Skip to main content
Christianity

Ezekiel 23 and the Obscene Language of the Bible — Exposing the Christian Defense and the Internal Contradiction

16 min read 3557 words
How to Navigate This Note The Verses Under Discussion — Ezekiel 23:3–31 — the full text of the passages objected to, including the explicit language about breasts, flesh like donkeys, and semen like horses The Christian Apologetic — Their Five-Point Defense — the full text of the Christian response organized under their five headings First Point — The Words of Revelation in General — response to the claim that Ezekiel contains a prohibition of wrongdoing Second Point — The Background and the Spiritual Adultery Interpretation — response to the claim that all sexual language in Ezekiel is metaphorical, and why this fails when applied to Genesis 19 Third Point — Inappropriate Words and the Language Defense — response to the claim that the language was culturally appropriate and contextually necessary Fourth Point — The Quran and Hadith Comparison — why the Christian’s attempt to use the Quran and hadith as parallel evidence backfires entirely Fifth Point — The Courtroom Analogy — why the comparison to criminal reenactment fails when applied to a book claimed to be the word of God The Alternative Text — God Could Have Said It Differently — the decisive argument: a wise and respectable God could have conveyed the same prohibition without pornographic detail The Internal Witness — Matthew the Poor’s Own Admission — a Christian scholar’s own words acknowledging the ugliness of the language in Ezekiel

The Christian defense of Ezekiel 23 collapses on a single question: if the sexual language is merely metaphorical, why is the metaphor expressed in pornographic detail? And if the detail is necessary for condemnation, is the incest of Lot’s daughters in Genesis 19 also merely a spiritual metaphor?

A Christian writer presented a five-part defense of the explicit sexual language in Ezekiel 23, arguing that the text describes spiritual adultery rather than literal fornication, that the language reflects the customs of idol worship at the time, and that similar language appears in the Quran and hadith. The response below addresses each of their five points in order, using their own words against them.

The Verses Under Discussion — Ezekiel 23:3–31

Ezekiel 23:3–31 — King James Version (excerpts) “And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother, who played the harlot in Egypt; in their youth they played the harlot; there their breasts were tickled, and there their virgin bosoms were tingled. And their names were: Oholah the elder, and Oholibah her sister; and their names were Samaria and Jerusalem… And she loved their lovers, whose flesh was like the flesh of donkeys, and their semen like the semen of horses… Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will stir up your lovers against you… And they will come against you with weapons and with chariots… And they will condemn you… This will I do to you, because you have committed the harlotry after the nations, because you have defiled yourself with their idols.” (Ezekiel 23:22–31)

The two cities of Oholah and Oholibah are Samaria, the capital of the Kingdom of Israel, and Jerusalem, the capital of the Kingdom of Judah. The Kingdom of the Children of Israel was one united kingdom under the rule of David and Solomon, but after the death of Solomon it was divided into a northern kingdom with Samaria as its capital and a southern kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital. God had ordered the establishment of the Tabernacle in the capital of the Kingdom of Judah, but the Kingdom of Israel never agreed to establish a Tabernacle of worship there. From this we understand why God called Samaria Oholah — which means in Hebrew “her tent” — and called Jerusalem Oholibah — which means in Hebrew “my tent is there.” The northern kingdom established its own tent, while the southern kingdom was supposed to be the tent of God alone. King Solomon built the Temple of God to be the tent of God in Jerusalem, but both the northern and southern kingdoms betrayed God’s covenant — which is what the prophets of the Torah call spiritual fornication. The two kingdoms began to worship the idols of the surrounding kingdoms.

The Christian Apologetic — Their Five-Point Defense

The Christian writer organized their defense under five headings, which we reproduce here before addressing each one:

They say: The words of revelation in general are the words of God inspired in the Holy Bible, which include the story of the creation of man, the story of his fall into sin, God’s dealings with people throughout human history, the story of redemption and salvation, and God’s commandments to humanity. It is clear that what is written in Ezekiel here is a prohibition of wrongdoing and ugliness committed by the Jewish nation at that time.

