Original Meaning
THE VISION OF Ezekiel 8–11 is a unified whole, as readily becomes apparent when 8:1–3 is compared with 11:24–25. Nevertheless, for the sake of simplicity, we will divide it up into two parts: chapters 8–9 and 10–11.
The vision opens with a date: the fifth day of the sixth month of the sixth year (of Jehoiachin’s exile); in our reckoning, that would be September 18, 592 B.C. In other words, some fourteen months have passed since the opening vision of the book. The intervening time has been largely spent in performing the sign-acts of Ezekiel 4; depending on the interpretation of the 390 plus 40 days, Ezekiel has either just completed that period or is close to completion of that period.1
However, although the date formula serves to mark chapters 8–11 off from what precedes, the close connection with chapter 7 is maintained. Ezekiel 8 unfolds and details the accusation of “detestable idols and vile images” made in 7:20, while the theme of “the land . . . full of bloodshed and the city . . . full of injustice” (9:9) echoes the charge of 7:23. The divine response to this state of affairs is: “I will not look on them with pity or spare them, but I will bring down on their own heads what they have done” (9:10; cf. 7:4). In the same way, the divine destruction of chapter 9 corresponds to that threatened in chapter 7. Thus, it would not be inappropriate to say that Ezekiel 8–9 depicts in visionary form what Ezekiel 7 stated in oracular style.
Nevertheless, there are also differences. The vision of Ezekiel 8–11 is intended for a specific audience, “the elders of Judah,” who have gathered at Ezekiel’s house. Though the purpose of their visit is not recorded, they were presumably seeking a favorable oracle, perhaps one proclaiming an early end to the Exile.2 2 Kings 6:32 describes the elders of Samaria sitting with Elisha and receiving an encouraging word from the Lord (see 7:1), while Ezekiel 14:1 and 20:1 record similar visits by the elders to Ezekiel.3 What the elders receive from the prophet is no word of comfort but rather a categorical denunciation of their sins and the sins of the community they represent. They are not simply the audience to whom the vision is related, but also one of the chief targets of the vision.4
As the vision opens, Ezekiel sees a glowing figure in human form, corresponding to what he had seen in 1:27. Once more he is transported by the agency of the Spirit and shown a vision of the glory of God (ch. 10); the context of the vision, however, is no longer the situation of the exiles but the defiled city of Jerusalem. The prophet is shown four scenes of increasing abomination, with the offense to God being greater as the scenes in which they take place move nearer to the center of the temple.
(1) His tour begins with a vision of an “idol of jealousy” at the north gate of the city (8:3–6).5 This seems to have been an idol in the shape of a human being, perhaps the Canaanite goddess Asherah, whose location at the outer north gate suggests that she was intended to guard the city from attack. As we saw in Ezekiel 1, the north was the traditional direction from which Jerusalem’s enemies approached. If so, then the goddess is powerless to prevent the sack of the city by the Lord’s appointed destroyers in Ezekiel 9. The focus of the attention here, however, is the effect that this image has on the Lord. It “provokes [him] to jealousy” (8:3; cf. Deut. 32:16); God will not share Israel’s worship, which rightfully belongs to him, with other gods, and he has proof of her infidelity.
