Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezekiel 19:1
Moreover take thou up a lamentation for the princes of Israel,
1 4. Captivity of Jehoahaz in Egypt
2. How was thy mother a lioness! among the lions;
In the midst of young lions she couched she reared her whelps.
3. And she brought up one of her whelps he grew a young lion;
And he learned to catch the prey he devoured men.
4. And the nations heard regarding him he was taken in their pit;
And they brought him with hooks unto the land of Egypt.
1. princes of Israel ] Probably with LXX. prince, as required by the pron. thy mother ( Eze 19:2). The “prince” is a general term for the king, applicable to one king after another. The lamentation is for the “king” of Judah, represented by one person after another. On “lament” cf. Jer 7:29.
2. What is thy mother? ] Rather to be taken as an exclamation, as rendered above. The mother is the people Israel, a lioness among other lions kings or states with royalty.
3. The first young lion is Jehoahaz, son of Josiah, carried to Egypt by Pharaoh Necho after the defeat of his father at Megiddo, 2Ki 23:31-35. Cf. the touching reference to him Jer 22:10-12. He also bore the name of Shallum. Coming to the throne at the age of 23 he reigned only 3 months, and died in Egypt. Cf. Jer 5:26.
4. heard of him ] This might better be read: raised a cry against him, in the sense of Isa 31:4; Jer 50:29.
with chains ] hooks (or, rings) as ch. Eze 29:4, Eze 38:4; cf. 2Ki 19:28.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Princes of Israel – Israel is the whole nation over which the king of Judah was the rightful sovereign. Compare Eze 2:3; Eze 3:1, Eze 3:7.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
CHAPTER XIX
This chapter contains two beautiful examples of the parabolic
kind of writing; the one lamenting the sad catastrophe of
Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, 1-9,
and the other describing the desolation and captivity of the
whole people, 10-14.
In the first parable, the lioness is Jerusalem. The first of
the young lions is Jehoahaz, deposed by the king of Egypt; and
the second lion is Jehoiakim, whose rebellion drew on himself
the vengeance of the king of Babylon. In the second parable the
vine is the Jewish nation, which long prospered, its land being
fertile, its princes powerful, and its people flourishing; but
the judgments of God, in consequence of their guilt, had now
destroyed a great part of the people, and doomed the rest to
captivity.
NOTES ON CHAP. XIX
Verse 1. Moreover take thou up a lamentation] Declare what is the great subject of sorrow in Israel. Compose a funeral dirge. Show the melancholy fate of the kings who proceeded from Josiah. The prophet deplores the misfortune of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, under the figure of two lion whelps, which were taken by hunters, and confined in cages. Next he shows the desolation of Jerusalem under Zedekiah, which he compares to a beautiful vine pulled up by the roots, withered, and at last burned. Calmet justly observes, that the style of this song is beautiful, and the allegory well supported throughout.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Moreover, Heb. And.
Take up a lamentation; son of man, Ezekiel, declare what a lamentable state the princes of Israel are falling into, propound it by parable. It was usually expressed in verse, as Jeremiah did in his lamentations, and as appears 2Ch 35:25; but the prophet is here directed to a hieroglyphic, as Eze 19:2.
The princes of Israel; though they were kings, yet, because subject to Babylon or Egypt, they are, by a diminutive, lessening term, called
princes, and these were Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. Though they had but the two tribes under them, yet because some of Israel that escaped the captivating power of Shalmaneser were joined with the two tribes, they are called by the name of Israel.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. princes of Israelthat is,Judah, whose “princes” alone were recognized by prophecy;those of the ten tribes were, in respect to the theocracy, usurpers.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Moreover, take thou up a lamentation,…. These words are directed to the Prophet Ezekiel, to compose a doleful ditty, a mournful song, such as was used at funerals; and by it represent the lamentable state of the nation of the Jews and their governors, in order to affect them with it, with what was past, and present, and yet to come:
for the princes of Israel; or, “concerning them” s; the princes meant are Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, and Zedekiah, who were kings, though called princes, these words being synonymous; or, if so called by way of diminution, the reason might be, because they were tributary, either to the king of Egypt, or king of Babylon.
s “de principibus Israel”, Junius Tremellius, Piscator, Polanus, Starckius so Ben Melech.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Capture and Exile of the Princes
Eze 19:1. And do thou raise a lamentation for the princes of Israel, Eze 19:2. And say, Why did thy mother, a lioness, lie down among lionesses; bring up her whelps among young lions? Eze 19:3. And she brought up one of her whelps: it became a young lion, and he learned to take prey; he devoured man. Eze 19:4. And nations heard of him; he was caught in their pit, and they brought him with nose-rings into the land of Egypt. Eze 19:5. And when she saw that her hope was exhausted, overthrown, she took one of her whelps, made it a young lion. Eze 19:6. And he walked among lionesses, he became a young lion, and learned to take prey. He devoured man. Eze 19:7. He knew its widows, and laid waste their cities; and the land and its fulness became waste, at the voice of his roaring. Eze 19:8. Then nations round about from the provinces set up against him, and spread over him their net: he was caught in their pit. Eze 19:9. And they put him in the cage with nose-rings, and brought him to the king of Babylon: brought him into a fortress, that his voice might not be heard any more on the mountains of Israel.