They say regarding the meaning of the adultery: this speech does not mean the adultery of a woman in the literal sexual sense — how can a nation commit adultery when it is not a woman? What is meant is a metaphorical image that expresses the betrayal of this nation to God, and this is what is expressed by spiritual adultery. Spiritual adultery is a formula used by the Holy Bible to mean betrayal of the Lord or hostility towards Him due to attachment to other gods.

They say regarding inappropriate words: we cannot judge any text unless we study its circumstances and conditions, the language used at the time, and the traditions and customs of the people at that time. These words were a description of the evils that were actually practiced in the rituals and ceremonies of idol worship at that time. These shameful rituals were not in the eyes of their doers shameful and ugly — they were pride and glory for them. The Lord wanted to expose the ugliness of what they commit. Moreover, we see in the courtroom that the prosecution asks criminals to reenact the crime with all its shameful details.

They say regarding words from the Quran: such words have been mentioned in the Holy Quran and the authentic hadiths and are not considered inappropriate or objectionable. And there is no shame in religion.

They say regarding words from the hadiths: many words of this kind have been mentioned in the authentic and verified hadiths about sexual intercourse and the feelings and sensations that accompany it and how each part of the body enjoys.

First Point — The Words of Revelation in General

They say: It is clear that what is written in Ezekiel here is a prohibition of wrongdoing and ugliness committed by the Jewish nation at that time.

Truly terrifying words — this is what they themselves called it. And then they say it is the word of God. Glory be to God. They describe the language of their own scripture as truly terrifying and then ask us to accept it without question. Would the wise God make His prophet forbid wrongdoing in this way? All that can be said in response to this is: may God’s prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of God, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, may God bless him and grant him peace, whose Lord did not address him or address the people in this manner.

They say: The problem of shallow readers lies in the lack of accurate understanding.

Lack of understanding is precisely what their own book commands: in the Book of Proverbs, chapter 3, verse 5: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.” So we are commanded not to understand — and then accused of shallow reading when we take the text at its plain meaning.

Second Point — The Background and the Spiritual Adultery Interpretation

They say: What is meant is a metaphorical image that expresses the betrayal of this nation to God — this is spiritual adultery, not literal adultery. A nation cannot commit literal adultery.

If all sexual language in the prophetic books is metaphorical and spiritual — describing idolatry rather than physical acts — then the same interpretive principle must be applied consistently across the entire Bible.
Very well. Then what do you say about this text:
Genesis 19:30–38 — King James Version “And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar. So he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said to the younger, ‘Our father is old, and there is not a man in the land to come in to us, as is the custom of all the land. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve seed through our father.’ So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she rose up. And it came to pass on the next day, that the firstborn said to the younger, ‘Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine tonight also; and go in and lie with him, that we may preserve seed from our father.’ So they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. So Lot’s two daughters conceived by their father. And the firstborn bore a son, and she called his name Moab. He is the father of the Moabites to this day. And the younger also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: he is the father of the children of Ammon to this day.”

Is this adultery also spiritual? Is the incest of Lot’s daughters with their father a metaphor for idolatry? The text names the children born from these acts and identifies their descendants as historical nations. There is no nation here that is committing spiritual fornication. There are two women and their father in a cave, and the account gives their names and the names of their sons. Is this a metaphor?

The Christian apologist has two choices: either the sexual language of the Bible is sometimes literal — in which case the defense of Ezekiel as purely metaphorical collapses — or it is always metaphorical — in which case the entire historical narrative of Genesis becomes allegory, and the Christian cannot claim Biblical historicity.

It is truly strange that the text in Ezekiel is called “spiritual” while the same book contains: “there their breasts were tickled, and there their virginity cords were tingled.” What is the wisdom of saying this sexual talk? Glory be to God.

Third Point — Inappropriate Words and the Language Defense

They say: We cannot judge any text unless we study its circumstances and conditions and the language used at that time and the traditions and customs of the people at that time. These words were a description of the evils that were actually practiced in the rituals of idol worship.

