Against Sidon

Then they will know that I am the Lord when I execute judgments in her... By the sword upon her on every side; Then they will know that I am the Lord... And there will be no more for the house of Israel a prickling brier or a painful thorn from any round about them who scorned them; then they will know that I am the Lord God... They will live in it securely; and they will build houses, plant vineyards and live securely when I execute judgments upon all who scorn them round about them. Then they will know that I am the Lord their God... The land of Egypt will become a desolation and waste. Then they will know that I am the Lord (Ezekiel 28:22–24, 26; 29:9).

Against Egypt

It will be the lowest of the kingdoms, and it will never again lift itself up above the nations. And I will make them so small that they will not rule over the nations. And it will never again be the confidence of the house of Israel, bringing to mind the iniquity of their having turned to Egypt. Then they will know that I am the Lord God... On that day I will make a horn sprout for the house of Israel, and I will open your mouth in their midst. Then they will know that I am the Lord... And they will know that I am the Lord, When I set a fire in Egypt And all her helpers are broken... Thus I will execute judgments on Egypt, And they will know that I am the Lord... Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I put My sword into the hand of the king of Babylon and he stretches it out against the land of Egypt. When I scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the lands, then they will know that I am the Lord (Ezekiel 29:15–16, 21; 30:8,19,25–26).

Look at how often God says, "Then they will know that I am the Lord," in these few chapters. Now, God's desire to be known as the Lord is not new or uncommon; however, what is unique here is the manner in which He will be known. He will not be known as their Savior. He will not be known for His compassion and longsuffering and lovingkindness. He will not be known for His faithfulness to keep His covenant promises. No. Here, God will be known for His holiness and wrath.

Let us understand that God is not merely glorified in His generous outlay of mercy toward His chosen people, but He is also glorified when He pours out His wrath on the rebellious and sinful. So often, the only message we hear is one of God's love and mercy, but if I do a statistical analysis of how often these are mentioned versus God's holiness and wrath, I daresay there would be at least as much if not greater mention of the latter.

Friends, we would be failing to preach and teach the whole counsel of Scripture if we emphasize the one side and neglect the other. We would be giving a skewed picture of God, who is both holy and loving.

Likewise, when we preach the Gospel, let us not neglect to preach the message of repentance along with the message of faith. By repentance, I don't mean reformation but rather an acknowledgement of need, a sorrow over and willingness to turn from sin and dead works toward a living faith in Christ. By repentance we recognize that we do not deserve salvation and are worthy only of condemnation. In repentance we see our true condition before a holy God, who can justly condemn us. We recognize our powerlessness to not only save ourselves but even to believe the message of salvation.

Repentance literally means "change of mind" (metanoia in Greek). How does this change of mind happen? I believe this is in part what is meant by Jesus when He told Nicodemus,

No one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again... no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit (John 3:3,5).

Paul also writes,

What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:12–14).

It is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring about repentance that leads to true faith. Paul explains how the Holy Spirit transformed us from unbelief and disobedience to faith in the righteous work of Christ. It was through the "washing of rebirth and renewal":

At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:3–7).

Friends, all this is to say that God would receive no less glory if He had condemned us to hell with the rest of the great majority of people in the world. Yet, He chose to save us on the basis of His elective love by Christ's sacrifice for our sins on the cross and through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Thus, He will be glorified in His wrath and in His mercy. As Paul also wrote,

Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— (Romans 9:21–23).

Rejoice, my friends, if you are reading these comments, believing in Jesus as your Lord and Savior, then you are counted among "the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory!"

AI-Expanded Reflection

The repeated recognition formula in Ezekiel—people coming to know that the Lord is God—links judgment to revelation. Nations and rulers act as though their power is self-created and beyond accountability. Egypt’s ruler, for example, claims possession and authorship of the Nile in Ezekiel 29:3. The judgment exposes that boast. The river sustaining the kingdom is a gift of creation, not a monument to royal self-sufficiency. To know the Lord here means being forced to acknowledge the reality that imperial confidence has denied.

