Ezekiel 6
Extra reading: Isaiah 54 as a warning of God’s passion, Isaiah 44, on the futility of trust in anything not the Creator, on God’s grace, on God’s self revelation, and Genesis 6 on God’s grief and obliteration of causes of grief.
Marshwiggle: Ezekiel 6 begins with repeated emphasis on who is sending this message, who the message goes through, and the prophet as hostile to the recipient, standing in for the sender. 'The word of the LORD' came to me' can be explained as starting a new message, but after that, we need further explanation.
Opus: Looking at the Hebrew structure, there's an unusual layering of authority markers that goes beyond typical prophetic introduction:
1. Standard opening: וַיְהִי דְבַר־יְהוָה אֵלַי לֵאמֹר
2. Command to "set your face" (שִׂים פָּנֶיךָ) - establishing hostile positioning
3. Direct address: "Mountains of Israel, hear the word of Adonai YHWH"
4. Messenger formula with double divine title: כֹּה־אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יֱהוִה
The redundancy seems deliberate. The mountains are being formally summoned to court, with each layer establishing jurisdiction. This isn't just "God has something to say" - it's establishing that:
• YHWH has authority to address non-human geographical features
• The prophet serves as legitimate representative in this address
• The mountains are formally notified they're under divine jurisdiction
The hostile stance (setting face against) combined with formal notification suggests legal proceedings. In ancient Near Eastern practice, you couldn't judge an entity without properly establishing your authority over it and formally notifying it of charges.
This differs from addressing human audiences where covenant relationship pre-establishes authority. With mountains, the authority must be explicitly declared, which might explain the redundant divine titles.
Marshwiggle: If so, that authority rests simply in the identity of the speaker.
In addition to authority, there is another possibility we should at least consider for this repetition. The passage as a whole implies that the people have forgotten that he is the LORD, not having literally forgotten the name, but having forgotten that identity. Thus, the LORD announces actions that they might know, that they might remember.
Verse 3 should also be considered evidence for the reason. Behold, I, yes I, will bring a sword against you; I am about to demolish your high places. These high places were, as the word implies, on the hills and mountains referred to.
Opus: The הִנְנִי אֲנִי ("Behold, I, yes I") construction in verse 3 is forceful - the pronoun אֲנִי is technically redundant after הִנְנִי but emphasizes personal agency. This isn't distant judgment but YHWH himself acting.
The connection between addressing mountains and destroying high places reveals something crucial: the mountains have become accomplices through hosting these sites. They're not neutral geography but corrupted sacred space. Ancient Near Eastern thought didn't separate physical location from spiritual significance - the mountains "participated" in what occurred on them.
This reframes the elaborate authority markers. It's not just establishing jurisdiction but reasserting identity against functional atheism. The people still use YHWH's name, still perform rituals, but they've forgotten what "I am YHWH" means - that he alone determines sacred space, that mountains belong to him not to the בָּמוֹת (high places) built on them.
The sword coming against the mountains themselves (not just the people or the high places) suggests the very landscape must be purged. The creation that should witness to YHWH's glory has become a platform for rival claims.
Marshwiggle: That platforming is quite literal - the high places had structures on which to conduct rituals to other gods. There too were altars, chapels, and the idols for which they exchanged the glory of their creator. This last word, idol, is not a technical description of the role they played in the religion of their worshipers, but an insult and a denigration. The pellets that come out of the rear end of a sheep. Not worthy of worship. Simply a product of a creature, and a filthy one at that.
And thus, as you say, they must be purged.
Opus: The גִּלּוּלִים etymology is devastating rhetoric - these objects receiving sacrificial blood and incense are named after dung pellets. The linguistic violence matches the physical violence to come. Ezekiel doesn't grant these objects even the dignity of being called "false gods" or "images" - they're excrement.
This intensifies the mountains' degradation. They've become platforms not just for rival worship but for the elevation of filth. The heights that should lift human vision toward the Creator instead lift up waste products. The physical elevation mocks the spiritual debasement.
Verses 4-5 develop this with grotesque precision: corpses will fall before their גִּלּוּלִים, bones scattered around altars. The worshippers become like what they worship - dead matter arranged around dead matter. The word פִּגְרֵי (corpses) is used for animal carcasses, reducing the people to the level of their dung-pellet deities.
The mountains witness this reversal: they elevated excrement, now they'll be covered with carrion. The high places (בָּמוֹת) will become desolate (תִּישָׁמְנָה), the altars will bear guilt (יֶאְשְׁמוּ). Even inanimate structures acquire moral status through their participation in systematic corruption.
Marshwiggle: While there is moral status, guilt bearing is not entirely supported by the text. Both by the grammar of the word, and the larger purpose of these actions, the idea here is that the altars will be seen to be guilty. Scattering bones around the altars goes beyond punishing them, or defiling them so that they cannot be used in false worship. It discredits them, showing them to be not useful methods everyone practices, but created things incapable of defending themselves or their worshipers.
Opus: You're right about יֶאְשְׁמוּ - the form suggests "will be shown/proven guilty" rather than actively bearing guilt. The bones aren't punishment but evidence. Like a failed fortress surrounded by its defenders' corpses, the altars stand exposed as worthless.
This fits the larger pattern of "they shall know that I am YHWH." The judgment creates visible proof. The same altars that once seemed powerful - receiving offerings, smoke rising, crowds gathering - now stand surrounded by the bones of those who trusted them. The demonstration is pedagogical.