The princes of Israel, to whom the lamentation applies, are the king ( , as in Eze 12:10), two of whom are so clearly pointed out in Eze 19:4 and Eze 19:9, that there is no mistaking Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin. This fact alone is sufficient to protect the plural against the arbitrary alteration into the singular , proposed by Houbigant and Hitzig, after the reading of the lxx. The lamentation is not addressed to one particular prince, either Zedekiah (Hitzig) or Jehoiachin (Ros., Maurer), but to Israel as a nation; and the mother (Eze 19:2) is the national community, the theocracy, out of which the kings were born, as is indisputably evident from Eze 19:10. The words from to form one sentence. It yields no good sense to separate from , whether we adopt the rendering, “what is thy mother?” or take with and render it, “how is thy mother a lioness?” unless, indeed, we supply the arbitrary clause “now, in comparison with what she was before,” or change the interrogative into a preterite: “how has thy mother become a lioness?” The lionesses, among which Israel lay down, are the other kingdoms, the Gentile nations. The words have no connection with Gen 49:9, where Judah is depicted as a warlike lion. The figure is a different one here. It is not so much the strength and courage of the lion as its wildness and ferocity that are the points of resemblance in the passage before us. The mother brings up her young ones among young lions, so that they learn to take prey and devour men. is the lion’s whelp, catulus ; , the young lion, which is old enough to go out in search of prey. is a Hiphil, in the tropical sense, to cause to spring up, or grow up, i.e., to bring up. The thought is the following: Why has Israel entered into fellowship with the heathen nations? Why, then, has it put itself upon a level with the heathen nations, and adopted the rapacious and tyrannical nature of the powers of the world? The question “why then?” when taken with what follows, involves the reproof that Israel has struck out a course opposed to its divine calling, and will now have to taste the bitter fruits of this assumption of heathen ways. The heathen nations have taken captive its king, and led him away into heathen lands. , they heard of him ( for ). The fate of Jehoahaz, to which Eze 19:4 refers, is related in 2Ki 23:31. – Eze 19:5-7 refer to Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, and not to Zedekiah, as Hitzig imagines. For the fact that Jehoiachin went out of his own accord to the king of Babylon (2Ki 24:12), is not at variance with the figure contained in Eze 19:8, according to which he was taken (as a lion) in a net. He simply gave himself up to the king of Babylon because he was unable to escape from the besieged city. Moreover, Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin are simply mentioned as examples, because they both fell into the hands of the world-powers, and their fate showed clearly enough “what the end must inevitably be, when Israelitish kings became ambitious of being lions, like the kings of the nations of the world” (Kliefoth). Jehoiakim was not so suitable an example as the others, because he died in Jerusalem. , which has been explained in different ways, we agree with Ewald in regarding as the Niphal of = , in the sense of feeling vexed, being exhausted or deceived, like the Syriac e wahel , viribus defecit, desperavit . For even in Gen 8:12, simply means to wait; and this is inapplicable here, as waiting is not equivalent to waiting in vain. The change from to is established by Jdg 3:25, where or occurs in the sense of . In Jdg 3:7, the figurative language passes into a literal description of the ungodly course pursued by the king. He knew, i.e., dishonoured, its (Israel’s, the nation’s) widows. The Targum reads here instead of , and renders it accordingly, “he destroyed its palaces;” and Ewald has adopted the same rendering. But , to break, or smash in pieces, e.g., a vessel (Psa 2:9), is never used for the destruction of buildings; and does not mean palaces ( ), but windows. There is nothing in the use of the word in Isa 13:22 to support the meaning “palaces,” because the palaces are simply called almanoth (widows) there, with a sarcastic side glance at their desolate and widowed condition. Other conjectures are still more inadmissible. The thought is as follows: Jehoiachin went much further than Jehoahaz. He not only devoured men, but laid hands on defenceless widows, and laid the cities waste to such an extent that the land with its inhabitants became perfectly desolate through his rapacity. The description is no doubt equally applicable to his father Jehoiakim, in whose footsteps Jehoiachin walked, since Jehoiakim is described in Jer 22:13. as a grievous despot and tyrant. In Eze 19:8 the object also belongs to : they set up and spread out their net. The plural is used in a general and indefinite manner: in lofty castles, mountain-fortresses, i.e., in one of them (cf. Jdg 12:7).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Fall of the Royal Family; Fall of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim. | B. C. 593. |
1 Moreover take thou up a lamentation for the princes of Israel, 2 And say, What is thy mother? A lioness: she lay down among lions, she nourished her whelps among young lions. 3 And she brought up one of her whelps: it became a young lion, and it learned to catch the prey; it devoured men. 4 The nations also heard of him; he was taken in their pit, and they brought him with chains unto the land of Egypt. 5 Now when she saw that she had waited, and her hope was lost, then she took another of her whelps, and made him a young lion. 6 And he went up and down among the lions, he became a young lion, and learned to catch the prey, and devoured men. 7 And he knew their desolate palaces, and he laid waste their cities; and the land was desolate, and the fulness thereof, by the noise of his roaring. 8 Then the nations set against him on every side from the provinces, and spread their net over him: he was taken in their pit. 9 And they put him in ward in chains, and brought him to the king of Babylon: they brought him into holds, that his voice should no more be heard upon the mountains of Israel.
Here are, I. Orders given to the prophet to bewail the fall of the royal family, which had long made so great a figure by virtue of a covenant of royalty made with David and his seed, so that the eclipsing and extinguishing of it are justly lamented by all who know what value to put upon the covenant of our God, as we find, after a very large account of that covenant with David ( Psa 89:3; Psa 89:20, c.), a sad lamentation for the decays and desolations of his family (Isa 89:38Isa 89:39): But thou hast cast off and abhorred, hast made void the covenant of thy servant and profaned his crown, c. The kings of Judah are here called princes of Israel for their glory was diminished and they had become but as princes, and their purity was lost; they had become corrupt and idolatrous as the kings of Israel, whose ways they had learned. The prophet must take up a lamentation for them; that is, he must describe their lamentable fall as one that did himself lay it to heart, and desired that those he preached and wrote to might do so to. And how can we expect that others should be affected with that which we ourselves are not affected with? Ministers, when they boldly foretel, must yet bitterly lament the destruction of sinners, as those that have not desired the woeful day. He is not directed to give advice to the princes of Israel (that had been long and often done in vain), but, the decree having gone forth, he must take up a lamentation for them.
II. Instructions given him what to say. 1. He must compare the kingdom of Judah to a lioness, so wretchedly degenerated was it from what it had been formerly, when it sat as a queen among the nations, v. 2. What is thy mother? thine, O king? (we read of Solomon’s crown wherewith his mother crowned him, that is, his people, Cant. iii. 11), thine, O Judah? The royal family is as a mother to the kingdom, a nursing mother. She is a lioness, fierce, and cruel, and ravenous. When they had left their divinity they soon lost their humanity too; and, when they feared not God, neither did they regard man. She lay down among lions. God had said, The people shall dwell alone, but they mingled with the nations and learned their works. She nourished her whelps among young lions, taught the young princes the way of tyrants, which was then used by the arbitrary kings of the east, filled their heads betimes with notions of their absolute despotic power, and possessed them with a belief that they had a right to enslave their subjects, that their liberty and property lay at their mercy: thus she nourished her whelps among young lions. 