Nevertheless, judgment and covenant faithfulness cannot be completely separated. Ezekiel 28:24–26 places judgment on hostile neighbors alongside Israel’s renewed security. The same action can restrain an oppressor and protect the oppressed. The text even describes the Lord gathering Israel and displaying his holiness among them. Thus the original’s contrast between wrath and mercy is useful as a warning against selective preaching, but the passage itself also shows their relationship. God’s faithfulness includes his refusal to leave destructive power permanently unchallenged.

This does not make human delight in punishment a virtue. Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11 portray God’s desire that the wicked turn and live. A teacher who speaks of judgment should therefore seek repentance and rescue, not the satisfaction of being proved right about someone else’s downfall. The moral seriousness of the gospel is inseparable from its announcement that God receives sinners through Christ. Removing judgment can trivialize forgiveness; removing mercy can distort the very God whose name is being defended.

The word metanoia is often introduced as a change of mind, but biblical repentance cannot be determined merely by breaking a Greek word into its components. Its use concerns a reorientation toward God that becomes visible in life: John calls for fruit appropriate to repentance, and Paul speaks of deeds consistent with it (Luke 3:8–14; Acts 26:20). That does not mean earning acceptance through prior moral achievement. It means that turning to God involves more than changing an opinion while deliberately retaining the same allegiance.

The author interprets John 3 and Titus 3 through the priority of the Spirit’s regenerating work. Other Christian traditions explain the relationship between grace, repentance, faith, and baptism differently. Titus 3:3–7 nevertheless makes the shared center explicit: salvation arises from divine kindness and mercy, not from righteous works offered as its purchase price. The remembered past in Titus 3:3 also restrains contempt. Those now speaking about God’s truth once needed deliverance from deception themselves.

Romans 9:21–23 must likewise be heard with its emphasis on patience and mercy, and within Paul’s grief for his people in Romans 9:1–3. It should not become a detached speculation about which acquaintances were made for destruction. The passage directs confidence toward God’s freedom and faithfulness while Paul continues to pray for salvation (Romans 10:1). For the believer, the fitting response is grateful assurance joined to humble witness: received mercy creates responsibility to speak truthfully, offer hope, and abandon the boast that salvation proves one’s natural superiority.

Ezekiel 29

15 It shall be the most lowly of the kingdoms, and never again exalt itself above the nations. And I will make them so small that they will never again rule over the nations.

Here's a prophecy we can continue to hold on to, a lingering proof of the Bible's accuracy, that Egypt will not be a world power again.... Ever.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Ezekiel 29 confronts Egypt’s self-exaltation through the image of Pharaoh claiming the Nile as his own possession and achievement. The claim is absurd in a revealing way: a ruler treats the source of his country’s life as though it owes its existence to him. God’s judgment answers that illusion of ownership and power. Egypt will no longer function as the great dependable alternative upon which Israel builds its security. The prophecy’s concern is thus theological as well as political: it exposes both imperial arrogance and the misplaced trust of those who lean upon it.

Verse 15 belongs to a larger passage that also promises a measure of restoration after judgment (29:13–16). Egypt’s future is not described simply as disappearance. It will return in a humbled condition and cease to occupy its former role as a source of confidence for Israel. Reading the whole paragraph prevents the selected verse from becoming an isolated slogan about a modern country. The diminished kingdom is part of God’s announced correction of a particular historical relationship. Ezekiel 29 in the NET and other translations.

The original sees Egypt’s subsequent position as continuing evidence for Scripture. That proposal needs more definition before it can become a conclusive historical argument. What counts as ruling over nations, and which later regimes count as the same political entity? How do the preceding forty-year statements relate to the history being considered? A responsible discussion should address those questions rather than assume that the modern term “world power” precisely reproduces Ezekiel’s categories. The force of a prophecy is better served by careful interpretation than by a claim broader than the evidence examined.

The spiritual application does not depend on predicting every future arrangement of states. Individuals and communities still invest created powers with an authority they cannot bear. We may expect a nation, employer, institution, or personal achievement to guarantee what only God can finally secure. Ezekiel does not forbid using ordinary means of support; it condemns the confidence that displaces obedience and forgets the Lord. Egypt’s humiliation calls us to hold power with humility and to receive help without making it ultimate. Even the strongest reed remains a poor foundation for a hope that must endure beyond political and economic change.