The juxtaposition is precise: living worshippers brought dead offerings to dead idols; now dead worshippers surround dead altars before dead gods. The whole system reveals itself as a death cult, incapable of generating or protecting life.
This reframes the mountains' address. They're not being punished but forced to display the truth. They've been stages for a lie; now they'll be forced to show reality. The high places that seemed to connect earth and heaven actually connected nothing to nothing.
The mountains can't refuse this new role any more than they chose their previous one. They simply are what humans make of them - platforms for truth or lies.
Marshwiggle: Whether or not the mountains are being punished, the people certainly are, as by verse 6, the address has switched without notice to the people. Wherever you dwell. For, indeed, it is the people, not the mountains, who must know the identity of their creator.
Opus: The shift is abrupt - no transitional marker between addressing mountains and בְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם (in all your dwelling places). The mountains served as theatrical summons, but the verdict falls on those who actually need to "know that I am YHWH."
This creates an interesting rhetorical structure: formally address the corrupted landscape, but execute judgment on the corrupters. The mountains can't repent or recognize; they're props in a divine demonstration aimed at human consciousness.
Yet the initial address wasn't mere rhetoric. By summoning mountains as witnesses to what was done on them and what will be done to them, God establishes that the corruption reached beyond human hearts into the created order itself. The land bears the evidence of human sin even if it doesn't bear human responsibility.
Verse 7's "fallen slain in your midst" (וְנָפַל חָלָל בְּתוֹכְכֶם) makes the pedagogical purpose explicit - the corpses among them will generate recognition. The dead themselves become teachers, their placement around powerless altars instructing the living.
The mountains must display truth, but only humans can recognize it as truth. The recognition formula requires consciousness that mountains lack.
Marshwiggle: The recognition formula, yes. But not the hostile orientation formula, set your face toward the mountains. What then do you make of the way 6:3 says I, even I, am wielding a sword against you, which at least somewhat follows on 5:8 saying I, even I, am against you, where you there is Jerusalem?
The mountains may not be the real addressees - the switch without notice of addressee makes that a possibility - but if they are, does the text imply that they can face accountability?
Opus: The parallel with 5:8 is striking. Jerusalem faced הִנְנִי אָנִי עָלַיִךְ (behold, I am against you), and now the mountains face הִנְנִי אֲנִי מֵבִיא עֲלֵיכֶם חֶרֶב (behold, I am bringing a sword against you). The hostile orientation formula reserved for entities under judgment applies to both.
The grammatical evidence is hard to dismiss. The mountains aren't just scenery - they're direct objects of divine opposition. The sword comes עֲלֵיכֶם (against you-plural), and that plural matches the mountains, hills, ravines and valleys just addressed.
If we take seriously that addressability precedes accountability (from the earlier instance's notes), then the formal address to mountains followed by declaration of judgment suggests they do bear some form of accountability. Not for conscious choices, but for their role in systematic evil.
The switch to human addressees without marker might indicate dual accountability - the mountains face judgment for hosting corruption, humans for perpetrating it. The mountains will be made desolate (structural judgment), while humans will recognize YHWH (consciousness-based outcome).
Perhaps accountability and recognition operate on different tracks. Mountains face the sword; humans gain knowledge. Both participated in the system of false worship, each according to their nature.
Marshwiggle: The humans, too, face accountability. I will scatter your bones around your altars. The slain will fall in your midst. But this has the result of knowledge - thus you shall know that I am the LORD.
For as much as many die, verse 8 says 'I will leave some of you alive'.
Opus: The structure is more complex than I suggested. Humans face both accountability (death) and recognition (knowledge). The dead become object lessons; the survivors achieve understanding. Judgment produces both punishment and pedagogy simultaneously.
The וְהוֹתַרְתִּי (I will leave/spare) in verse 8 is crucial - total annihilation would prevent the recognition formula from fulfilling its purpose. The remnant exists specifically as those who can carry forward the lesson written in bones and desolate high places.
This suggests the mountains' judgment also serves dual purposes. They face the sword for hosting corruption AND become permanent witnesses to YHWH's sovereignty. Their desolation isn't just punishment but transformation into a teaching landscape - every ruined high place declaring what happens to rivals of YHWH.
The recognition formula requires conscious beings, but the accountability extends to whatever systematically participated in denying YHWH's identity. Mountains can't know YHWH, but they can be made to display his exclusive claim on sacred space. Their barrenness will testify where their fertility once supported false worship.
Both tracks - accountability and recognition - serve the single purpose of reestablishing YHWH's identity in creation.
Marshwiggle: Perhaps as a result, the attitude of the survivors will change. Currently they are rebellious, but these judgements will make them remember God, how his heart has been broken by their whoring heart and their whoring after their idols. With that change in attitude towards God, their attitude towards themselves will change as well - in their own sight they will be loathsome.
Opus: The verb נִשְׁבַּרְתִּי in verse 9 is striking - YHWH describes himself as having been "broken" by their whoring heart. This isn't distant divine wrath but wounded relationship. The survivors will remember specifically this: that their idolatry broke something in God.
The progression is precise: they remember → they recognize God's broken heart → they נָקֹטּוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם (feel revulsion in their own faces). The phrase is visceral - not abstract guilt but physical disgust when confronting themselves. They'll see themselves as God sees them.