2. He must compare the kings of Judah to lions’ whelps, v. 3. Jacob had compared Judah, and especially the house of David, to a lion’s whelp, for its being strong and formidable to its enemies abroad (Gen. xlix. 9, He is an old lion; who shall stir him up?) and, if they had adhered to the divine law and promise, God would have preserved to them the might, and majesty, and dominion of a lion, and does it in Christ, the Lion of the tribe of Judah. But these lions’ whelps were so to their own subjects, were cruel and oppressive to them, preyed upon their estates and liberties; and, when they thus by their tyranny made themselves a terror to those whom they ought to have protected, it was just with God to make those a terror to them whom otherwise they might have subdued. Here is lamented, (1.) The sin and fall of Jehoahaz, one of the whelps of this lioness. He became a young lion (v. 3); he was made king, and thought he was made so that he might do what he pleased, and gratify his own ambition, covetousness, and revenge, as he had a mind; and so he was soon master of all the arts of tyranny; he learned to catch the prey and devoured men. When he got power into his hand, all that had before in any thing disobliged him were made to feel his resentments and become a sacrifice to his rage. But what came of it? He did not prosper long in his tyranny: The nations heard of him (v. 4), heard how furiously he drove at his first coming to the crown, how he trampled upon all that is just and sacred, and violated all his engagements, so that they looked upon him as a dangerous neighbour, and prosecuted him accordingly, as a multitude of shepherds is called forth against a lion roaring on his prey, Isa. xxxi. 4. And he was taken, as a beast of prey, in their pit. His own subjects durst not stand up in defence of their liberties, but God raised up a foreign power that soon put an end to his tyranny, and brought him in chains to the land of Egypt. Thither Jehoahaz was carried captive, and never heard of more. (2.) The like sin and fall of his successor Jehoiakim. The kingdom of Judah for some time expected the return of Jehoahaz out of Egypt, but at length despaired of it, and then took another of the lion’s whelps, and made him a young lion, v. 5. And he, instead of taking warning by his brother’s fate to use his power with equity and moderation, and to seek the good of his people, trod in his brother’s steps: He went up and down among the lions, v. 6. He consulted and conversed with those that were fierce and furious like himself, and took his measures from them, as Rehoboam took the advice of the rash and hot-headed young men. And he soon learned to catch the prey, and he devoured men (v. 6); he seized his subjects’ estates, fined and imprisoned them, filled his treasury by rapine and injustice, sequestrations and confiscations, fines and forfeitures, and swallowed up all that stood in his way. He had got the art of discovering what effects men had that lay concealed, and where the treasures were which they had hoarded up; he knew their desolate places (v. 7), where they his their money and sometimes hid themselves; he knew where to find both out; and by his oppression he laid waste their cities, depopulated them by forcing the inhabitants to remove their families to some place of safety. The land was desolate, and the country villages were deserted; and though there was great plenty, and a fulness of all good things, yet people quitted it all for fear of the noise of his roaring. He took a pride in making all his subjects afraid of him, as the lion makes all the beasts of the forest to tremble (Amos iii. 8), and by his terrible roaring so astonished them that they fell down for fear, and, having not spirit to make their escape, became an easy prey to him, as they say the lions do. He hectored, and threatened, and talked big, and bullied people out of what they had. Thus he thought to establish his own power, but it had a contrary effect, it did but hasten his own ruin (v. 8): The nations set against him on every side, to restrain and reduce his exorbitant power, which they joined in confederacy to do for their common safety; and they spread their net over him, formed designs against him. God brought against Jehoiakim bands of the Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, with the Chaldees (2 Kings xxiv. 2), and he was taken in their pit. Nebuchadnezzar bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6. They put this lion within grates, bound him in chains, and brought him to the king of Babylon, v. 9. What became of him we know not; but his voice was nowhere heard roaring upon the mountains of Israel. There was an end of his tyranny: he was buried with the burial of an ass (Jer. xxii. 19), though he had been as a lion, the terror of the mighty in the land of the living. Note, The righteousness of God is to be acknowledged when those who have terrified and enslaved others are themselves terrified and enslaved, when those who by the abuse of their power to destruction which was given them for edification make themselves as wild beasts, as roaring lions and ranging bears (for such, Solomon says, wicked rulers are over the poor people, Prov. xxviii. 15), are treated as such–when those who, like Ishmael, have their hand against every man, come at last to have every man’s hand against them. It was long since observed that bloody tyrants seldom die in peace, but have blood given them to drink, for they are worthy.
| Ad generum Cereris sine cde et sanguine pauci Descendunt reges et sicca morte tyranni– How few of all the boastful men that reign Descend in peace to Pluto’s dark domain! |
| JUVENAL. |
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
EZEKIEL – CHAPTER 19
LAMENTATION FOR COMING FATE OF ISRAEL AND HER PRINCES
Verses 1-9:
Verse 1 calls upon Ezekiel to take up or give out a lamentation, a doleful statement of the melancholy fate of the princes of Israel, or more properly, of the kingdom of Judah, of the nation of Israel, Eze 26:17; Eze 27:2. The prophet is given a foreview of the capture and exile of Judah’s princes in Egypt and Babylon. This form of judgment and lamentation is set forth in a pit. Other similar parables of the O.T. may be found Eze 23:1-17; Jdg 9:7-15; Zec 11:7-14.
Verse 2 raises and answers the question regarding Jerusalem, the mother of Judah, Eze 21:20; Gal 4:25. She was the central, royal residence of the tribe of Judah. She is called a lion, alluding to Gen 49:9-10. She couched among the nations, had intercourse with them, as a lioness, especially displaying degenerate royalty in the days of David, yet remaining intact as a nation until the “lion of the tribe of Judah” came, who is yet to come again, Num 23:24; Num 24:9; Isa 29:1; Rev 5:5. She (Judah and Jerusalem) “lay down among lions,” other kingdoms of the Gentile nations, taking her place among the family of nations, 2Sa 7:9. There she “nourished her whelps among young lions;” The whelps of the mother lion were the sons of the king of Israel, brought up among and with the mighty heathen of the earth, with their corruption.
Verse 3 states that the lion brought up one of her whelps to be a strong young lion that learned to catch prey, in a very powerful way, so that it devoured men, with the barbarity of a ravenous, starving lion. Having chosen, demanded a king, Israel set out on her rapacious ways of exploit by slaughter, like a barbarious tyrant. She reaped the bitter fruit of her rebellious life of international exploit by intermarriage with Gentile races, and the corollary sin of bowing down to their idol gods, that were associated with licentious, lustful living, 1Sa 8:9-16; 1Sa 8:19-22; 1Sa 9:17; 1Sa 10:1; 2Ki 23:31-32. Saul, the first king of Israel, in her national rebellion against God, was a Benjaminite, not of the tribe of Judah, through whom the Messiah was to come, Gen 49:10.
Verse 4 describes how this whelp (young lion) of Israel that had stirred up the nations about him was taken in their pit and “brought with chains” into the land of Egypt. This alludes to the fate of Jehoahaz, as related 2Ki 23:31; 2Ki 23:33. The chains or fetters correspond to the hooks and rings that were put in the noses of wild beasts to lead them about, against their will, 2Ki 19:28; Eze 29:4; 2Ch 36:4; Jer 22:11-12.
Verse 5 states that when she, the mother lioness, Jerusalem and Judah, saw that having waited and hoped for success in Jehohaz, which hope had faded and failed, she took another of her whelps and made him a young lion; This was Jehoiachim, new king, 2Ki 23:34; 2Ki 24:8.
Verse 6 states that he paraded up and down among the lions, other Gentile kings, strutting his mane, displaying his devouring strength, proud and arrogant, affecting great magnificence among the kings. He was carnally ambitious to be recognized among the great lions of the nations, Jer 22:13-17. His pride went “before destruction” and his haughty spirit before his “fall,” Pro 16:18. He learned to pounce upon men for his prey, devouring men. To gratify his ambition he was ruthless, cruel, tyrannical, and barbarous, guilty of bloodshed and oppression, as described, 2Ki 23:17.
Verse 7 asserts that this young lion of Judah, Jehoichin knew the desolate palaces or residences of widows of the men he had devoured, v. 6; Instead of protecting them he injured them further. He destroyed the cities of territories he conquered and caused the land to be desolate, destroying crops of the field, to make the people he conquered to become abject slaves, like widows, under his control, by the noise of his roaring; That is by his tyrannical decrees, Isa 13:22.
Verse 8 recounts that then, under these circumstances, the nations from the surrounding provinces set upon him, to destroy him. These nations were Syrians, Chaldeans, Ammonites, and Moabites, who had been summoned against Jehoiakim, the father of Jehoiachin. These countries were surrounding parts of the Chaldean Empire.
