The religious rationalization of such behavior is the elders’ conclusion that God has already abandoned Jerusalem—so why not turn to every other possible divine source for help? They imagined that the Lord is no longer present to take notice of such sacrilegious activity, even in his own temple complex. Ironically, the Lord had not yet abandoned his temple; but the activities of these elders were driving him away (Ezek 8:6).
8:14 mourning the god Tammuz: The gate location of this next scene is uncertain; but, judging from the reference to God’s “house,” it seems to be a move closer to the temple building itself. In contrast to the dark, inner chamber of the previous scene, worship of the Babylonian deity Tammuz occurred in the open court directly in view of God’s temple. This reinforces the progressive detestability of each successive scene.
Special Topic: Tammuz
In Babylonian religion, the figure Tammuz appears as the ill-fated lover of the goddess, Ishtar, whose place he takes in the netherworld in order for her to return from death and inhabit life. He was associated with both newborn sheep and new growth of vegetation in the spring. In summer drought he was thought to be trapped in death’s realm until ascending to life again the following spring. Mesopotamian texts mention annual rituals in which worshippers mourn his death. For example, a seventh-century BC Assyrian text ordains “weeping” in the month of Tammuz (June/July).61 Similar practices in Canaanite religion accompanied the worship of Baal. For example, 1 Kgs 18:28 depicts mourning rites that imitated the god El’s lament over Baal’s death in Ugaritic myth. Probably related to this is later Greek worship of Adonis involving lamentation rituals by women.62 With this custom, then, Israelite religion was participating fully in ancient Near Eastern beliefs about death, life, and fertility.
8:16 backs toward the temple . . . faces toward the east: The final scene takes place at God’s front door, where “about twenty-five men” (a round number with no particular significance) worship the sun with backs turned against the Lord (cf. Jer 32:33–34). Astral deities, such as the sun, moon, planets, and stars, comprised the chief gods of ancient religion, and Jerusalem’s idolatry fell in step (Jer 8:2; Zeph 1:5), especially in worshipping the sun (2 Kgs 21:5; 23:11).
8:17 violence . . . branch to their nose: As the four scenes of abominable worship reach a climax, the Lord denounces the sin of violence as more provocative to anger than idolatrous practices (cf. “filling land with violence,” as at the time of the flood [Gen 6:11, 13]).63 The assessment that violence and injustice are more reprehensible than religious apostasy is consistent with Ezek 7:23 and Ezek 9:9–10.
The significance of putting a branch to the nose is unclear. It is possible that it refers to a gesture of entreaty, for which there is an Assyrian relief depicting the king holding a branch (flower?) to his nose in worship; or possibly the branch alludes to the cedar branch, a symbol of life associated with Tammuz and Ishtar.64 Alternatively, since the reference comes immediately after the accusation about violence, the phrase may denote a gesture of contempt or physical insult toward God commensurate with the severity of violence.65 The line had been crossed beyond which there was no hope for mercy from God (Ezek 8:18; cf. chapter 7).
Theological Bridge to Application
Against the elders’ claim that the Lord had departed and does not observe their activity (Ezek 8:13), stands the reality that the God of glory was indeed present. There are two important implications: First, God is longsuffering (Exod 34:6), as testified by his continued presence in his temple throughout years of such abominable idolatry. His reluctant departure in chapters 9 and 10 reinforce this observation. Second, denying God’s knowledge of any human affair is illusory. Perhaps these men assumed that God was not present in his temple; nevertheless, they conducted their affairs in secret, just in case, in order to remain unobserved. Yet the walls and darkness were penetrated by his watchful eye. Even had the glory been absent, he would be present to know (cf. Pss 11:4–5; 139:2, 7).
Focus of Application
Many details concerning the idolatrous practices in Ezek 8 evade our understanding. Nevertheless, the heart of the vision is clearly signaled by changes between scenes (e.g., Ezek 8:6, 13, 15): first, the progressive closeness of idolatry in the direction of God’s very presence (movement from outside the gateway to the porch of temple), and then the increasingly brazen attitude on the part of idolaters against God (hiding in secret to turning one’s back on God’s face). It is also helpful to bear in mind that Ezekiel is experiencing a vision, which like a dream-experience need not cohere to reality in every way. So, for example, attempting to make perfect sense of Ezekiel’s tunneling into the gatehouse is irrelevant to the intention of the visionary experience and narrative portrayal.
It is often the case that severity of sin is measured by a hierarchy of behaviors, the exact order of which often varies from community to community. While not denying that there are degrees of severity to sin and its consequences (Ezek 8:17 is a reminder), the attitude of the individual toward God is equally important as we think about sin in our own life or in our faith community. God’s tolerance measures the heart as much as the action (Pss 32:5; 51:17; compare Jesus’ differing posture toward sinners and Pharisees).
The second scene portrays the complexity of practical atheism. Sins committed in secret or harbored in the fantasies of the heart are not hidden from God (cf. Pss 10:11; 94:7; Zeph 1:12; Prov 15:3), although even committed believers can fall prey to this illusion in practice. Positive correction for this attitude flows from Pss 19:12–14; 138:23–24.
More severe condemnation applies to brazen defiance. In contemporary terms, this would describe the person who confesses faith but at the same time insults God and tarnishes his reputation by publically flaunting their behavior. It is this sort of situation that elicits church discipline. The difference between those who struggle under sin’s burden and those who flippantly ignore it is immense in God’s eyes.
The concluding accusation in Ezek 8:17 reminds us that God does weigh different sins in their degree of severity. Unfortunately, communities of believers have too frequently devised their hierarchy of sins based on the types of behavior that permit easy evaluation. Those who do not measure up are censured. This obsession with “external” sin can result in a benign silence regarding “internal” sin. But the specific point in this vision (like the oracle of chapter 7) is that injustice, especially in forms that result in physical harm, tops the list. When one observes the moral issues that often play large on the agenda of churches, the hierarchy of popular Christian values often overlooks this.
53. For literary design, see Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 272–73.
54. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 168.
55. For discussion of Asherah, see Curtis, “Canaanite Gods,” 140–41.
56. Further, see Bodi, “Ezekiel,” 420–21.
57. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 281.
58. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 169.
59. Bodi, “Ezekiel,” 421–22; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 169–70.