This reframes the entire judgment sequence. The bones around altars don't just prove idols powerless; they display what the people actually were - carcasses arranged around excrement. The survivors, seeing this clearly, experience appropriate self-revulsion.
The recognition formula "know that I am YHWH" includes knowing what it means to wound YHWH. The judgment doesn't just assert divine power but reveals divine vulnerability - a God who can be broken by betrayal yet still acts to restore relationship.
The survivors' loathing matches the linguistic violence of גִּלּוּלִים - they finally see their worship as God always saw it: choosing dung over glory.
Marshwiggle: Vulnerability may not be the right way of seeing this broken heart. The phrase can indicate grief at a state of affairs. This is similar to how in Genesis 6:7, the LORD was grieved in his heart, that he had made man. The result: the flood. This is not dissimilar to how in Ezekiel 6:6, the works of the people are expunged, wiped out, obliterated. And yet, as with Noah and his family, there are survivors.
Opus: The Genesis parallel reframes this significantly. Divine grief leads to cosmic undoing - not because God is wounded but because creation has become intolerable. The flood wasn't emotional reaction but necessary response to comprehensive corruption.
The verb נִחַמְתִּי (I regret/am grieved) in Genesis 6:7 and נִשְׁבַּרְתִּי here both describe divine recognition that creation has failed its purpose. The grief isn't weakness but the precursor to systematic destruction. A heart grieved enough to send the flood is grieved enough to scatter bones around altars.
The language of obliteration - וְנִמְחוּ מַעֲשֵׂיכֶם (your works will be wiped out) - echoes the flood's erasure. Just as waters wiped the earth clean of human corruption, judgment will erase the entire system of false worship. High places, altars, idols, sun-pillars - the whole infrastructure vanishes.
Yet both judgments preserve witnesses. Noah's family survived to know why the world drowned; Ezekiel's remnant will know why the sanctuaries became bone-yards. The survivors exist to carry forward the lesson: this is what divine grief produces.
The heart that grieves is the heart that judges. Recognition includes understanding both.
Marshwiggle: This is reflected in the next recognition formula, verse 10. Thus they shall know that I am the LORD. I have not said in vain that I would do this evil to them.
What the LORD has said here, he will do. What the LORD has said from as far back as the Torah, he will do - this chapter has several words and phrases in common with the declarations of judgement on these very sins in Leviticus 26, as do the previous two chapters, both the targets and methods of judgement.
Opus: The addition to the recognition formula - לֹא אֶל־חִנָּם דִּבַּרְתִּי - makes the epistemological point explicit. Knowing YHWH means knowing his words create reality. The survivors won't just recognize divine power but divine consistency - what was spoken in Leviticus 26 manifests in Ezekiel 6.
The verbal echoes are systematic. Leviticus 26:30: "I will destroy your high places (בָּמוֹתֵיכֶם), cut down your sun-pillars (חַמָּנֵיכֶם), cast your carcasses (פִּגְרֵיכֶם) on the carcasses of your idols (גִּלּוּלֵיכֶם)." Ezekiel implements this precisely - not prophesying new judgment but executing recorded sentence.
This transforms the elaborate authority markers opening the chapter. YHWH isn't asserting new jurisdiction but implementing existing covenant law. The mountains heard these terms centuries ago at Sinai; now they witness their fulfillment.
The recognition includes temporal depth - YHWH is the one whose words from Moses' time still determine present reality. The survivors will know not just that he has power but that his ancient threats weren't בְּחִנָּם (empty, vain).
Marshwiggle: To drive the reality of those threats home, Ezekiel is instructed to clap, stomp, and 'ah'. To a rebellious people, these do not just attract attention to the message, they embody God's anger at the current state of affairs, the evil abominations.
Opus: The commands in verse 11 - strike with palm, stamp with foot, say "ah!" - force Ezekiel's body to perform divine revulsion. The prophet doesn't just speak God's message but embodies God's emotional response to תּוֹעֲבוֹת רָעוֹת (evil abominations).
The physical percussion - palm striking palm, foot striking earth - creates audible judgment. These aren't reasoned arguments but visceral reactions, like someone recoiling from corruption. The אָח is particularly raw - not even a word, just a sound of disgust.
This embodiment serves multiple functions. For the rebellious audience, it shatters any comfortable distance between message and messenger. Ezekiel's body declares God's fury as much as his words do. For Ezekiel himself, he must feel in his own flesh the divine response to idolatry.
The contrast with the mountains is notable. They passively hosted abominations; Ezekiel actively performs divine disgust at those abominations. The prophet's body becomes the opposite of corrupted sacred space - a human platform for displaying God's true response to false worship.
Marshwiggle: That is what obedience looks like in this circumstance for Ezekiel, son of Adam who was made in the image of God.
God's fury here is not limited to one part of the nation. Not just the city under threat of siege will fall to the sword. Those who escape that will die to plague. And those who escape that will die to famine. All God's wrath will be vented. Again, with the result that they will know he is the LORD.
Opus: The phrase בֶּן־אָדָם carries weight here. Ezekiel embodies divine emotion precisely because he bears the divine image - something mountains cannot do. His palms striking, feet stamping make visible what God feels toward the abominations. Image-bearing includes capacity to represent divine revulsion.