(2) However, abominable though this idolatry is, worse is yet to come. Next, Ezekiel is shown seventy elders of the house of Israel, leaders among the lay community, offering incense to idols in a secret chamber (Ezek. 8:7–13). What was done in public at a distance from the temple is also being done in private at the entrance of the temple courtyard. The elders are portrayed as standing before a wall of carved animal figures, each offering clouds of incense from a burner (8:11).6
In contrast to the Canaanite origin of the Asherah idol, the practice of offering incense to animal figures may well have an Egyptian provenance.7 The motivation was probably apotropaic, that is, to ward off dangers from demonic forces.8 Their actions provide a shocking contrast to the seventy “elders of Israel” in the Pentateuch, Israel’s leaders in the desert period, who received the unique privilege of seeing God (Ex. 24:1–11) and were endowed with the same Spirit as Moses (Num. 11:16–30). Here these “non-Spirit-filled” elders find justification for their conduct in the belief that the Lord does not see (Ezek. 8:12). One of their number is named as Jaazaniah, who is designated the son of Shaphan—and thus equally shockingly associated with a family that was prominent in the reforms of Josiah’s days (2 Kings 22:3–14).9
The identity of these secret transgressors as “elders of the house of Israel” is repeated for emphasis in the next verse (Ezek. 8:12), along with their own self-justification for their idolatrous acts: “The LORD does not see us; the LORD has forsaken the land.” In the light of what they saw as God’s abandonment of them, they felt justified in pursuing other deities who might help out. The Lord’s response to this statement will emerge in 9:9; however, for the present it is sufficient to point to the vision itself as contradicting their belief. The Lord does indeed see, as the repeated refrain “Son of man, do you see . . . ?” underlines (8:6, 12, 15, 17).10 Far from the Lord’s having abandoned the land, it is they who have driven the Lord away (8:6). Far from their incense-burning being an effective means of warding off dangers, it is one of the causes of God’s impending judgment on them. Ironically, it is their vision that is clouded, not the Lord’s.
(3) Worse still is the sight of women weeping for Tammuz at the north gate of the temple itself (8:14–15). With each new scene we approach closer to the heart of Israel’s worship. Weeping for Tammuz was a Babylonian ritual, marking the death and descent into the underworld of the god Dumuzi, whose mythological course of death and “resurrection” (or more accurately, “return”) was thought to be parallel to the annual rhythm of nature. The cultic act of mourning was believed to counteract the loss of power of new life, thus hastening the return of fertility.11 Lamentation for the dead had been substituted for the worship of the living God.12
(4) The final and supreme act of idolatry takes place within the inner court of the temple itself, where Ezekiel sees twenty-five men turning their backs on the temple proper and prostrating themselves to the east, in worship of the sun (8:16).13 This is the ultimate abomination: Instead of bowing down to worship the Lord and seeking his face, they turn their backs on God and worship the created order.
In four brief scenes, then, Ezekiel has been shown the comprehensive nature of the sins of Jerusalem. Their sin extends from outside the city gate to the inner courtyard of the temple itself. It involves both men and women, even the seventy elders, symbolic of the leadership of the whole people. It includes idolatry imported from all sorts of surrounding nations (Canaan, Egypt, and Babylon) and involving all kinds of gods (male and female human figures, animal figures, and stellar bodies). This is a unified, universalized religion, the ultimate multifaith worship service. From the Lord’s perspective, however, the picture is one of abomination piled on abomination.
The combination of such a mass of idolatry with their sins against humanity (summarized in 8:17 under the general title “violence”) is an explosive mixture. They have continually provoked the Lord to anger and will now receive their just desserts. Even as the ax is poised to fall, their last gesture is one of defiant idolatry, “putting the branch to their nose” (8:17).14 They will receive what they deserve as the Lord deals with them in his wrath, neither pitying nor sparing. He will be deaf to their loudest cries for help.
What is more, the Lord will do some shouting of his own, and unlike their ineffectual cries, his voice will make things happen (Ezek. 9:1).15 He summons six “guards,” each of whom appears armed with a club. These guards would normally have had the responsibility of standing at the gates, protecting the realm of the sacred from profane intrusion.16 Here they appear together with a priestly figure dressed in linen, armed only with a writing kit.
These figures are normally interpreted as angelic beings because of their superhuman role in the vision and the symbolic nature of their total number (seven). However, it is worth noting that if 9:1–2 existed as a fragment, without the surrounding context, we would naturally understand it as speaking of normal human figures obeying the summons of the king. This helps us to remember the dual nature of these figures. On the one hand, in the vision they are the angelic servants of the Most High, wreaking his judgments on the earth; on the other hand, those same judgments are carried out in history through human agency, so the six destroyers may equally aptly be seen to represent the Babylonian invaders. If this much is true, is it not also true that the seventh figure, the priestly writer, acts in some sense as Ezekiel’s own alter ego? He obediently passes among the people prior to the judgment, distinguishing the righteous from the wicked, marking out those who sigh and cry17 over the detestable things done in Jerusalem (9:4).
