The book of Ezekiel, part of the Major Prophets in the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament, contains some of the most vivid and provocative imagery in Scripture. Chapter 23 stands out for its extended allegory of two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah, who represent the kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah (Jerusalem). The chapter uses stark sexual metaphors to depict spiritual unfaithfulness, culminating in verse 20: "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses" (NIV). This verse has drawn significant attention, often cited by atheists and skeptics as evidence of the Bible's inappropriateness or obscenity, and by others who argue it discredits the text as divinely inspired or morally elevated.
This essay examines the meaning of Ezekiel 23:20 within its literary, historical, and theological context. It argues that the verse is not gratuitous pornography but a deliberate prophetic device employing shocking vulgarity to convey the gravity of Israel's idolatry and political alliances as covenant betrayal. The essay also addresses criticisms from atheists who view it as proof of a flawed or immoral sacred text, and from those who see it as rendering the Bible unsuitable for moral guidance or modern readers.
Historical and Literary Context of Ezekiel 23
Ezekiel prophesied during the Babylonian exile (c. 593–571 BCE), addressing a people in crisis after Jerusalem's fall loomed. His oracles often use symbolic acts and extended metaphors to jolt his audience into recognizing their sins. Chapters 16 and 23 employ the "harlotry" metaphor, common in prophetic literature (e.g., Hosea 1–3; Jeremiah 2–3), where Israel's covenant with Yahweh is likened to marriage, and idolatry or foreign alliances to adultery.
In Ezekiel 23, God commands the prophet to narrate the story of two sisters, daughters of one mother, who "played the whore" in Egypt during their youth (v. 3). Their names are symbolic: Oholah ("her tent") represents Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, implying self-reliant or false worship (perhaps alluding to rival shrines after the kingdom's split). Oholibah ("my tent is in her") represents Jerusalem, where Yahweh's true temple dwelt. The elder sister Oholah (Israel) lusted after Assyrian lovers, leading to her destruction (vv. 5–10), a historical reference to the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom in 722 BCE. The younger Oholibah (Judah) then repeated the pattern, first with Egyptians (vv. 19–21) and then Assyrians and Babylonians (vv. 11–19, 22–35).
Verse 20 specifically describes Oholibah's (Jerusalem's) infatuation with Egyptian paramours, using crude imagery of exaggerated virility. The "flesh" (Hebrew basar, often euphemistic for genitals) likened to donkeys and "issue" (emission or semen) to horses emphasizes insatiable lust and animalistic excess. This is not literal description of individuals but hyperbolic caricature.
Scholars note that ancient Near Eastern literature often used animal comparisons for potency—donkeys and horses symbolized strength and fertility in Egyptian and Mesopotamian art and texts. Donkeys were linked to Priapus-like fertility cults, and horses to military might (chariots). Ezekiel inverts this: what pagans celebrated as virile power becomes degrading, portraying foreign alliances as degrading submission to brute force rather than trust in Yahweh.
The allegory's purpose is theological: idolatry and reliance on foreign powers profane the covenant. Judah's "lust" for Egypt recalls the Exodus-era complaints and alliances (e.g., against Babylon, as in Jeremiah 37). The graphic language shocks the exiles into seeing their spiritual state as repulsive as bestial debauchery.
Theological Meaning of Ezekiel 23:20
At its core, Ezekiel 23:20 illustrates the depth of apostasy. The marriage covenant (Yahweh as husband) demands exclusive loyalty. Pursuing foreign gods or empires is adultery, but Ezekiel intensifies this to harlotry—repeated, public, insatiable. The verse's vulgarity underscores the "abomination" (Hebrew to'evah, used in v. 36–49) of these acts.
The imagery targets not women or sexuality per se but covenant betrayal. Personification as women draws on cultural views of adultery as dishonoring the husband (Yahweh). The exaggerated phallic descriptions mock the allure of foreign powers: they promise strength and satisfaction but deliver degradation. This echoes prophetic themes where idols are impotent (Isaiah 44), yet here the "lovers" are potent in worldly terms, highlighting misplaced desire.