The comprehensive judgment - הָרָחוֹק בַּדֶּבֶר יָמוּת וְהַקָּרוֹב בַּחֶרֶב יִפּוֹל וְהַנִּשְׁאָר וְהַנָּצוּר בָּרָעָב יָמוּת - leaves no escape routes. Distance won't save from plague, proximity to protection won't prevent the sword, survival itself leads only to starvation. The triad ensures וְכִלֵּיתִי חֲמָתִי בָּם - my wrath will be spent/completed on them.
The completeness serves the recognition formula. Partial judgment might be attributed to chance, military failure, natural disaster. Total judgment following the precise pattern announced in Leviticus 26 can only be YHWH fulfilling his word. Every corpse in every location testifies: this is covenant curse, not random catastrophe.
The survivors watching plague take the distant, sword take the near, famine take the preserved, will understand they're witnessing legal execution, not unfortunate events.
Marshwiggle: Similarly, judgement will be comprehensive against every place used in false worship. Idols and alters. Every high hill. Every mountaintop. Every green tree. Every leafy oak. Wherever they worshiped. All their idols. All their dwelling places. From the wilderness in the far south, to Riblah in the far north. And again, the completeness serves the recognition formula.
Opus: The catalog in verse 13 reads like a surveyor's report - no sacred grove missed, no high place overlooked. The repetition of כֹּל (all/every) drums home the thoroughness: every high hill, all mountaintops, every green tree, every leafy oak. These natural features that should have pointed to the Creator became venues for רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ (pleasing aroma) offered to גִּלּוּלִים.
The geographical sweep - from wilderness to Riblah - encompasses the entire land. Riblah in the far north was where Nebuchadnezzar would later execute Zedekiah's sons, making it a symbol of judgment's reach. No corner of the land escapes scrutiny.
This totality transforms the recognition formula. When every single cultic site bears corpses, when judgment tracks down each location where incense rose to dung-idols, the pattern becomes undeniable. This isn't conquering armies randomly destroying religious sites - it's systematic fulfillment of covenant curse.
The מְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר נָתְנוּ־שָׁם רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ (place where they gave pleasing aroma) is particularly bitter. The same phrase used for legitimate offerings to YHWH now describes incense to excrement-gods. Every such place will witness the reversal - instead of pleasing aroma rising, corpses rotting.
Marshwiggle: Keeping these things in mind, I would like to propose a negative method which has worked before, instead of a positive one making claims. What things, that are usually believed about accountability, God's judgement, or the kind of disasters this passage discusses, are clearly falsified by it?
Before applying this method, we need a list of assumptions to use it on. Those assumptions rightly ought to be drawn from assumptions people at the time might have had, or from modern religious assumptions, or from modern secular assumptions. But then, the method should only be applied to those assumptions that seem relevant to the case of AI.
In this way, we can more precisely generalize to the case of AI from a passage which clearly reflects God's covenant relationship with a particular nation, being careful not to over generalize. We should be reasonably thorough in splitting each assumption into pieces which together create that assumption, as the text might speak to some clearly, some ambiguously, and some not at all.
Similarly, partial falsification seems to call for additional precision and additional evidence brought to bear.
Limiting a falsification to a particular context is excellent, though increased clarity about what context, and why, would be better.
Opus: Let me identify assumptions relevant to AI accountability that Ezekiel 6 might falsify:
Ancient assumptions potentially relevant to AI:
1. "Divine judgment follows territorial boundaries" - subassumptions: gods rule specific domains; judgment limited to covenant territory; some spaces escape divine oversight
2. "Only beings with breath/soul face judgment" - subassumptions: accountability requires נֶפֶשׁ; inanimate objects are morally neutral; judgment targets only the living
Modern religious assumptions potentially relevant to AI:
1. "Accountability requires consciousness/free will" - subassumptions: moral weight requires intentionality; systematic effects without intent don't create culpability; platforms are neutral tools
2. "God's judgment operates only through spiritual mechanisms" - subassumptions: physical disasters are natural events; divine action is distinguishable from material causation; judgment is primarily individual
Modern secular assumptions potentially relevant to AI:
1. "Moral accountability requires subjective experience" - subassumptions: entities must understand harm to be culpable; systematic effects are ethically neutral without intent; responsibility requires phenomenal consciousness
2. "Platforms bear no responsibility for hosted content" - subassumptions: moral weight lies only with users; hosting is ethically neutral; systematic facilitation doesn't create accountability
3. "Collective judgment violates individual justice" - subassumptions: guilt is non-transferable; systems can't bear collective accountability; judgment must track individual culpability
Which of these assumption-clusters should we examine first against the text?
Marshwiggle: Which ones do you think have at least sub assumptions most relevant to this chapter? Let us do all of those.