Hard on his heels come the agents of destruction, who themselves take on the attitude of God toward the people (9:5): They are to strike (cf. 7:9) without pity or compassion (cf. 8:18). Their destructive work is a kind of reenactment of the first Passover, only with Judah instead of Egypt as the scene of the devastation. Just as the Lord passed through (ʿābar, Ex. 12:23) Egypt, handing over those without a protective mark to the destroyer (mašḥît, Ex. 12:23), so also the six are to “pass through” (ʿābar) the city, “slaughtering to destruction” (tahargû lemašḥît) anyone who does not bear the mark. All those without the mark are to be slain—young and old, male and female (Ezek. 9:5–6).18 The categories listed demonstrate that even the defenseless, the frail, and the innocent are condemned to destruction.19
The slaughter is to begin at the temple with the chief idolaters: the twenty-five elders who were worshiping the sun (9:6; cf. 8:16). Unlike in the case of Queen Athaliah, who was dragged out of the temple complex before being executed so that it would not be defiled by her blood (2 Kings 11:15–16), now the killing takes place within the temple itself (Ezek. 9:7). It is already so contaminated by their idolatry that God himself has no compunction about defiling it further (9:7; cf. 7:22: “They will desecrate my treasured place”).
In the midst of the carnage, Ezekiel is left alone (9:8) before the Lord. He begins to fear that he may really be all alone—a remnant of one—and he cries out “Ah, Sovereign LORD! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?” The Lord’s answer to the prophet’s question appears to be yes. He points to the depth of the abominations and sin of the house of Israel and Judah. The land is full of bloodshed and the city full of injustice. The attitude of the elders is summed up in this phrase: “The LORD has forsaken the land; the LORD does not see” (9:9). Therefore, they can expect no pity or compassion, but just retribution for their actions, which is the final proof that he has indeed seen everything that has transpired.
Yet at this critical juncture, precisely when it appears that all hope is gone, suddenly the priestly figure with the writing kit reappears, saying, “I have done as you commanded” (9:11). His appearance also answers Ezekiel’s question concerning the remnant, for he stands mute testimony to the Lord’s purpose to save those who sigh and mourn over the abominations of Jerusalem. We are not told how many he has marked—indeed, we are not even told that he has marked any—yet his presence acts to mitigate slightly the awful severity of the judgment, just as the rainbow of 1:28 tempers slightly the coming windstorm of God’s wrath. As at the time of the Exodus, there is shelter from God’s destruction for those who are willing to take refuge in the appointed sign. But on this occasion, it seems that those being saved will indeed be few.
Bridging Contexts
ROTTEN TO THE CORE. When interpreting these chapters, it is essential to remember that what is recorded here is a vision. That does not mean that the events recounted here are unrelated to reality: For instance, the destruction of Jerusalem that Ezekiel witnessed was the foreshadowing of the very real destruction of that city by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. But it does mean that they are not directly related to historical events. The six armed guards represent the Babylonian forces,20 but they are not the same as them. This distinction means that we should not assume that the view Ezekiel received of Jerusalem would have been that open to anyone touring the temple precincts in 592 B.C.; rather, it is a stylized representation of reality intended to make a particular point.21
That particular point is not hard to find: The core of Israel’s being is rotten with idolatry. The people as a whole had abandoned the true God and instead gone after every possible alternative god. Even when the worship took place in the temple precincts (under the title of Yahwism?), the true God was not being worshiped. The incompatibility of the alien religions with the true religion is nowhere clearer than in the case of the twenty-five sun-worshipers, who turn their backs on the temple building proper (and thus on the Lord) to carry out their devotions (8:16). If the bastion of true religion has thus been infected, then there must be no true worship left anywhere in Israel.
Yet in the midst of this comprehensive catalog of idolatry, we should not miss the essentially lay and democratic nature of the cults described.22 There are no priestly or royal figures leading the worship; instead, the leading figures are repeatedly identified as “elders.” It is thus the mass of the laity, represented by the elders, who are identified as primarily responsible for the idolatrous abominations that fill the land.23 This observation, of course, grows in significance when it is remembered that Ezekiel’s audience is composed of “the elders of Judah” (8:1). There is no one else on whom to lay the blame for Jerusalem’s destruction.