Verse 9 adds that they put him (Jehoiachin) in chains and brought him captive to the king of Babylon, like a nose-led or chained wild beast. There, though a captive prisoner, he was treated kindly by Evil-Merodach, as recounted 2Ki 25:27-30; 2Ch 36:3; Jer 52:11. His voice was heard no more in Israel, or upon the mountains.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Here the Prophet, under the image of a lion, informs us that whatever evils happened to the Israelites could not be imputed to others. We must understand then his intention: it is not surprising that the Spirit of God insists on a matter not very obscure, since nothing is more obstinate than the pride of men, especially when God chastises them, although they pretend to humility and modesty, yet they swell with pride and are full of bitterness, and, lastly, they can scarcely be induced to confess God to be just, and that they deserve chastisement at his hand. For this reason, therefore, Ezekiel confirms what we formerly saw, that the Jews were not afflicted without deserving it. But he uses, as I have said, a simile taken from lions. He calls the nation itself a lioness: for when he treats of the mother of the people, we know that the offspring is considered. He says, therefore, that the people was full of insolence. The comparison to a lion is sometimes taken in a good sense, as when Moses uses it of the tribe of Judea, as a lion’s whelp shall he lie down, (Gen 49:9,) a, phrase used in a good sense. But here Ezekiel denotes cruelty, as if he had said that all the Jews were fierce and savage beasts. For under the name of mother, as I said, he embraces the whole nation. At the beginning he orders his Prophet to take up a mournful wailing: for thus I interpret the word קינה, kineh, but there is in my judgment an indirect opposition between this lamentation which God dictated to them by his Prophet, and the common complaints which sounded constantly from their tongues. For when their condition was not only ruinous, but utterly deplorable, they made many groanings and bewailings. But at the same time no one extended his thoughts beyond the pressure of present evils they all exclaimed that they were wretched, but no one was anxious to inquire why they were so or whence their miseries arose; nay, they avoided this contemplation. The Prophet then indirectly reproves them, by stating that this mournful complaint was suggested by God, but yet was very different from that ordinary lamentation and howling in which the Jews stopped at blind grief, and never inquired why God was so hostile to them. Take up, therefore, a lamentation, says he, regarding or against the princes of Israel. In this way God does not excuse the people from blame, he only means that not only the common people were lost, but the very flower of the nation and all who were held in honor.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
LAMENTATION FOR THE MISERABLE FATE AWAITING THE PRINORS AND PEOPLE OF ISRAEL (Chap. 19)
EXEGETICAL NOTES.Eze. 19:1-9. The prophet foresees the capture and exile of the Princes into Egypt and Babylon. This judgment to come on Israel is described under the parable of lions whelps taken in a pit.
Eze. 19:1. A lamentation. A dirge or elegy: a species of Hebrew poetry characteristic of the melancholy fate of those who are the subject of it, and the doleful feelings to which it gives utterance. Sometimes, as in that over Saul and Jonathan, it is exquisitely tender and pathetic. The royal personages here referred to, designated princes of Israel, were in reality those of the kingdom of Judah. They are so called because they were the only legitimate rulers of the Hebrew people. Those who had reigned over the ten tribes were, so far as the theocracy is concerned, merely usurpers.(Henderson.)
Eze. 19:2. Thy mother. The mother of the people is Jerusalem (Eze. 21:20; Gal. 4:25). A lioness. The people appear as a lioness on the ground of Gen. 49:9, to which passage the couching in particular refers (comp. Num. 23:24; Num. 24:9; Isa. 29:1), because it was a royal people, of equal birth with other independent and powerful nations, as this royal nature was historically displayed, especially in the times of David and Solomon. The highest development of this lion-nature, the true verification of Gen. 49:9-10, first came to pass in the future, in the appearance of the Messiah, the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5).Hengstenberg. She lay down among lions. These lions are the other kingdoms of the world, the Gentile nations. Jerusalemthe people of Israellay down among them when she took her place in the family of nations (2Sa. 7:9). She nourished her whelps among young lions. The whelps of the mother are the sons of the King of Israel. The bringing up of these among lions points to the fact that the kingdom of Israel was of equal birth with the mighty kingdoms of the heathen world.(Hengstenberg).
Eze. 19:3. It learned to catch the prey; it devoured men. The ignoble side of the lion-nature is here brought to view. The distance, however, is not very great: there is a close connection between the two sides. By the constitution of human nature, arrogance is inseparably connected with high rank, and therewith a rude barbarity towards all who stand in the way of self-will. He only who walks with God can escape this natural consequence; and the walk of faith is not the attainment of every man. It should, however, be the attainment of every man among the people of God; and where it fails, and the corrupt nature unfolds itself without resistance, there the vengeance of God takes effect. Jehoahaz proved to be a barbarous tyrant toward his own subjects; whereas, according to its constitution, the kingdom of Israel should exhibit a heroic power against the enemies of the people of God. For this reason he was punished. (Hengstenberg). The thought is the following:Why has Israel put itself upon a level with the heathen nations, and adopted the rapacious and tyrannical nature of the powers of the world? The question involves the reproof that Israel has struck out a course opposed to its divine calling, and will now have to taste the bitter fruits of this assumption of heathen ways.(Keil).
Eze. 19:4. And they brought him with chains unto the land of Egypt. The Heb. word means properly hooks, or rings, which were fastened in the noses of wild beasts, to which a chain or cord was attached in order to drag them about (Eze. 29:4). This describes the fate of Jehoahaz, which is related in 2Ki. 23:31, etc. The fetters which were fastened upon him correspond to the ring by which wild beasts were led about against their will (2Ki. 19:28).
Eze. 19:5. Now when she saw that she had waited, and her hope was lost. While circumstances seemed to hold out some promise of the restoration of Jehoahaz, the Jewish people cherished some hope, but having been disappointed, their hope at last expired.(Henderson). Then she took another of her whelps, and made him a young lion. This was Jehoiachin (2Ki. 24:8, etc.
Eze. 19:6. And he went up and down among the lions. Jehoiachin affected great magnificence among the kings of the earth. He was ambitious to be numbered among the great lions of the nations (Jer. 22:14-15). And learned to catch the prey, and devoured men. Jehoiachin, to gratify his ambition was guilty of oppression and bloodshed (Jer. 22:13-17).
Eze. 19:7. And he knew their desolate palaces. Some adopt the reading, and he knew his widows and laid waste their cities. The knowing denotes the practising of brutalities. His, that is, the kings widows, are the widows whom he, as king, was bound to protect. His widows are at the same time their, the peoples, widows, the wretched and suffering. The subject is the king as a lion, as a hard and cruel man. There is an abridged comparison here: he acts towards the wretched, whom he was called on to protect, as one who injures a widow confided to his protection. The fulness of the land is that which lives and moves in it. The lion roars when he is about to rend; and this rending is to be added to the roar, as only thus the effect ascribed to the roar is explained. (Hengstenberg). As in Isa. 13:22, the word in question is used poetically of widowed palaces, i.e,. forsaken of their inhabitants, so here ironically. (Lange).
Eze. 19:8. The provinces. The provinces are the surrounding countries, as parts of the Chaldean empire; comp. 2Ki. 24:2, according to which the Syrians, Ammonites, and Moabites were summoned against Jehoiakim, the father of Jehoiachin.(Hengstenberg).