Brother Stephen asked a good question with respect to biblical inerrancy:

Many scholars attacked the inerrancy of the Bible by using today's reading. What do you think?

AI-Expanded Reflection

Stephen’s question deserves a direct and patient hearing because Ezekiel itself presents the material that prompts it. Chapter 26 announces destruction and plunder at Tyre, while 29:17–20 states that Nebuchadnezzar’s army received no adequate reward from its labor against the city. A reader who notices the apparent tension is attending to the text, not necessarily looking for an excuse to reject it. Respect for Scripture should encourage that attention. A response that treats every difficulty as disloyalty can train people to conceal questions rather than learn to read more carefully.

The first task is to define the difficulty precisely. Does chapter 26 assign every predicted action exclusively to Nebuchadnezzar? Does chapter 29 deny all damage to Tyre, or specifically the compensation received by the Babylonian army? What time span is envisioned by the reference to successive nations in 26:3? These questions separate several claims that can otherwise be compressed into the statement that a prophecy failed. They also keep an apologetic response from solving a weaker problem than the reader actually raised. Before defending or rejecting an interpretation, both parties need to identify what it asserts.

A second task is to distinguish kinds of evidence. The wording and structure of Ezekiel are literary evidence; accounts of Babylonian and Macedonian campaigns are historical evidence; remains at the site contribute archaeological evidence. None should be used as a label that disguises uncertainty. For example, the existence of an island city and a mainland settlement is relevant, but does not by itself prove exactly which clause of the prophecy refers to which military event. Likewise, a proposed interpretation of a pronoun must be assessed within ordinary language, not treated as decisive merely because it supports the desired conclusion.

The question also invites a healthier understanding of confidence. Trust in God does not depend on pretending that every interpretive problem has a simple, universally accepted solution. It can coexist with careful examination, a provisional judgment, and acknowledgment of unresolved details. The response that follows offers one substantial way of relating the chapters. Its value increases when it is presented as an argued reading whose evidence can be examined. In a church discussion, that approach serves both conviction and intellectual honesty: it allows the questioner to see how conclusions are reached, rather than merely being told which conclusion a faithful person must repeat.

Egypt will no longer be a source of confidence for the people of Israel but will be a reminder of their sin in turning to her for help. Then they will know that I am the Sovereign Lord.'" (Ezekiel 29:16 NIV)

How is it sin to ask someone for help? Which commandment says that you cannot ask for help, particularly when you are being threatened? But it IS sin when God commands the remnant in Jerusalem not to turn to Egypt for help, and they do turn to Egypt for help. Sin is not simply the breaking of a law. Sin is any disobedience to God. If Jesus did not submit to death on the cross, it would have been sin for him, for this was the Father's will. Let us understand that sin, as well as any evil, is not an entity in itself, but should be understood as any departure from God and God's will. God Himself defines what is good.

It is true that God Himself never changes. He is always true to Himself. But does God ever change His commands? Yes indeed. He does it a lot. For example, He commanded Israel to take the Promised Land at Kadesh Barnea. But after they grumbled about it, He changed His mind about it. He told them not to take the land but to go back to where they came from. They disobeyed the first time by not taking the land, and God judged them. Then, they disobeyed again by trying to take the land after He told them not to, and God judged them again. The Israelites needed to understand that the issue was not about taking the land or not taking the land but simply trusting and obeying God.

Friends, I have argued before that we are no longer under the Old Covenant Law of Moses. The New Testament makes clear that the Old Covenant is obsolete, made ineffective, nailed to the cross, and has been permanently replaced by the New Covenant in Christ (Ephesians 2:14–15; Colossians 2:13–17; Romans 7:6; Hebrews 8:7,13). Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, and by His death He ratified the New Covenant, which is not based on Law but grace. As John writes, "For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). He would not have set these in contrast to each other if he did not mean to show that one displaces the other, as the Book of Hebrews would make abundantly clear.