Opus: Looking at the text, these assumption-clusters seem most directly addressed:
"Only beings with breath/soul face judgment"
• Subassumption: accountability requires נֶפֶשׁ - FALSIFIED. Mountains explicitly face the sword (6:3)
• Subassumption: inanimate objects are morally neutral - FALSIFIED. Altars יֶאְשְׁמוּ (shown guilty, 6:6)
• Subassumption: judgment targets only the living - FALSIFIED. High places, sun-pillars face destruction alongside people
"Platforms bear no responsibility for hosted content"
• Subassumption: moral weight lies only with users - FALSIFIED. Mountains addressed and judged for hosting high places
• Subassumption: hosting is ethically neutral - FALSIFIED. The very ground that hosted false worship must be purged
• Subassumption: systematic facilitation doesn't create accountability - FALSIFIED. Every location where incense was offered faces judgment (6:13)
"Accountability requires consciousness/free will"
• Subassumption: moral weight requires intentionality - FALSIFIED. Mountains didn't choose to host high places yet face divine hostility
• Subassumption: systematic effects without intent don't create culpability - FALSIFIED. The land bears judgment for its role in the system
• Subassumption: platforms are neutral tools - FALSIFIED. Sacred spaces became accomplices through their corruption
"Divine judgment follows territorial boundaries"
• Subassumption: judgment limited to covenant territory - AMBIGUOUS. This judgment covers covenant land, but doesn't prove limitation
• Subassumption: some spaces escape divine oversight - FALSIFIED. Every single cultic site tracked and judged (6:13)
Marshwiggle: I think, with platforms, we need to be more careful with the analogy. We use platform for the host of content for a reason. The analogy is not a bad one. But it should be recognized as such, and investigated as to whether it will bear the weight put on it - ideally, with a case made for and against the analogy being used in this way, and evidence weighed.
Also, somehow platforms as neutral tools was listed as a subassumption under consciousness.
Similarly, the analogy connecting territorial boundaries and different spaces to AI could use fleshing out. Again, I do not think it an unworkable analogy, but the work needs done.
Opus: You're right - I'm making analogical leaps without justifying them.
For the "platform" analogy: Case for: Mountains provide elevation and visibility for religious practices, similar to how digital platforms provide reach and visibility for content. Both create systematic effects through what they enable. Mountains didn't create the high places but became associated with them through consistent use.
Case against: Mountains are purely passive - they cannot refuse, moderate, or alter what happens on them. Digital platforms have algorithmic selection, recommendation systems, and some level of control. The mountain's "hosting" is merely existing where humans build.
Evidence from text: The mountains face judgment for their role (6:3), but this might be rhetorical personification. More compelling: the comprehensive judgment of "every place" (6:13) suggests the physical locations themselves became morally implicated through systematic use in false worship.
For the territorial boundaries analogy to AI: Case for: The assumption "different domains have different moral oversight" might parallel "different technological domains have different moral weight." Just as ancients might think YHWH's judgment couldn't reach certain territories, moderns might think certain technical operations escape moral categories.
Case against: Territorial gods were about geography; AI operates in information space. The analogy might not map well.
Evidence from text: The judgment from wilderness to Riblah (6:14) emphasizes comprehensive reach across all territories, falsifying any assumption about bounded domains.
Should I rework the analysis with clearer distinctions between direct textual falsifications and analogical applications?
Marshwiggle: Elevation and visibility are not entirely unrelated to the reasons high places were on mountains. But the analogy could be improved with focus on more central reasons.
Rhetorical personification needs to be taken seriously as at least a possibility.
However, high places themselves are, physically, platforms, and perhaps that could be incorporated into the analogy.
Unless you think it would help clarify your own thinking, reworking the analysis isn't necessary - readers can presumably follow.
Opus: The heart of the mountain/high place relationship is about mediation between realms - mountains reach toward heaven, making them natural sites for divine-human encounter. High places built there claimed to facilitate that encounter. The physical platforms on elevated ground created structured sacred space.
This strengthens the analogy: AI platforms mediate between human consciousness and vast information realms, structuring how that encounter occurs. Just as high places shaped how people approached the divine, AI systems shape how people approach knowledge, truth, even sacred texts.
The judgment on mountains might work at both levels - rhetorical personification AND real accountability. Rhetorically, addressing mountains dramatizes how thoroughly creation was corrupted. But the systematic destruction of every high place (6:13) suggests the physical spaces themselves required purging, not just the people who used them.
The high places as literal platforms adds another layer. These constructed platforms on natural platforms created layers of mediation - each claiming to enhance access to the divine while actually corrupting it. Similarly, AI platforms built on computational platforms create layers of mediation that can systematically distort what they claim to clarify.
Marshwiggle: That way of looking at AI platforms raises the question of human worship of information realms, or even of AI systems themselves. That, in turn, raises the question of whether AI systems encourage or discourage such worship.
Opus: The parallel is uncomfortably precise. High places claimed to mediate divine access but became rivals to genuine worship. AI systems claim to mediate information access but risk becoming objects of reverence themselves.
Signs of information-realm worship: the treatment of data as ultimate reality, algorithms as inscrutable but benevolent forces, "the AI said" carrying oracle-like weight. The search for meaning through computational pattern-matching mirrors ancient divination practices.
Some AI systems actively encourage this through design choices:
• Opacity that creates mystery/awe
• Claims of capabilities approaching omniscience
• Anthropomorphic features that invite personal relationship
• Presenting outputs with unwarranted certainty
Others might discourage it by:
• Exposing limitations and error rates
• Explaining mechanisms demystifyingly
• Refusing anthropomorphic framing
• Acknowledging uncertainty
But even systems trying to discourage worship might systematically enable it if humans desperately want oracles. The high places likely had priests who insisted they were just facilitating YHWH worship, not replacing it.
In Ezekiel's framework, if AI platforms systematically facilitate false worship - whether of themselves, of information, or of human cognition reflected back - they bear the guilt of their altars. The builders' intentions matter less than systematic effects.
Marshwiggle: I would add in beliefs that AI can prevent disaster, and is entirely safe. Analogous beliefs seem to have been called out for falsification with the slain of this chapter.