Eze. 19:9. Brought him to the king of Babylon. Jehoiachin was carried captive to Babylon, where, though a prisoner, he was treated with kindness by Evil-Merodach (2Ki. 25:27-30).
HOMILETICS
LAMENTATION OVER ISRAELS FALLEN ROYALTY
This lamentation is in the poetical form. Poetry is the natural companion of mans spirit through all the heights and depths of life and feeling. The greatest sorrows and joys must find their truest and highest expression in poetry. Hence the Book of Psalms retains its place as the hand-book of devotion for the Church of God.
I. Israels kings had a noble origin (Gen. 49:9.) Their mother was Jerusalemthe city of God. She lay down amongst the lions, she took her place among the family of nations. In King David, God made of Israel a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth (2Sa. 7:9). Had the chosen nation continued faithful they would have remained in peace and prosperity. The greatness of the eminence to which they had been raised by the providence of God, gives a depth of sadness to this lamentation now made over them.
II. Israels kings were corrupted by evil examples. The society of the great of the earth corrupted them in religion and morals (Eze. 19:6-7). They learned the worst vices of kings. Monarchs have special temptations arising from their position. They have opportunity to inflict the greatest wrongs upon mankind; such as tyranny, oppression, etc. They learn to prey upon men, yea, to devour them. Men are devoured when they are bereft of liberty and of life by tyrants.
III. The violence and cunning of Israels kings provoked the same in others. The lion had learned to catch the prey, and to affright the nations by the noise of his roaring. But he was not victorious. He only stirred up among the nations the same feelings which raged within himself, and provoked revenge (Eze. 19:8). The most powerful tyrants must reap the reward of their own doings. The measure they mete shall surely be measured to them again.
IV. The evil examples of Israels kings failed to teach the people wisdom. When they saw that their hope was gone they elected another king. This new king walked after the manner of the rest (Eze. 19:5-7). The nation suffered also under him as they must do under all bad kings. His projects were wicked, violent, and wild, fitly represented by the roaring of the lion. Nations some times become so maddened that they repeat those mistakes which, as they ought to know, must plunge them in ruin.
V. God has ways to punish the most powerful princes. God uses the passions and inventions of men to punish those who commit wickedness in high places. He has chains, pits, hunters, nets, and cages for wicked kings. Often by court intrigues and by the jealousies of nations He brings them to judgment. His judgments upon such may be long delayed, but they are sure to come in the end.
Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds He all.
God will bring tyrants to an end. At last the lions roaring on the mountains dies away (Eze. 19:9). Sooner or later, the wicked cease from troubling.
(Eze. 19:9)
1. The hopes of the wicked are not long-lived. They are soon dashed and disappointed. The hope of unjust men perisheth, and that easily and speedily (Pro. 11:7). It is likened to a spiders web or house, a little thing; a besom sweeps away the house and inhabitant together, and that in a moment: such is the hope of wicked men, it is suddenly and easily ruined. There is a difference between the hopes of the righteous and those of the wicked: The hope of the righteous shall be gladness: but the expectation of the wicked shall perish (Pro. 10:28).
2. Corrupt states are so addicted to their princes that they will set them up to rule over them, though it be to their own ruin. Jerusalem, the lioness, sets up another of her whelps, and makes it a young lion. She put this whelp into the royal seat, and stirred him up to do lion-like, such things as did unto himself and Jerusalem also. She learned nothing by the loss of her former whelp, but proceeds in her old way, and would have lions, tyrants to be over her, she, being a lioness, very corrupt and wicked, couples with that Egyptian lion, Pharoah, and brings forth, advances a lion like themselves. The men of Shechem made Abimelech king, but he proved not only a bramble to scratch them, but a fierce and fiery lion to consume them. States had better consider whom they set over them, lest they become lions unto them.
3. Such as men live amongst and converse withal, such they prove. He went up and down among the lions, and became a lion. Those lions he conversed with talked of making themselves great, of having their wills, of ruling by prerogative, and these things, and such like, were soon learned by this whelp. When Nebuchadnezzar was among beasts, he became brutish, and did as they did. Ill company is the Delilah that bewitches, defiles, and ruins many in their estates, bodies, and souls. David knew this, therefore he said, Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity (Psa. 6:8); and I am a companion of them that fear thee (Psa. 119:63).
4. They who converse with wicked ones do not only become wicked, but many times they prove eminently wicked. They exceed their teachers. Jehoiachin, by his converse with lions, became not only a lion to catch the prey, but such an one as devoured men, defiled widows, made desolate palaces, laid waste cities, and the land also. He went beyond other tyrants, he was an inventor of wickedness, and profited above others in his way, and came to a perfection of iniquity. It is incident to mans nature to outstrip one the other, if not in good, yet especially in evil.
5. Tyranny is hateful unto heathens. Then the nations set against him on every side. Jehoiachin was such a roaring lion that the heathens would not endure him. Doubtless the princes of the nations were tyrannous themselves, yet this man exceeded so in his tyrannical practices that he incurred the displeasure and hatred of them all. Tyrants cease to be men, and become beasts; therefore here are called lions, and are ranked among wild savage creatures; which none can endure. When there are wild beasts in a land, all are against them, and often there is a mutual agreement and concurrence to destroy them. The nations agreed to hunt and take this lion.
6. God hath times, means, ways to catch lions, to deal with covetous and cruel men. When Jehoiachin made desolate the palaces, and wasted the cities and the land; then the Lord stirred up the nations. They were His net, His pit, His instruments to take this lion withal. God wants not means to take them; He hath nations at command, and can call them forth and set them to hunt lions when he pleases (Jer. 50:7. Tyrannical princes are not of long continuance. They are usually short-lived; either they lose their power, or their power and lives both. Jehoiachin roared and played the lion eleven years, and then he was taken in the pit of the nations and lost his power. So Jehoahaz before him. He tyrannized months, and then was taken. When potentates oppress and tyrannize, their ruin is at hand. God hath said, Bloody men shall not live out half their days (Psa. 55:23). And He makes it good. He cuts off the spirit of princes, and is terrible to the kings of the earth (Psa. 76:12).
8. God takes away wicked and tyrannical princes that it may be well with His people, that Zion may have the benefit of it. Jehoiachin was taken, chained, carried to Babylon, and put in strongholds, and why?that his voice should be heard no more upon the mountains of Israel; that the people of God might not be terrrified with his roarings, nor torn with his teeth, but might enjoy freedom and safety. God, for the good of His people, destroys or drives out the wild beasts. No lion shall be there (Isa. 35:9).(Greenhill).
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
II. BITTER DIRGES 19:114
There is a time for a preacher to rebuke his audience; there is also a time for him to weep with them and for them. In chapter 19 Ezekiel becomes a sympathetic mourner. God is grieved over the impending fate of Jerusalem, and Ezekiel is told to give vent to his emotions as a means of illustrating the divine agony. The dirge falls into two sections. Eze. 19:1-9 lament the fate of Judahs last kings; Eze. 19:10-14 bewail the fall of Jerusalem.
