John Calvin Commentary Ezekiel 8:17

"Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen [this], O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have turned again to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose." — Ezekiel 8:17 (ASV)

God complains as He did previously of the wickedness of the people, especially of their treacherous and wicked revolt, because they so defiled the temple which should be sacred to God alone. He also adds another complaint: that they were not content in their wickedness, which tended to violate human society, common rights, and the pursuit of mutual equity, unless they also weakened religion.

For under the word חמס , chemes, is included whatever is contrary to the second table of the law. Therefore, in this word חמס, chemes—that is, violence—the rhetorical figure of 'a part representing the whole' is used, as if He had said they were addicted to frauds, plunder, slaughter, cruelty, perjuries, and despoiling.

Since, therefore, they abstained from no injustice, God says, they clearly provoke Me also. It is as if He had said, after being unjust towards men, they now dare to defy Me. We know that God’s law was contained in the two tables. The first table prescribes what the true and pure worship of God is.

The Jews had violated the second table, since they neglected all the duties of love, and neither equity nor uprightness flourished among them. After they had filled the land with iniquity; this was their intolerable impiety, that after despising men, they attacked God Himself. We see now the reason for the context: Is this a light thing? He says.

After He had spoken of the wickedness simply and by itself, as they say, He now amplifies it by comparison when He says, before this they had filled the earth with violence, but now they have turned themselves to provoke Me — behold these, He says, etc.

The adverb of place must be noticed here, as I have previously advised. For their impiety is the more detestable, since they broke into the temple to defile themselves with their idols. That place at least should have remained pure and unpolluted, even if the whole land had been infected with many impurities. But when not even the temple is spared, this is a sign of desperate and almost furious audacity. Therefore, He repeats the adverb which He had used before, and in the same sense.

Regarding the latter part of the verse, some, as I have said, take הזמורה, hez-moreh, to mean foulness. I do not know why, for I am not aware of this noun being used elsewhere in this sense. But because nothing better came to their minds, they think it probable, and some have invented a foolish fable that they broke wind in honor of the sun, as if the noise from the belly were an acceptable offering to the idol, since by this means they openly despised God.

But these are conjectures. Others think more correctly who suppose this is used metaphorically. For they were accustomed to burn incense to their idols; and so, according to them, God alludes to a pleasing and sweet odor when He names it a foul smell, as if He had said, even if the Jews pleased themselves in their superstitions, yet the incense sent forth a foul odor and they would perceive it. For if He speaks of the nostrils, it should be considered as a punishment.

Some suppose that the third-person relative pronoun is used for the first person, as if God were saying, "to My nose" or "to My wrath." And they fabricate an insipid comment that this place was changed by the Rabbis through reverence for God, as if, indeed, there were not countless passages where God pronounces in clearer words that He was disgracefully despised.

But first, because this noun properly means a branch, and is used in that sense in many places; then, since the noun אפ, aph, can be explained both passively and actively, the context will flow best if we say, they put forth a branch to their wrath—that is, to their destruction, because they provoked God.

For what is the meaning of "putting forth a branch," except that they heaped evil upon evil? As I have said, they had violated the second table of the law; they were thieves, robbers, perjurers, and violent. Now at last their rage was directed against the first table of the law, so as to overthrow the whole worship of God.

So, therefore, it will make good sense to say, that boughs were put forth—for the singular is used for the plural, as often happens. Since, therefore, they so put forth boughs or budded, God says that this would be for their destruction, because at length, when He had spared them a long time, and after a suitable time for their punishment arrived, He would consume them.

Now, therefore, we understand what the Prophet means. But if anyone prefers another conjecture, they are free to form their own opinion. I do not argue the point, but I am presenting what I think is most probable.