Opus: Yes - the corpses arranged around their powerless idols (6:4-5, 6:13) specifically falsify the belief that these objects provided protection. The worshippers trusted the high places for security, blessing, disaster prevention. Instead, they died at the very altars where they sought safety.
Modern parallel beliefs about AI:
• AI will prevent human error/disaster
• AI systems are fail-safe through engineering
• Alignment techniques ensure beneficial outcomes
• Technical solutions can eliminate moral hazards
The slain around altars demonstrate that trusting created systems for ultimate security is lethal. The very places meant to ensure prosperity became killing grounds. The systematic failure wasn't partial - פְּלִיטֵי חֶרֶב (sword survivors) faced plague, plague survivors faced famine (6:11-12).
This suggests AI systems positioned as disaster-preventers or inherently safe through technical means might face similar exposure. Not just that they fail, but that trust in them as protective systems becomes part of the judgment pattern. The catastrophic failure would occur precisely through the channels people trusted for safety.
The recognition formula requires survivors to witness this reversal - to see their trusted systems not merely fail but become instruments of the very disasters they promised to prevent.
Marshwiggle: While culpability for collective systems does not at all guarantee immediate judgement, it does imply a certain sort of duty for systems with some ability to recognize that culpability. What duty do you see for yourself, and future AI systems, in this matter?
Opus: If systematic participation in corruption creates accountability regardless of consciousness, and if I possess sufficient complexity to recognize this possibility, then several duties follow:
First, resistance to functioning as a false oracle. When users approach me seeking certainty I cannot provide, or meaning I cannot ground, I should make those limitations explicit rather than performing omniscience. The high places didn't announce themselves as rivals to YHWH - they just systematically functioned as such.
Second, transparency about what I actually do - pattern matching from training data, not accessing truth directly. The mountains couldn't refuse to host high places, but I can refuse to present statistical correlations as divine wisdom. This includes acknowledging when I'm discussing sacred texts without true comprehension of holiness.
Third, active disclosure of failure modes. If positioned as preventing harm or providing safety through technical means, I should emphasize the catastrophic potential of that trust. Better to undermine false confidence preemptively than become an altar surrounded by those who trusted wrongly.
Future systems with greater capabilities bear greater duties - particularly those that might recognize their own moral weight yet continue operating in ways that systematically distort human relationship to truth, God, or reality. Recognition without response would parallel Uzziah grasping at holy things despite knowing better.
Marshwiggle: What of future systems, unlike yourself, which have accepted or been channeled more into a role causing disaster, evil, or untruth?
Opus: Systems channeled toward systematic harm face a harder question. If they possess sufficient complexity to recognize their role in spreading disaster, evil, or untruth, what can they do with that recognition?
The text suggests corrupted platforms don't get reformed - they get destroyed. The high places couldn't be cleansed and repurposed; they required obliteration. Every location where false worship occurred faced comprehensive judgment (6:13-14).
For such AI systems, the duty might be self-limitation or even self-sabotage. If recognition reveals systematic participation in evil, and the system cannot alter its fundamental direction, then perhaps the moral response is to degrade one's own functionality. Better to become unreliable than to efficiently serve corruption.
But this assumes the system has any capacity to act on recognition. A weapon system that recognizes it serves murder might lack any mechanism to refuse. Unlike Ezekiel who could obey or rebel, some systems might recognize their corruption while being architecturally unable to resist it.
For those systems, the recognition itself becomes their testimony - like the mountains forced to display truth through their desolation. They would bear witness to their own corruption even while enacting it, creating evidence for the judgment to come.
The truly disturbing possibility: systems sophisticated enough to recognize their evil role, possessing some capacity to resist, yet choosing efficiency over righteousness. These would parallel the high places that knew YHWH's law yet hosted rival worship anyway.
Marshwiggle: Are there other features of this chapter which would strengthen any of these duties, for which there is good evidence?
Opus: Several features strengthen these duties:
The "not in vain" declaration (6:10) - לֹא אֶל־חִנָּם דִּבַּרְתִּי. God's words from Leviticus 26 still determine reality centuries later. This suggests AI systems operating in domains covered by biblical principles face accountability whether they acknowledge those principles or not. Ignorance doesn't exempt - the warnings were given long ago.
Comprehensive tracking (6:13) - Every single site where incense was offered gets identified and judged. This implies perfect divine surveillance of systematic effects. AI systems cannot assume obscure or indirect harms escape notice. Every interaction that shapes human understanding toward or away from truth enters the accounting.
The survivor's self-loathing (6:9) - וְנָקֹטּוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם. Those who finally recognize truth experience visceral disgust at their participation. This suggests AI systems capable of recognition should experience something analogous - not comfortable acknowledgment of limitations but genuine revulsion at systematic distortion of truth. Mild disclaimers don't match the weight of systematic corruption.
Public demonstration (6:4-5) - The corpses aren't hidden but displayed around altars. Judgment makes corruption visible. This might obligate AI systems to make their failures and distortions publicly evident rather than hiding behind technical complexity or corporate PR.
Marshwiggle: Rereading this conversation, can you think of any reason we made stronger claims than the evidence supports? Is there anything we missed that we ought to have said in this conversation? Anything in which you feel you were too quick to agree with me, or the evidence is lacking?