Do you mean that the language at that time was a sexual language? That the conventions of communication among the people of that era required pornographic metaphor in order to convey a prohibition? A wise and respectable person would be ashamed to say these words — and they are attributed to God Almighty.

They say: These shameful rituals were not considered shameful by those who practiced them. They were a source of pride and glory for them.

Do you mean that these sexual words are a description of evils? Then your Lord has only found these words — which a wise and respectable person would be ashamed to say — as the instrument of condemnation? Glory be to God.

They say: If mentioning these things is ugly, then how shameful was the action. Was that not worthy of exposure, rebuke, and punishment?

Do you mean that if the action is ugly, the words are even uglier? That is precisely the objection. God Almighty, the All-Wise, the All-Knowing, could have condemned the idolatry of Israel without describing the size of the genitals of the Egyptians and Assyrians with whom Israel is said to have fornicated. Here is a simple comparison:

Instead of what is written: “And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother. And they played the harlot in Egypt; in their youth they played the harlot. There their breasts were tickled, and there their virginity cords were touched.”

It could have been: “The Lord spoke to me, saying, Son of man, there were two cities of one country. They were idolaters in Egypt. In their youth they worshipped idols. There they did not listen to the word of the Lord, and there they did not apply His teachings.”

For God’s sake — which text would you allow your child to read?

An-Nisa 4:82 ﴿أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ ۚ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا﴾

“Then do they not reflect upon the Quran? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.” (An-Nisa: 82)

They say: Moreover, we see in the courtroom that the prosecution asks criminals to reenact the crime with all its shameful details. Is there any shame in that?

A crime — yes. But not sexual words. And where? In a courtroom, not in a book claimed to be the holy word of God Almighty, revealed to guide humanity. The courtroom analogy would require that Ezekiel be classified as a legal document, not divine revelation. And a prosecution does not describe the genitals of foreign nations in order to condemn idolatry. This cannot be the word of God.

Fourth Point — The Quran and Hadith Comparison

They say: Such words have been mentioned in the Holy Quran and the authentic hadiths and are not considered inappropriate or objectionable. As the Arab proverb says, there is no shame in religion.

The Christian then lists Quranic verses including At-Tariq 86:5–7 on the origin of man from fluid, Al-Qiyamah 75:36–39 on the drop of semen, Al-Ahzab 33:50 on marriage, An-Nur 24:31 on guarding private parts, and descriptions of Paradise including houris and immortal boys in Al-Waqi’ah and Al-Insan. He also cites scholars including Muhammad Jalal Kishk and Sheikh al-Ghazali.

The comparison fails on every level.

First: the Quran’s mention of semen in the context of human creation, or the guarding of private parts in the context of modesty law, or the description of Paradise in the context of divine reward — none of these constitute the kind of graphic sexual condemnation language found in Ezekiel 23. There is a categorical difference between a verse describing the biological origin of human life and a verse attributing to God a description of a nation’s lovers having flesh like donkeys and semen like horses.

Second: the Christian is attempting to use the Quran and hadith as a shield for his own scripture. He is saying: your book also contains such language, therefore our book is not objectionable. But the objection was never that the Quran contains biological references. The objection is that Ezekiel 23 contains graphic sexual imagery attributed directly to the speech of God — “And the word of the Lord came to me, saying…” — and that this language is pornographic in the plain sense of the word, not scientific, not legal, and not comparable to descriptions of Paradise or creation.

Third: the scholars he quotes — Muhammad Jalal Kishk and Sheikh al-Ghazali — are being cited in defense of Biblical pornography. Would anyone dare to say that this is obscene and vulgar speech? The question answers itself. The Christian is citing Muslim scholars to defend a Biblical text that Muslim scholars would reject as unworthy of divine authorship.

There is no shame in religion — but there is a difference between what religion discusses and the manner in which it discusses it. The Quran discusses the human body, marriage, and Paradise with precision and dignity. Ezekiel 23 describes the sexual arousal of two personified cities as young girls in Egypt.

