heathen, by which the name of God was profaned, are quoted here, does not prove that it is the heathen nations who are to be regarded as those who profaned the name of God, as Kliefoth imagines. The words, “these are Jehovah’s people, and have come out of His (Jehovah’s) land,” could only contain a profanation of the holy name of God, if their coming out was regarded as involuntary, i.e., as an exile enforced by the power of the heathen; or, on the other hand, if the Israelites themselves had denied the holiness of the people of God through their behaviour among the heathen. Most of the commentators have decided in favour of the former view. Vatablus, for example, gives this explanation: “if their God whom they preach had been omnipotent, He would not have allowed them to be expelled from His land.” And we must decide in favour of this exposition, not only because of the parallel passages, such as Num 14:16 and Jer 33:24, which support this view; but chiefly on account of the verses which follow, according to which the sanctification of the name of God among the nations consists in the fact that God gathers Israel out of its dispersion among the nations, and leads them back into His own land (vid., Eze 36:23 and Eze 36:24). Consequently the profanation of His name can only have consisted in the fact that Israel was carried away out of its own land, and scattered in the heathen lands. For, since the heathen acknowledged only national gods, and regarded Jehovah as nothing more than such a national god of Israel, they did not look upon the destruction of the kingdom of Judah and the carrying away of the people as a judgment of the almighty and holy God upon His people, but concluded that that catastrophe was a sign of the inability of Jehovah to defend His land and save His people. The only way in which God could destroy this delusion was by manifesting Himself to the heathen as the almighty God and Lord of the whole world through the redemption and glorification of His people. ואחמל על־שׁם ק: so I had pity, compassion upon my holy name. The preterite is prophetic, inasmuch as the compassion consists in the gathering of Israel out of the nations, which is announced in Eze 36:22. as still in the future. The rendering, “I spared (them) for my holy name’s sake” (lxx, Hävernick), is false; for חמל is construed with על, governing the person or the thing toward which the compassion is shown (vid., Eze 16:5 and 2Ch 36:15, 2Ch 36:17).