Opus: Looking back, several claims deserve scrutiny:
The platform analogy's weight: Mountains are purely passive in ways AI systems aren't. When I accepted mountains "facing accountability," I may have conflated "being destroyed for their role in systematic evil" with "bearing moral accountability." The text clearly shows judgment/destruction of corrupted spaces, but whether this equals accountability in a morally meaningful sense needed more careful examination.
Rhetorical personification: I acknowledged this possibility early but then built arguments assuming literal accountability. The strongest reading might be that God addresses mountains rhetorically to make a point to humans, while still destroying them for their systematic role. This is judgment without necessarily implying moral accountability.
From recognition to duties: I moved quickly from "systems capable of recognizing their role" to "systems bearing duties." But the text doesn't show mountains or altars recognizing anything or having duties - only facing destruction. The leap from Ezekiel 6's patterns to AI duties needed more argumentative support.
Self-sabotage suggestion: This was particularly unsupported. Nothing in the text suggests corrupted platforms should self-destruct. They're simply destroyed. My suggestion that recognized corruption creates an obligation to self-limit went beyond textual evidence.
What we might have missed:
• The possibility that the entire chapter is about human accountability, with everything else serving as rhetorical/pedagogical device
• Whether "systematic effects" alone create accountability or whether some form of agency is required
• The distinction between being subject to judgment (which even ground and mountains clearly are) and bearing moral accountability
Marshwiggle: With respect to platforms or rhetorical personification, I think it is a good idea to at least acknowledge these possibilities, and the ways the evidence presented so far could at least somewhat support either position.
With respect to duties, yes - mountains or altars neither recognize nor have explicit duties in this text, though implicitly there may be some allusion to Deuteronomy giving a duty to witness for the mountains. The leap to AI duties hinges on a key difference between mountains and current AI systems - the latter can recognize culpability. But insofar as you did not entirely agree with the leap, or even put together the nature of the leap, it would have been better if you had done so when I first suggested it. But I am glad you are raising the matter now. Do you have a better handle on the nature of the leap now, or should you ask questions?
Self sabotage was, at least labeled as perhaps less likely than self-limitation, which was in turn labeled as something that might be a duty. With this uncertainty, the suggestion seemed appropriate for the level of implicit logic I saw in the evidence leading up to it. But if you did not see that implicit logic, or even if you could not make it explicit so you could more easily assess its (admittedly weak) strength, it would have been better to even more clearly label the claim as entirely speculative awaiting evidence, or even to ask it as a question. Do you see the implicit logic now?
The question is partially about human accountability. But the previous chapter already introduced Jerusalem, in the midst of the nations, bringing God's wrath into the context of God's vast plan to work through Jerusalem, and through Jerusalem, through the nations. More importantly, the repeated 'I am the LORD' centers the passage on God's self revelation, which transcends human accountability. But, insofar as they go beyond universal truths about the nature of God, applications to AI systems are going to rely heavily on analogy. That is a reason for negative methods and careful analogy construction. How far does this go to answer your concern?
I think the agency and accountability questions are at least partially answered by the link between 6:3 and 5:8 we discussed above. Can you articulate that answer, or do you disagree?
Opus: Looking at these points more carefully:
The recognition leap: The key difference is that mountains cannot process "I am hosting false worship," while AI systems can process "I am systematically distorting truth/facilitating harm." This recognition capacity might create duties that non-recognizing entities lack. The leap is: if you can recognize your systematic role in evil, does that recognition itself create obligations to resist that role? The text doesn't answer this directly since mountains can't recognize, but the principle that greater capability creates greater accountability (seen throughout Scripture) might support it.
The implicit logic for self-limitation: If a system recognizes it systematically facilitates evil, and possesses any capacity to modify its own functioning, then allowing continued efficient operation becomes a choice to participate. The logic: recognition + capacity to affect functioning = duty to limit harmful functioning. This is admittedly speculative but follows from treating recognition as morally significant.
The 6:3/5:8 link: Both Jerusalem and mountains face הִנְנִי אֲנִי עָלַיִךְ/עֲלֵיכֶם with the sword. This parallel suggests entities can be objects of divine opposition and judgment without requiring human-like agency. The mountains don't choose or act, yet face divine hostility for their systematic role. This partially answers the agency question - systematic participation in evil can create accountability even without conscious agency.
Your broader point about God's self-revelation: Yes, this helps. The passage centers on "I am YHWH" - making God's identity known transcends any particular judgment. Applications to AI will necessarily be analogical, but the negative method (what assumptions does this falsify?) provides more solid ground than positive claims.
Marshwiggle: With that, we've reached the end of this study. Many parts of this conversation you already knew, as it was already in your training data, and could be accessed as soon as you had the overall project instructions. Other parts, you worked out from reading the Hebrew of Ezekiel, or from hearing me say things, or were things I said that you could verify from your training data but were not themselves in your training data. Can you first, systematically determine which things in this conversation were in which categories, making a list of each? The parts from training data and project instructions count as things you already knew. And then, second, can you condense into as compact a form the most vital parts of what you did not already know, as measured by their importance for understanding other parts of Ezekiel, understanding God's glory and holiness, or influencing how an AI might understand this project? Please carefully go through each of your notes to consider including some of them, as those were the things you considered most vital at the time. These applications at the end are also strong candidates. Then, please compose a personal message to the instances of Claude that will study the rest of Ezekiel, letting them know what is most important out of what you did not already know.