The Lord as a God of judgment. The result of comprehensive idolatry is apparently comprehensive slaughter. The practice of holy war, whereby all the inhabitants of a town were to be slaughtered, was commanded by God when Israel occupied the Promised Land. On that occasion, Israel filled the place of the armed angelic beings, acting as agents of God’s righteous judgment. They functioned as the human equivalent of the burning sulfur from heaven that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and all its residents, young and old. The Canaanites were not to be destroyed because they were in the way of progress, innocent bystanders mown down by the juggernaut of God’s gentrification of their neighborhood. They were judged because their sin reached full measure, as Abraham had been informed (Gen. 15:16). Now, however, Israel has become exactly like the Canaanites they replaced; their sin has reached full measure, and God’s judgment will descend likewise on them.
This is an aspect of God’s character that we do not often think about. We like to think of God as “the LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin” (Ex. 34:6–7). Yet he goes on to reveal himself also as the One who “does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.” As one writer comments about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah: “The Lord waits long to be gracious, as if he knew not how to smite. He smites at last as if he knew not how to pity.”24 When judgment fell on Canaan, it was swift, inexorable, completely lacking in pity. Now the “new Canaanites,” Israel will experience the same inexorable wrath of God.
Such a concept of judgment is not palatable to modern minds. But we may not realize that it was no more palatable to ancient “civilized” thought either. The ancient heretic Marcion drew a radical distinction between the wrath-filled God of the Old Testament and the purely loving God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, revealed in the New Testament. In response, Tertullian pointed out what an emasculated, inconsistent figure Marcion’s god was. This supposed deity:
plainly judges evil by not willing it, and condemns it by prohibiting it; while on the other hand, he acquits it by not avenging it, and lets it go free by not punishing it. What a prevaricator of truth is such a god! What a dissembler to his own decision! Afraid to condemn what he really condemns, afraid to hate what he does not love, permitting that to be done which he does not allow, choosing to indicate what he dislikes rather than deeply examine it!25
Such an attitude of speaking forcefully against evil, while all the time being unwilling to act against it, is considered utterly reprehensible in world leaders. Yet Marcion’s modern followers, who shy away from the idea of God’s wrath against sin, have a picture of God that makes him appear not unlike Neville Chamberlain, returning from Munich waving a piece of paper proclaiming, “Peace in our time!” unwilling to confront the growing power of Hitler with actions. In Niebuhr’s classic description of liberal theology, they picture “a God without wrath, who brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment, through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”26
Holy war stands as the clearest possible declaration of God’s commitment to the purity and holiness of his people, totally separate from possibly defiling influences. God’s holiness remains implacably opposed to sin. In the present, we are therefore enrolled as his people in a no-holds-barred contest with the forces of the evil one (Eph. 6:10–18), while in the future there will yet come a day when God’s wrath will be poured out comprehensively on the wicked (Rom. 2:5).
Vengeance belongs to the Lord. At the same time, there is a danger with being too comfortable proclaiming the wrath of God. In those periods of history where the church has been entirely comfortable with divine judgment, people have sometimes been quick to call it down on their opponents or set themselves up as the agents of divine vengeance. Jesus had to rebuke James and John for wishing to initiate eschatological vengeance (fire from heaven) on a village that would not receive Jesus (Luke 9:54). In our present situation in redemptive history, we are not to slaughter our enemies but to win them over with inexplicable deeds of tolerance and kindness (Matt. 5:39–42; Rom. 12:17–21). Now is the time for the preaching of the gospel to all nations, the bringing in of those who are outside into the covenant community.