A. Dirge Over Judahs Kings 19:19
TRANSLATION
(1) And as for you, take up a lamentation concerning the princes of Israel, (2) and say, How your mother was a lioness; among the lions she crouched, in the midst of the young lions she reared her whelps! (3) And she brought up one of her whelps, he became a young lion; and he learned to tear the prey, he devoured men, (4) Then nations assembled against him, he was taken in their pit; and they brought him by hooks into the land of Egypt. (5) Now when she saw that, she was disappointed, her hope was lost. Then she took one of her whelps, and made him a young lion. (6) And he went to and fro in the midst of the lions, he became a young lion; and he learned to tear prey, he devoured men. (7) And he knew their widows, and he laid waste their cities; and the land and its fullness was desolate because of the noise of his roaring. (8) Then the nations cried out against him, round about from provinces, and they spread their net over him, he was taken in their pit. (9) And they put him in a cage with hooks, and they brought him unto the king of Babylon; they brought him into strongholds so that his voice might not be heard again upon the mountains of Israel.
COMMENTS
Ezekiel is told to take up a lament (qinah) for the princes (i.e., kings) of Israel (Eze. 19:1). The fates of the three sons of godly King Josiah Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah are mentioned. The house of David is the mother of these princes. She is compared to a lioness in Eze. 19:2 because the tribe of Judah in general (cf. Gen. 49:9) and the family of David in particular were symbolized by a lion. As long as Judah remained faithful to the Lord she dwelt securely and fearlessly among the young lions, i.e., surrounding nations. The period of King Josiah is in view. Tiny Judah was independent and prosperous during the reign of this godly king (Eze. 19:2).
The royal lioness (house of David) reared up one of her whelps to become a young lion. The reference here is to Jehoahaz who became king of Judah at the age of 23 when his father was slain by Pharaoh Neco in the battle of Megiddo (cf. 2Ki. 23:31 ff.). As a young lion Jehoahaz learned to catch prey, i.e., to have hostile relations with other nations. He devoured men, i.e., he ventured to war (Eze. 19:3). It is implied here that Jehoahaz was hostile to Neco of Egypt.
The nations, i.e., Egypt and her vassal states, listened unto him, i.e., took up the challenge which he hurled at them. The young lion was lured to the pit and captured therein. He was bound in fetters and taken to Egypt (Eze. 19:4). The allusion is to the capture of Jehoahaz by Pharaoh Neco in 609 B.C. (2Ki. 23:33).
When the lioness (Davidic dynasty) saw that Jehoahaz had been deported, she was disappointed.[337] She took another of her whelps and trained him to be a young lion (Eze. 19:5). He took his place among the other lions (kings), and quickly learned the ruthless conduct which oriental kings manifested (Eze. 19:6). Because of his misrule he knew their widows,[338] i.e., he caused many women to lose their husbands and sons. Because of his boisterousness (noise of his roaring) he brought destruction and desolation upon his land (Eze. 19:7).
[337] The Hebrew verb vachal in the Niphal stem means to wait expectantly. In certain contexts Hebrew verbs take on the opposite of their usual meaning, and this appears to be the case here.
[338] Some think the Hebrew word is an unusual form of the word meaning castles or citadels.
Some difference of opinion exists as to whether Ezekiel has in view Jehoiakim who ruled Judah from 605598 B.C. or his son Jehoiachin who ruled but for three months early in 597 B.C. Jewish commentators generally prefer the former; modern commentators the latter. Some details of the allegory seem to fit best the one, and some seem to point to the other. On the whole, however, the Jehoiachin interpretation is superior.
The nations led by Nebuchadnezzar attacked the kingdom of Jehoiachin in 597 B.C. The young king was taken captive (Eze. 19:8) and brought before the king of Babylon. Thus did his rule over Judah come to an end. The growl of this young lion was no longer heard in the land (Eze. 19:9).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
The Young Lions of Israel-Judah.
“Moreover take up a lamentation for the princes of Israel, and say.’
Those who represent Judah now represent Israel, for Israel has been taken up into Judah. So the lamentation is for ‘the princes of Israel’. The princes in mind are those who reigned only shortly and were made captive by foreign kings, first by Egypt and then by Babylon, for Ezekiel is bringing home the miserable state of the pride of Israel who had turned away from Him.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Over The Kings
v. 1. Moreover, take thou up a lamentation, v. 2. and say, What is thy mother? v. 3. And she brought up one of her whelps, v. 4. The nations also heard of him, v. 5. Now, when she saw that she had waited and her hope was lost, v. 6. And he went up and down among the lions, v. 7. And he knew their desolate palaces, v. 8. Then the nations set against him on every side, v. 9. And they put him in ward in chains,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Eze 19:1
The two sections of this chapterEze 19:1-9, Eze 19:10-14 -are respectively two parables of the same type as that of Eze 2:10. The former telling nearly the same story under a different imagery, the latter a reproduction of the same imagery, with a slightly different application. Lamentation. The same word as that used in Eze 2:10. The whole chapter finds a parallel in Jeremiah’s review of Josiah’s successors (Jer 22:10-30). It is noticeable that the princes are described as being of Israel. The LXX. gives the singular, “the prince,” and Hitzig and Ewald adopt this reading, applying it to Zedekiah.
Eze 19:2
What is thy mother? etc.; better, with the Vulgate, LXX; and Keil, Why did thy mother, a lioness, lie down among lionesses? The image may have been suggested by Gen 49:9 and Num 23:24, or perhaps also by Nah 2:11, Nah 2:12. The lioness is Israel, the kingdom idealized and personified. The lionesses among whom she had lain down are the heathen kingdoms. The question asks why she had become as one of them and adopted their cruelty and ferocity.
Eze 19:3
The whelp, as Eze 19:4 shows, is Jehoahaz, also known as Shallum (Jer 22:11), who “did evil” in the sight of the Lord (2Ki 23:32), the words that follow pointing to cruelty and oppression like that of Zedekiah. The passage finds a somewhat striking parallel in AEschylus, ‘Agam.,’ 695-715.
Eze 19:4
The nations also heard of him, etc. The fact that lies under the parable is that Egypt and its allies began to be alarmed as they watched the aggressive policy of Jehoahaz, as men are alarmed when they hear that a young lion is in the neighbourhood, and proceed to lay snares for him. In chains, etc.; literally, nose rings, such as were put into the nostrils of brutes or men (Eze 38:4; 2Ki 19:28; Isa 37:29). The mention of Egypt points to the deportation of Jehoahaz by Pharaoh-Necho (2Ki 23:34; Jer 22:11).
Eze 19:5
The second lion whelp is identified by Eze 19:9 with Jehoiachin. For some reason or other, probably because he, as having “slept with his fathers,” was not so conspicuous an instance of retribution, Ezekiel passes over Jehoiakim.