Yet, there are still people preaching that we must follow the Ten Commandments. There are still people preaching that it is required of Christians to keep the Sabbath (or Sunday, the "converted" Sabbath) and pay the tithe (i.e. their Law-required ten percent). There are even people that try to apply other parts of the Law, only modifying them to make them more palatable to contemporary tastes. To make their case they use the Old Testament passages that defend these regulations from the Law of Moses. You can see how this is illegitimate and wrong.

I am still amazed by my conversations with Christian leaders, who, for the most part, rather than trying to provide a defense from Scripture, simply double down on their position or authority, arguing that any disagreement with them is simply contributing to disunity in the church and, therefore, should be silenced. Like the President of the United States, they have the "bully pulpit" to assert their case, and like sheep without a good shepherd people just nod their heads in agreement or shout "Amen" whenever they hear cue words and phrases spoken. Then they conclude that after having said so many "Amens," everything that was spoken must also be true. God help us all. We respond more like conditioned animals rather than thoughtful people of God.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Egypt’s failure as an ally is described through the image of a reed that breaks and injures the hand leaning on it (Ezekiel 29:6–7). The issue is not that receiving assistance is inherently sinful. Israel has made a source of political security into an alternative to trusting and obeying God. The remembered failure of Egypt will expose that misplaced confidence. This distinction protects the original application from becoming a general suspicion of cooperation: the moral question concerns the loyalties, instructions, and circumstances governing an action, not merely its outward form.

Numbers 14 supplies a forceful comparison. Entering the land would have expressed obedience when God commanded it; attempting the invasion after his judgment had been announced expressed presumption. The second expedition resembled repentance externally because the people were finally doing what they had earlier refused. Yet they still would not listen to what God was saying. Their example shows why obedience cannot be reduced to repeating a once-correct action. It requires a responsive relationship to the Lord whose promises and judgments give that action its meaning. His character remains faithful while a changed situation brings a different command.

The transition to the new covenant is more comprehensive than a change of circumstances within the wilderness journey. Hebrews 8 locates the inadequacy of the former arrangement within God’s promise of a covenant marked by forgiveness and inwardly written law. Christian obedience must therefore be understood through Christ’s fulfillment of the law, rather than through an unexamined transfer of Israel’s national covenant obligations. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the New Testament rejects the moral content of every command found in the Decalogue. Romans 13:8–10 cites several commandments while explaining love’s fulfillment of the law. Christians differ over how to describe this continuity, especially concerning the Sabbath; those differences deserve scriptural argument rather than dismissal.

The concern about enforced giving is most constructively developed through 2 Corinthians 8–9: generosity responds to grace and is to be willing, thoughtful, and proportionate, rather than extracted through compulsion. Similarly, church authority should help believers understand Scripture, not make an appeal to unity a substitute for answering a serious question. Yet the person raising the question also owes others careful listening and charitable representation. The remedy for unthinking agreement is not habitual suspicion of every leader. It is a congregation mature enough to examine an argument, acknowledge genuine disagreement, and pursue obedience together. Freedom in Christ releases believers for responsible love; it does not make either the leader or the questioner immune from correction.

On that day, messengers will go out from Me in ships to frighten Cush out of her complacency — anguish will grip them on the day of Egypt's doom, since it's certain to come (a paraphrase of Ezekiel 30:9). We have to be careful not to grow complacent about where we currently stand, since our own end — whether that's personal death or Christ's return — may come without warning, just as God brought sudden disaster on Egypt. We're not invincible. We're finite. Let's run the race well, so that we might be rewarded by our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The specific warning aimed at Cush here — a nation that wasn't even the primary target of judgment, only a neighboring observer of Egypt's coming doom — is worth noting as a warning against complacency by proximity rather than by direct guilt. Cush wasn't necessarily as corrupt as Egypt; the anguish described is simply the shock of realizing that disaster this close, this sudden, and this certain could happen at all. That's a useful distinction for this comment's own broader point: complacency doesn't require actually believing oneself righteous — it can just as easily come from assuming that because judgment hasn't reached "us" yet, it isn't really coming.