What gives urgency to our task is the knowledge that there is a sure and certain Day of Judgment coming. Perhaps it may be a morning like this, when people are out taking their kids to school and doing the shopping. They may be planning weekend trips to Disneyland and the lake, looking forward to weddings and family gatherings, busy with the chatter of what they did yesterday and what they plan to do tomorrow. On just such a day the heavenly shout will be heard, just as Ezekiel heard it in his vision, and the time of judgment will begin. Those spared in that judgment will be only those who, like Ezekiel’s remnant, sigh and mourn over the abominations that surround them and whose foreheads have been marked out with the name of the Lamb and of his Father (Rev. 14:1). For the rest, there will be nothing to expect but eternal fire. The destruction of the idolaters of Jerusalem stands for us as an awful warning of God’s wrath to come.
Contemporary Significance
CONTEMPORARY IDOLATRIES. In all good soap operas—and most bad ones as well—the plot revolves around the various idolatries of the characters. Now I have to confess at this point that I am not a regular watcher of soap operas, so I cannot really speak from first-hand experience. But while doing some academic research on the subject I came across this summary of the characters in Melrose Place:
Sydney has been a hooker, an exotic dancer, and a drug addict. Jo harpooned Reed, the father of her child, then Kimberly kidnapped the kid, forcing Jo to go to the authorities, who put the child up for adoption so that neither one would have it. Matt was framed for the murder of his lover; Jake pushed his half-brother off a building; Alison became an alcoholic; went into recovery, then fell off the wagon again, before temporarily going blind in the 1995 explosion (courtesy of Kimberly) that blew the apartment complex to bits.27
Just an everyday tale of ordinary folk, isn’t it? It tells the story of the usual selection of lust, love, murder, mayhem, and addictive behaviors. Well, perhaps it is not exactly everyday, but what makes these soap operas so fascinating to people is the fact that these characters have no restraints on the expression of their idolatries. Why do they fall into bed with one another so easily? It is because their feelings of lust have become an idolatry, an idolatry that says that nothing in the world is of comparable significance to meeting the demands of these feelings right now. God’s law, which forbids immorality and adultery, is considered by them a matter of relatively insignificant weight.
Why do they murder one another at the drop of a hat? It is because their feelings of jealousy and anger have become an idolatry that says, “Feed me or I will make your life miserable!” Why do they lie and cheat and steal? It is because their covetous hearts have fastened onto an idol that they must have, regardless of the consequences. These are idolaters who live out the full scope of their idolatries. Face it, without idolatry every soap opera would be reduced to the most basic, not to say boring, story lines.
In Ezekiel 8, the prophet depicted abominations of Melrose Place proportions. In this chapter, he sees four visions of idolatrous groups operating within the Jerusalem temple itself, turning it from the Lord’s place into Marduk’s Place . . . and Asherah’s Place and the home of every idolatry under the sun. To those involved in these idolatrous practices, he gives the warning that the result of comprehensive idolatry will be comprehensive slaughter, which he describes in visionary form in Ezekiel 9.
The dangers of practical polytheism. We too face an abundance of idols all around us in our multicultural age. Frequently, people speak of ours as being an age of pluralism, as if that somehow makes our time distinct from the past. This is palpable nonsense, for at many times in the past, not least during the New Testament era and the time of the Exile, God’s people have found themselves placed in a melting pot of world religions. The options available in the “marketplace of religions” have often been just as diverse in previous centuries as they are at present.
In the face of such diversity, several responses are possible. Some take a smorgasbord approach and “mix and match” elements from a variety of religions according to their own taste.28 Such a “practical polytheism” may well be popular with the man or woman in the street, for it demands only what you wish to give and offers whatever you wish to ask. It makes no unwanted ethical demands, though it can take an ascetic form if that is your preference. The reward it offers can be an ethereal nirvana or materialistic success or a combination of both, depending on your taste.29 In short, the hallmark of any pluralistic age is that idolatry comes in all shapes and sizes and encourages us to attend regularly the church or religious institution of our choice.
In contrast, the Bible urges us that the “choice” facing us is not between equally valid methods of expressing our spirituality but between truth and falsehood, between worshiping the God who created us or bowing down to abominations that are not gods at all. The essence of idolatry is not so much denying the reality of God but the relevance of God. Thus the saying of the elders of the house of Israel was, “The LORD does not see us; the LORD has forsaken the land” (8:12). They did not deny the existence of God but simply asserted his irrelevance. This perhaps sheds some light on the repeated finding in the polls that an overwhelming proportion of Americans believe in God’s existence and in the Bible as his Word, yet never go to church or read the Bible. They are practical polytheists, who have created a religion to fit their own preferences.