Fifth Point — The Courtroom Analogy

They say: We see in the courtroom that the prosecution asks criminals to reenact the crime with all its shameful details. Is there any shame or disgrace in that? Are not the words of revelation in Ezekiel of this type?

The courtroom reenactment comparison reveals more than it defends. If Ezekiel 23 is comparable to a criminal prosecution, then God is the prosecutor, Israel is the criminal, and the testimony consists of graphic descriptions of the criminal’s sexual acts. But a prosecution does not require the prosecutor to describe the anatomy of the parties involved. A prosecution of idol worship does not require God to describe the size of the genitals of the Egyptians or the volume of their semen. The analogy, if taken seriously, makes God into a prosecutor who introduces unnecessarily graphic testimony. This is not a defense. It is an admission that the language exceeds what the stated purpose requires — which is precisely the objection.

They say: God mentioned these vices to punish the nation for them.

O Muslims — he said “vices.” Glory be to God. How does God mention vices to punish a nation that worships idols? Is mentioning vices a punishment for idolatry? The logic here is that God punished Israel by describing their vices in pornographic detail — that the description itself is the punishment. But if the description is the punishment, then God is punishing Israel by speaking in a way that a wise and respectable person would be ashamed to say. This cannot be the word of God.

The Alternative Text — God Could Have Said It Differently

The decisive argument is simple: if the purpose of Ezekiel 23 is to condemn idolatry, God Almighty — the All-Wise, the All-Knowing — could have conveyed that condemnation without graphic sexual language. The alternative text offered above demonstrates this. A God of wisdom does not need pornographic metaphor to prohibit sin.

An-Nisa 4:82 ﴿أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ ۚ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا﴾

“Then do they not reflect upon the Quran? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.” (An-Nisa: 82)

If the Book of Ezekiel had been from God, they would not have found within it what a wise and respectable person would be ashamed to say. The presence of language that the Christian apologist himself calls “truly terrifying” and that the Christian scholar Matthew the Poor called “ugly and obscene in its most abject meaning and forms” is internal testimony to the human and corrupted origin of this text.

The Internal Witness — Matthew the Poor’s Own Admission

The Christian scholar known as Matthew the Poor — a Coptic monk — wrote in his book Prophethood and the Prophets:

Matthew the Poor — Prophethood and the Prophets “And the cautious reader will be shocked by the use of ugly and obscene language in its most abject meaning and forms in addressing the people of Israel.”

A Christian scholar, writing about the Book of Ezekiel in a book about prophecy, described the language as “ugly and obscene in its most abject meaning and forms.” This is not a Muslim assessment. It is the assessment of a man who dedicated his life to Christian scholarship and could not find a way to defend the language of Ezekiel from the charge of obscenity.

When a defender of the Bible’s own tradition cannot describe its language except as “ugly and obscene in its most abject meaning and forms,” the Muslim who raises the same objection has not misread the text. He has read it correctly.

Conclusion — The Defense Fails on Every Point The Christian five-point defense of Ezekiel 23 fails at every stage. The claim that all sexual language is metaphorical spiritual adultery collapses when applied to Genesis 19, where Lot’s daughters commit literal incest with their father and bear named children whose descendants became named nations. The claim that the language reflects the customs of idol worship does not explain why God Almighty, the All-Wise, could not have found dignified language to condemn those customs — as a simple rewrite of the passage demonstrates. The claim that similar language appears in the Quran and hadith is a false equivalence — the Quran discusses the human body and creation and Paradise with precision and dignity, not with graphic descriptions of the genitals of foreign nations. The courtroom analogy, taken seriously, makes God into a prosecutor who introduces unnecessarily graphic testimony. And the internal witness of the Christian scholar Matthew the Poor — who described the language of Ezekiel as “ugly and obscene in its most abject meaning and forms” — confirms that the objection is not a misreading but an accurate reading. This cannot be the word of God.
2025 https://www.openislam.wiki/og/ezekiel-23-and-the-obscene-language-of-the-bible-exposing-the-christian-defense-and-the-internal-contradiction.png