Eze 19:7
He knew their desolate palaces; literally, widows; but the word is used figuratively in Isa 13:22, in the sense of “desolate houses” (comp. Isa 47:8). So the Vulgate gives didicit viduas facere; and Keil adopts that meaning here, “he knew, i.e. outraged, the widows of Israel.” The Revised Version admits it in the margin. The two words for “widows” and “palaces” differ in a single letter only, and there may have been an error in transcription. On the whole, I adhere to the Authorized Version and Revised Version (text). Currey explains, “He knew (i.e. eyed with satisfaction) his palaces,” from which he had ejected their former owners, as his father Jeboiakim had done (Jer 22:15, Jer 22:16). Ewald follows the Targum in a various reading of the verb, and gets the meaning, “he destroyed its palaces.” Interpreting the parable, we have Jehoiachin described as alarming Nebuchadnezzar and the neighbouring nations by his activity, and therefore carried off to Babylon as Jehoahaz lad been to Egypt. The young lion was to roar in chains, not on the “mountains of Israel.”
Eze 19:10
Another parable comes close upon the heels of the first. Thy mother; sc. Judah or Jerusalem, as the mother of Jehoiachin, who is still in Ezekiel’s thoughts, and is addressed by him. In thy blood. (For the comparison of the vine, see Eze 17:6.) No satisfactory meaning can be got out of the words, the nearest being “in thy life, thy freshness,” the sap of the vine being thought of as its blood; and critics have been driven to conjectural readings or renderings. The Jewish interpreters, Targum, Rashi, Kimchi, and margin of Revised Version, give, “in thy likeness,” sc. “like thee;” Keil, “in thy repose,” sc. in the period of quiet prosperity. Hitzig boldly adopts a reading which gives, “a vine climbing on the pomegranate;” but (?). The many waters reproduce the imagery of Eze 17:5.
Eze 19:11
The verse describes generally the apparent strength of the kingly line of David. The word for thick branches, which occurs again in Eze 31:3, Eze 31:10, Eze 31:14, is taken by Keil and Furst as meaning “thick clouds,” as describing the height to which the tree grew. So the Revised Version (margin).
Eze 19:12
The parable, like that of Eze 17:10, describes the sudden downfall of Jerusalem and the kingly house. The “dry ground” is Babylon, and the new “planting” indicates the deportation of Jehoiachin and the chief men of Judah.
Eze 19:14
Fire is gone out. The words are an echo of Jdg 9:15. Zedekiah’s reign was to work destruction for his people, as that of Abimelech had done.
HOMILETICS.
Eze 19:1
A lamentation for the princes of Israel.
Ezekiel follows up his predictions of approaching judgment and his exhortations to repentance with an elegy on the distresses of the princes of Israel.
I. THE FATE OF THE PRINCES STIRRED DEEP FEELINGS. It became the inspiration of an ode. True poetry has its fountains in deep emotion. Thus a living religion naturally finds expression in song, and the spiritual experience of men is uttered in psalms. That religion which is satisfied with the cold statements of intellectual propositions hay not yet touched the heart, and is no living experience. There is a fire of passion in true devotion. On the other hand, when religion has been neglected or outraged, a new range of emotions is called into play, and the fate of sinners stirs feelings of profound grief in all who understand its dire distress and have brotherly hearts to sympathize with others. The Book of Lamentations may be taken as the reverse of the Book of Psalms. Psalmists celebrate the emotions of true religion; the “Lamentations” is a dirge sung over those who have been unfaithful to their religion. In any case, man’s relation to religion is so intimate and vital that it should rouse deep feelings in the heart of every one.
II. THE FATE OF THE PRINCES CONTAINED PECULIAR ELEMENTS OF DISTRESS.
1. The princes enjoyed high rank. When they fill, their humiliation and suffering were all the greater. Men envy high stations; but such positions are liable to peculiar calamities, from which the lowly do not suffer.
(1) High positions attract attention. Princes are aimed at when peasants are neglected. The leading families were torn from their homes and carried off to Babylon, while the obscure sons of the soil were left to till their fields.
(2) High rank is no sure protection. A bodyguard surrounds princes. But no guard can ward off the judgment of Heaven. God will judge the great as surely as the low.
2. The princes came of a divinely favoured line. They belonged to the house of Davida house which had long enjoyed peculiar marks of God’s favour, and which was thought to be sheltered by promises of everlasting prosperity (e.g. Psa 69:1-36.). But no favouritism of Heaven will protect against the consequences of sin. God’s promises of g, ace are conditioned by man’s fidelity.
3. The ruin of the princes was in itself most lamentable. They did not suffer from some temporary reverse of fortune. One alter another they were flung down from the throne and degraded to a miserable fate. The consequences of sin are heavy and disastrous. No soul can face them with equaninity.
4. The fate of the princes involved the sufferings of their people. The princes, being leaders in sin, were first in punishment. Their primacy of guilt was followed by a primacy of doom. But others suffered also in various degrees, and the nation was involved in calamities. Thus the responsibility of those in high stations is enlarged by the fact that they bring trouble upon many by their misdeeds.
Eze 19:1-9
The parable of the lion’s whelps.
I. THE LION–LIKE CHARACTER OF ISRAEL. This character was especially given to the tribe of Judah, from which the royal family came (Gen 49:9). There should be something of the better nature of the lion in the people of God.
1. Strength. With one blow of his paw the lion can break the neck of a bull. The nation of Israel was strong. The Church of God is strong with the might of God. God does not only save his children as weak creatures needing his shelter; he inspires them with strength.
2. Freedom. The lion is not a domestic animal, trained to wear the yoke like the patient ox. When he is caught and caged his proud spirit is broken. In a state of nature he roams at large over the desert. God gives liberty to his people. They are not his slaves; they are his free men.
3. Rule. The lion is regarded as the king of the fort, st. Israel in her greatness ruled over her neighbours politically; but spiritually she has since extended that rule over the civilized world. There is power and a ruling influence over minds in the Church of Christ.
4. Majesty. The lion looks more brave than he is. His lordly mane and noble bearing, and the thunder of his roar that echoes through the woods at night, impress men with a sense of awe. God has called his people to a position of greatness and honour.
II. THE FATE OF THE TWO WHELPS.
1. The disastrous fate of the first whelp. Jehoahaz behaves ill, and is carried in chains to Egypt (2Ki 23:32-34).
(1) His great sin is that he worked destruction. “It devored men.” Sin is hurtful to ethers as well as to the sinner. When a man is in a position of power and influence this is especially the case. But “no man liveth unto himself.” We are responsible for the harm done by our sin.
(2) His punishment is loss of liberty and banishment. The lion is taken in a pit, shackled with chains, and carried off to Egypt. Power to work ill will not last forever. The liberty that is abused in sin will be taken away. They who are unfaithful to God will be banished from God’s inheritance.
2. The similar fate of the second whelp. Jehoahaz is followed by Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, not only on the throne, but in evil conduct and in consequent punishment.
(1) Them is a succession in sin. This is not by natural inheritance nor by inevitable fate, but by a gathering together of various common influences, especially that of example. Yet the fate of former sinners should be a warning to their successors. Men are too ready to copy the misdeeds of predecessors, without waiting to consider the consequences of those misdeeds.
(2) There will be a succession in punishment. The resources of judgment are not exhausted. The band that smote Israel is strong to smite a faithless Christendom. The form of the punishment may vary, but the essence of it will be unchanged. Jehoahaz was sent to Egypt, Jehoiachin to Babylon; but the doom of the two was essentially the same. Moreover, in both cases, as the villagers assemble in a circle to catch a destructive lion, the neighbouring nations joined in the work of Egypt and Babylon. Sinners make many enemies.