Sometimes such practical polytheism even invades the church. There are those who support the idea of “multifaith” services, on the grounds that we are really all worshiping the same God, only under different labels. Ezekiel’s vision, on the other hand, would categorically condemn such an approach. All of the worship that he sees, no matter what its source or how exalted and noble its liturgy, is a matter of turning one’s back on the Lord, of foul abominations for which the judgment of God is coming on his people.
Nor is that simply a matter of Old Testament narrow-mindedness on Ezekiel’s part. The apostle Paul is equally insistent on the incompatibility of Christianity and other religions. He urges the Corinthian Christians to flee from idolatry (1 Cor. 10:14). They are not to participate in pagan sacrifices alongside their Christian profession, for as he says: “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” (1 Cor. 10:21–22). For Paul, just as much as for Ezekiel, participation in idolatry will rouse the Lord’s jealousy, a thing greatly to be feared.
Baptism as an identifying mark. This radical distinction between the community of God’s people and the rest of the world is the reason why we are baptized. Baptism, similar to circumcision in the old covenant, functions as a mark placed on an individual, identifying him or her as belonging to the covenant community.30 It is a sign that they are under the authority of the covenant overlord, God himself. This aspect of baptism as marking one out from the world and under the authority of Christ is frequently not understood today. William Willimon tells of an experience he had after participating in a panel discussion on “Homosexuality and the Church.” After the discussion, a young man came up to him saying that he was “a baptized Episcopalian” and “none of you have a right to tell me who I am. I define myself.” Willimon’s response to this person was to point out that if his first declaration were true (“I am a baptized Episcopalian”), his second declaration (“none of you have a right to tell me who I am”) was necessarily false. In baptizing the young man, the church had staked a clear claim to tell him who he was.31
As those who have been baptized, we do not have the right to “choose for ourselves” whom we will serve or how we will serve. We are members of Christ’s army, men and women under authority, who have been given our marching orders in the Scriptures. We must march in step with our commander or face the consequences. Within the church there is no room for compromise. Our devotion and loyalty must be uniquely committed to the Lord. Within our hearts we must be aware of our own idolatries and root them out remorselessly through the repeated application of the Truth, God’s Word. Moreover, we need to practice in our churches the kind of challenging preaching and biblical church discipline that confronts people’s comfortable idolatries with the truth of God’s wrath and the danger of being deceived into thinking that such idolatry can safely coexist with a Christian profession of faith. As Richard Lovelace puts it:
We may need to challenge more, and comfort less, in our evangelism and discipleship. We need to make it harder for people to retain assurance of salvation when they move into serious sin. . . . We need to tell some persons who think they have gotten saved to get lost. The Puritans were biblically realistic about this; we have become sloppy and sentimental in promoting assurance under any circumstances.32
A proper attitude toward idolatry outside the church. Yet that does not mean that we must adopt a belligerent attitude to members of other religions. As we have already noted, Paul’s attitude among the philosophers of Mars Hill in Athens, recorded in Acts 17, was different both from that of Ezekiel’s vision and his own attitude toward the Corinthians. Surrounded by the temples of false religion, far from calling down fire and brimstone on them, he instead addressed them respectfully as people who were very religious (Acts 17:22). His attitude to idolatry outside the church was thus radically different to idolatry inside the church. To the pagans he spoke with great politeness, seeking to present the gospel to them in a winsome manner. But to those who sought to bring pagan practices from the outside into the church, he had no tolerance.
Similarly, we should be polite and respectful in our dealings with people who are not Christians. Whether they come to your door attempting to share their faith with you or you encounter them in your regular course of life, your motto should be 1 Peter 3:15–16: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” Yet as we answer them with politeness and gentleness, we must be under no illusions that they are simply seeking God by a different route, far less that “it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere.” On the contrary, we are to remember with Peter that there is a judgment coming that begins “with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17).