Call to judge, then list of offenses

This section sits inside Ezekiel 23’s extended allegory of two sisters who represent two centers of Israel’s life: Samaria (Oholah) and Jerusalem (Oholibah). The chapter has already described their earlier attractions to foreign powers and practices, and it will continue into a sharper sentence of what is coming to them. Verses 36–44 function like the formal call to “judge,” followed by a focused list of offenses and a concrete picture of how their alliances looked. The language is intentionally graphic to make the moral logic feel unavoidable and public.

Ezekiel speaks from the world of Judah’s collapse under Neo-Babylonian dominance, when many Judeans had already been deported and Jerusalem’s political options were shrinking. In that setting, “going after” other nations could mean both diplomatic dependence and adopting their religious practices. The passage assumes the Jerusalem temple and Sabbath rhythms still mattered as core identity markers, yet were being treated as compatible with other devotions. The charges about child sacrifice reflect known practices in parts of the ancient Levant and are used here to underline how far the community’s public life had drifted from its own stated loyalties.

Shared ground

The passage presents Ezekiel as publicly stating God’s case against Oholah and Oholibah (the two “sisters” of the chapter). The text’s own emphasis is on exposure: Ezekiel must “judge” by naming their “abominations” (v.36). The offenses are grouped and repeated so they feel undeniable rather than accidental.

Explicitly, the charges include: “adultery” linked with idols, bloodshed, and the burning of their sons in an idol rite (vv.37, 39). Another major theme is profaning what is marked out as God’s—his sanctuary, his Sabbaths, and even “my incense and my oil” being placed into a rival, seductive setting (vv.38–41).

The scene also stresses mixture: they commit violence and idol practices, then come “the same day” into God’s sanctuary (vv.38–39). That pairing highlights not only wrongdoing but a refusal to treat God’s worship as incompatible with other loyalties.

Where interpretation differs

How “adultery” works in this paragraph. Some read it as fully metaphorical language for covenant unfaithfulness (idolatry and political-religious alliances), with the sexual imagery serving to shock and clarify the betrayal. Others think the metaphor may also overlap with real sexualized cult practices or literal sexual immorality tied to idol worship, since the text portrays specific acts and settings.

Who the “men from far” and other participants are. Many readings connect “men from far” to foreign nations courted for protection or status (political alliances that carried religious influence). Others treat the language more generally: outsiders and admired powers, without tying each group in vv.40–42 to a precise historical partner.

What “the same day” is doing. Some take it as literal timing (the outrage is that the actions occurred within one day). Others think it functions mainly as rhetorical intensification: the point is the blatant closeness and shamelessness of mixing idol violence with temple worship.

Why the disagreement exists The chapter is an allegory, and allegories can blend levels: literal history, political behavior, religious practice, and vivid imagery can all be present at once. Also, vv.40–42 describe a stylized “hosting” scene (washing, eye paint, ornaments, bed, table), which can be read as either a picture of diplomatic courting, cultic behavior, or both.

What this passage clearly contributes This unit contributes a concentrated list of what Ezekiel portrays as the core covenant breaches leading to judgment: idolatry framed as marital betrayal, bloodguilt (including child sacrifice), and the profaning of holy markers (sanctuary and Sabbaths). It also shows God treating the misuse of what belongs to him (“my sanctuary,” “my Sabbaths,” “my incense and my oil”) as a direct offense “to me” (v.38), not merely a social failure. The closing picture (vv.43–44) underlines settled, habitual unfaithfulness rather than a single lapse.