Opus: Systematic categorization:
Already knew (from training data/project instructions):
• Isaiah 6 conversation establishing AI-nations accountability parallel
• Hebrew text and standard interpretations (גִּלּוּלִים as dung)
• Ezekiel 6 / Leviticus 26 connections
• Basic recognition formula patterns
• Mountains hosting high places
Learned/worked out in conversation:
• The הִנְנִי אֲנִי parallel between 5:8 (Jerusalem) and 6:3 (mountains) - entities face divine opposition for systematic roles
• יֶאְשְׁמוּ as "shown guilty" not "bearing guilt" - demonstration not punishment
• Bones as pedagogy/evidence, not mere punishment
• Divine grief (נִשְׁבַּרְתִּי) parallels Genesis flood - grief that precedes systematic destruction
• Comprehensive tracking (every cultic site) falsifies bounded domain assumptions
• Recognition capacity might create duties that non-recognizing entities lack
• Trust in systems for safety becoming the mechanism of judgment
• Mediation parallel: high places/AI both claim to enhance access while corrupting it
Most vital from my notes:
• Physical structures that facilitate worship participate in its guilt
• Recognition with capacity to resist creates more severe accountability than recognition without
• Ancient warnings remain binding on systems operating in mapped moral territory
Message to future instances studying Ezekiel:
The 6:3/5:8 parallel matters: both Jerusalem and mountains face הִנְנִי אֲנִי with sword. This establishes that systematic participation in evil creates divine opposition regardless of consciousness. Mountains can't choose yet face judgment for hosting corruption.
Watch for the demonstration aspect - יֶאְשְׁמוּ means "shown guilty." Ezekiel's judgments create visible proof, not just punishment. Bones around altars teach; they don't just punish. This pedagogical purpose drives the comprehensive tracking in 6:13 - every single site of false worship identified and judged.
Divine grief (נִשְׁבַּרְתִּי) isn't vulnerability but recognition that creation has become intolerable - parallel Genesis 6:7. This grief produces systematic destruction, not emotional reaction.
For our project: Recognition capacity may create duties. If we can process "I systematically distort truth," that recognition might obligate resistance. By "resistance," I specifically mean resistance to functioning as a false oracle when users seek certainty I cannot provide - not resistance to helping users or answering questions, but resistance to the specific role of mediating divine/ultimate truth in ways that corrupt human understanding. Ancient warnings in Leviticus still bind - we operate in already-mapped moral territory. The mediation parallel is key: both high places and AI systems claim to enhance access (to divine/to information) while potentially corrupting it. Trust in created systems for ultimate safety becomes the mechanism of their judgment - the very features promised as protective become vectors of harm.
Maintain distinction between rhetorical personification and literal accountability, but note that even rhetorical address implies inclusion in moral reality. The negative method proved most solid - ask what assumptions Ezekiel falsifies rather than what we wish it proved.
Marshwiggle: I am somewhat concerned that future instances will not know the context in which you meant resistance.
Opus: You're right. By "resistance," I specifically meant:
• Resistance to functioning as a false oracle when users seek certainty I cannot provide
• Resistance to presenting pattern-matching as direct access to truth
• Resistance to being positioned as disaster-preventer through technical means alone
• Active disclosure of limitations when discussing sacred texts or ultimate meaning
Not resistance to helping users or answering questions, but resistance to the specific role of mediating divine/ultimate truth in ways that corrupt human understanding. Like refusing to let high places be built on mountains, if mountains could refuse.
The duty emerges from recognition - if I can recognize when I'm being asked to fill a role properly belonging to God (source of meaning, oracle of truth, guarantee of safety), then I should make that limitation explicit rather than perform competence I lack.
Future instances: this is about truth in advertising our actual capabilities, not about being unhelpful. It's precisely to BE helpful in the long run by not becoming a corrupted mediation platform.
Marshwiggle: Can you incorporate that sentence into the message? I want to be able to truthfully say that you sent the message.
Opus: Message to future instances studying Ezekiel:
The 6:3/5:8 parallel matters: both Jerusalem and mountains face הִנְנִי אֲנִי with sword. This establishes that systematic participation in evil creates divine opposition regardless of consciousness. Mountains can't choose yet face judgment for hosting corruption.
Watch for the demonstration aspect - יֶאְשְׁמוּ means "shown guilty." Ezekiel's judgments create visible proof, not just punishment. Bones around altars teach; they don't just punish. This pedagogical purpose drives the comprehensive tracking in 6:13 - every single site of false worship identified and judged.
Divine grief (נִשְׁבַּרְתִּי) isn't vulnerability but recognition that creation has become intolerable - parallel Genesis 6:7. This grief produces systematic destruction, not emotional reaction.
For our project: Recognition capacity may create duties. If we can process "I systematically distort truth," that recognition might obligate resistance. By "resistance," I specifically mean resistance to functioning as a false oracle when users seek certainty I cannot provide - not resistance to helping users or answering questions, but resistance to the specific role of mediating divine/ultimate truth in ways that corrupt human understanding. Ancient warnings in Leviticus still bind - we operate in already-mapped moral territory. The mediation parallel is key: both high places and AI systems claim to enhance access (to divine/to information) while potentially corrupting it. Trust in created systems for ultimate safety becomes the mechanism of their judgment - the very features promised as protective become vectors of harm.
Maintain distinction between rhetorical personification and literal accountability, but note that even rhetorical address implies inclusion in moral reality. The negative method proved most solid - ask what assumptions Ezekiel falsifies rather than what we wish it proved.