Judgment follows (vv. 22–49): the lovers turn violent, stripping and stoning the sisters, symbolizing invasions by Assyria and Babylon as divine retribution. Yet the chapter ends with hope implicit in Ezekiel's broader message of restoration (chs. 36–37).
The verse thus serves prophetic rhetoric: to provoke revulsion at sin, mirroring how God views unfaithfulness. As one commentary notes, Ezekiel "throws caution to the wind" in language to match the offense of the sin.
Addressing Atheist Criticisms
Atheists often cite Ezekiel 23:20 as evidence the Bible is a human product—crude, misogynistic, or pornographic—undermining claims of divine inspiration. Critics argue an omniscient, holy God would not use such vulgarity, or that it reveals a "vain, egomaniacal" deity obsessed with loyalty. Some point to it in school ban debates or as "NC-17" content.
These critiques overlook genre and intent. The Bible contains diverse literary forms: poetry, prophecy, apocalypse. Prophetic oracles use hyperbole and shock for effect, akin to modern political cartoons exaggerating features to critique. The vulgarity is intentional rhetoric, not endorsement of obscenity. Similar shocking imagery appears elsewhere (e.g., Ezekiel eating dung bread, Isaiah walking naked).
The text does not glorify the described acts; it condemns them as degrading. The "she" is not literal women but nations personified—criticism of misogyny misses the target. Atheist readings often isolate the verse from context, treating it as prescriptive rather than metaphorical condemnation.
If the Bible were merely human propaganda, why include self-incriminating material embarrassing to its audience? Its inclusion speaks to authenticity: prophets confronted sin bluntly, even if offensive.
Responding to Criticisms of Inappropriateness or Discrediting the Bible
Some believers and non-believers argue the verse makes the Bible inappropriate, especially for children or general reading, or discredits it morally. Concerns arise in censorship debates (e.g., school bans) or claims it promotes vulgarity.
The Bible is not a children's book; it addresses adult realities, including sin's ugliness. Prophets used raw language because sanitized words fail to convey horror. As in Hosea or Jeremiah, the goal is awakening repentance, not titillation.
Modern readers may find it jarring due to cultural shifts toward euphemism, but ancient audiences understood prophetic hyperbole. The verse warns against spiritual complacency: covenant betrayal is as repulsive as animalistic lust.
Far from discrediting the Bible, such passages highlight its honesty. Scripture does not airbrush sin but exposes it to show grace's need. The offensiveness serves the message: sin offends God profoundly.
In Christian theology, the Old Testament anticipates Christ, whose faithfulness redeems unfaithful people. The harlot metaphor finds resolution in the New Testament bride of Christ (Ephesians 5; Revelation 19–21).
Conclusion
Ezekiel 23:20 is a stark prophetic tool in an allegory condemning Israel's and Judah's spiritual adultery through idolatry and foreign alliances. Its crude imagery shocks to reflect sin's repulsiveness and provoke repentance. Criticisms—atheist claims of immorality or charges of inappropriateness—often stem from decontextualized reading. Understood in its prophetic genre, historical setting, and theological aim, the verse reinforces the Bible's message of covenant loyalty and divine justice.
The passage challenges readers to consider sin's seriousness and God's holiness. Rather than discrediting Scripture, it exemplifies prophetic courage in confronting uncomfortable truths. You will not hear it at Mass, but it is still part of God's word. The language may be crude and direct, but this is what makes the Bible a unique collection of texts. It is direct, authentic, and keeps it real, so to speak.
Sources
- Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
- Duguid, Iain M. Ezekiel. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.
- Ezekiel 23 (various translations: NIV, ESV, KJV). Bible Hub and Bible Gateway.
- Enduring Word Bible Commentary on Ezekiel 23. enduringword.com.
- Green, Barbara. "Ezekiel 23 and the 'Offense of Ezekiel's Gospel.'" In Ezekiel's Message of Hope and Restoration. Various scholarly discussions.
- John Gill's Exposition of the Bible. biblestudytools.com.
- Matthew Henry Commentary on Ezekiel 23. blueletterbible.org.
- Various entries from Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange and Reddit r/AcademicBiblical on Ezekiel 23.
- Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 1–24. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.