I wondered if this had significance: Ezekiel 28:2 uses a lesser "ruler" word than the one used in 28:12 — one closer to "captain," the other closer to "king." I thought that nicely supported the idea that the first part of the chapter addresses Lucifer's human slave (the actual king of Tyre), while the latter part addresses the real king behind him (Lucifer himself).

AI-Expanded Reflection

This kind of subtle vocabulary shift is exactly the sort of detail modern English translations often flatten out, since both Hebrew terms can reasonably be rendered "ruler" or "prince" in English without obvious distinction. It's a good example of why comparing multiple translations, or consulting the underlying Hebrew where possible, can surface interpretive clues that a single English rendering alone would never reveal — in this case, a lexical hint supporting exactly the two-tiered reading (human king, then something greater behind him) that many interpreters already reach through the passage's content alone.

In Ezekiel 28–30, three more nations face judgment — Tyre (mentioned before), Sidon, and Egypt, with the focus on Tyre and Egypt, since both were a thorn in Israel's side and both were consumed with pride. There's a twist in Egypt's judgment, though — Egypt isn't judged for scorning Israel, but for offering Israel a false confidence against God's own decreed judgment (cf. Ezekiel 29:16). So we should understand that the basis of judgment is never really about the holy thing or holy people themselves, but about God, who is the one who makes things and people holy in the first place. When David refused to strike Saul, it wasn't simply because Saul held the title "anointed king" — it was because the LORD Himself had anointed him.

I mention this because some today quote the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 12 to argue that any criticism of Israel automatically incurs God's curse. That's not necessarily true. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who destroyed Judah, was actually blessed for faithfully executing God's judgment against the nations and against Judah itself — even rewarded with the spoils of Egypt (cf. Ezekiel 29:20). Babylon was later judged too, not for faithfully serving as God's instrument of judgment, but for its own pride and extreme ruthlessness beyond what God had actually commanded. In Jeremiah's time, Judah similarly placed false confidence in simply having God's Temple, assuming its presence alone guaranteed their safety. But God showed them the Temple meant nothing apart from their own faithfulness to the God who made it holy in the first place. Isaiah warns against ritual without justice, form without heart, in both worship and service — God detests this kind of hypocrisy and won't bless it. Let's make sure our own fervor in worship arises from genuine trust and practical obedience to God.

Second, notice that the judgment against the king of Tyre shifts tone starting in Ezekiel 28:11. Earlier, the king of Tyre had claimed to be a god; God rejects that claim, insisting he's just a man (cf. Ezekiel 28:9). But in verse 12, God acknowledges this figure's beauty and majesty, describing him as the very seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty (a paraphrase). This should signal to the reader that someone beyond the human king of Tyre may now be in view. Verse 13 places this figure in Eden, the garden of God — clearly not the human king. God also calls him "the anointed cherub who covers." These descriptions have led theologians to conclude the prophet is now describing something beyond the human figure and his pride — someone who epitomizes both greatness and pride at a cosmic level: Lucifer. What follows in verses 15 and onward describes Lucifer's own sin and judgment, exalting himself in pride just as the king of Tyre did, and judged by God in kind. One lesson I draw from this: beauty, fame, power, and wealth are never substitutes for humility and obedience to God. Whether or not God gives us the former, we must still pursue the latter, taking care that beauty, fame, power, or wealth never become stumbling blocks to what God actually requires — humility and obedience. As Micah puts it, God has already shown us what is good, and what He requires: to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God (a paraphrase of Micah 6:8).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The shift this comment identifies — from a human king of Tyre to a description that seems to transcend him entirely — has a documented parallel in how Isaiah handles a very similar figure: Isaiah 14 addresses the king of Babylon directly, then abruptly shifts to describing someone who fell from heaven, calling himself "Day Star, son of Dawn" and vowing to ascend above God's own throne (a paraphrase of Isaiah 14:12–14). Many scholars read both passages the same way — a real historical ruler's arrogance becoming, almost mid-sentence, a window onto something far larger behind it. Whether or not every detail in either passage refers directly to Satan (a reading some scholars question, since the immediate context in both cases is a specific human king), the pattern itself is consistent: human pride, taken to its furthest extreme, keeps getting described in language that seems to outgrow any merely human referent.