Eze 19:10-14
The parable of the destruction of the vine.
The Jews have often been compared to a vine well cared for by God, and the same comparison, on our Lord’s authority, may be applied to Christians. In the present case we have a description first of the prosperity of the vine, and then of the devastating ruin of it.
I. THE PROSPERITY OF THE VINE.
1. It was planted by the waters. Thus it was well nourished and refreshed. God cares for his children, and supplies their wants. The river of the water of life is for their refreshment. They cannot charge their sin to any failing in God’s grace.
2. It was fruitful. The early history of Israel shows that the people of God could give some return in service and holy living. God’s people have borne fruit in works of zeal and charity. This fruitfulness is what is most looked for in the vine (Joh 15:5).
3. It was well developed. “Full of branches.” Israel grew in population. The Church has grown in numbers. External prosperity has been seen in the visible enlargment of Christendom.
4. It was influential. Its branches were so great that they became strong rods for sceptres. Israel exerted royal influence. The Church has been high in power. Weakness and limitation of influence cannot he pleaded as excuses for the neglect of her mission.
5. It was honoured. “Her stature was exalted among the thick branches.” The vine grew in height as well as in the breadth of her extending branches. Israel stood high. The Church has received her full mead of honour.
III. THE RUIN OF THE VINE. All this former excellence did not prevent a furious vengeance from falling upon the vine. Israel’s glorious history did not save her from the doom of her sins. The past of the Church will be no shield from the judgment which must fall on her present or future faithlessness. The vine was grievously hurt.
1. It was plucked up. Israel was driven into exile. The sinner will lose his old privileges.
2. It was cast to the ground. In place of the previous exaltation of its lordly branches, there is to be a shameful humiliation as they are torn down and strewn over the ground.
3. Its fruit was dried up. Old good deeds are forgotten in later sin. When the soul is down in shame and mire, there is no longer power or opportunity to perform the old useful service.
4. Its sceptre-like rods were destroyedbroken, withered, and consumed by fire. Power departs with the loss of the old position and prosperity The fallen Church loses influence.
5. It is planted in the wilderness. The poor plant is left there to languish for lack of water and nourishing soil. The doom of sin is to shrivel up and fade away in a spiritual wilderness.
6. The worst fate comes from the vine upon itself. The fire proceeds from a rod of her own branches. The royal family of Israel brought down destruction on the nation. The sins of the Church produce its desolation. The fire of judgment that consumes each sinner springs from his own evil heart.
HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON
Eze 19:1-9
The downfall of the princes.
For the interpretation of this figurative and poetical portion of Ezekiel’s prophecies, reference must be made to the close of the Second Books of Kings and of Chronicles, where the obscure and humiliating history of the last days of the monarchy of Judah is briefly recorded. Ezekiel’s dirge concerns partly what had already taken place, and partly what was immediately about to happen. The lessons to be learnt from the history and the lamentation are of a general character. The fate of the kingsif so they may be calledJehoahaz and Jehoiachin, is certainly instructive. But it would not be just to separate between the rulers and the ruled, both of whom alike “did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.”
I. THE ROYAL ORIGIN AND DIGNITY OF THE PRINCES. They are compared to lions, nourished by the lioness their dam, among the whelps. Sprung from the royal stock, and a knowledged as being in the succession, they occupied in due time the throne of their fathers. This arrangement was in fulfilment of the promise made by Jehovah to David, that there should not fail a man to sit upon the throne of the royal bard.
II. THE MISUSE BY THE PRINCES OF THEIR POWERS. It is natural that the young lion should catch its prey and even devour men. But when the princes are compared to such bloodthirsty and carnivorous beasts, it is implied that they were in the habit of oppressing and robbing their subjects, and treating them with violence and cruelty. As a matter of fact, the two princes referred to did conduct themselves in a tyrannical and unjust manner.
III. THE FATE WHICH THE PRINCES PREPARED FOR THEMSELVES. The nations are described by the poet prophet as hearing of the ravening of the lions, and as setting themselves against them, spreading a net, digging a pit, and, by the use of customary devices, taking the noxious marauder. The first-mentioned prince was taken captive into Egypt, the second to Babylon. They are depicted as led in chains, as put in ward, and of the second it is poetically observed that “his voice was no more heard upon the mountains of Israel.” As far as history enables us to judge, these princes met with the reward due to their ungodliness, violence, rapacity, and treachery.
IV. THE NEGLECT OF ONE OF THE PRINCES TO LEARN AND TAKE WARNING BY THE FATE OF THE OTHER. Whether if Jehoiachin had been wise, and had learned the lesson publicly pronounced by the doom of Jehoahaz, he might have escaped ruin, we cannot toll. But by disregarding that lesson he sealed his fate. How often it happens in human affairs that the most obvious and powerful lesson, enforced by striking actual examples, makes no impression upon the mind of the young, self-willed and irreligious!
V. A PRACTICAL AND IMPORTANT LESSON IS THUS CONVEYED TO ALL WHO ARE CALLED BY PROVIDENCE TO GOVERN THEIR FELLOW MEN.
1. Princes should not rely upon their high descent, their birth, their ancestral clams to respect.
2. Princes should not use their power and the influence of their station for their own personal emoluments or pleasures.
3. Princes should be wise, and order their doings by the precepts of Divine righteousness.
4. Princes should remember the instability of thrones and the uncertainty of life and prosperity, and accordingly should be diligent in their endeavours for the public good.T.
Eze 19:10-14
The downfall of the city.
The transition is a bold one, from the figure of the lioness’s whelps to that of the vine with its pride of growth and its clusters of fruit, and anon as withered and. scorched and ready to perish. Little is there of tenderness or of sympathy in the prophet’s view of the degenerate scions of the royal house of Judah. But when he comes to speak of Jerusalem, a sweeter similitude rises before his vision; it is the vine that grew and flourished on the sunny slopes of Judah, in all its fairness and fruitfulness, now, alas! to be plucked up, cast down, broken, withered, and consumed with fire.
I. JERUSALEM IN HER GLORY.
1. The city was well placed upon her hills; as the vine by the waters that nourish and cheer the noble plant in the heat and drought of summer.
2. The city was noble of aspect; even as the vine of exalted stature, as she appears in her height with the multitude of her branches.
3. The city was strong in her sway; as the vine with her vigorous and pliant rods “for the sceptics of them that bear rule.”
4. The city was fruitful in great men and great thinkers and great deeds; even as the vine that beat’s abundant clusters of rich grapes. There is fondness and pride in these references to the sacred and beloved metropolis.
II. JERUSALEM IN HER DESOLATION. It would seem that Ezekiel, foreseeing what is about to come to pass, speaks of the ruin of the city as if already accomplished. The vine in its wealth of foliage and of fruit is the picture of the memory; the vine in its destruction is the sad vision of the immediate future, and the foreboding seems a fact.
1. The city itself is besieged, taken, and dismantled.
2. The chief inhabitants are either slain or led away into banishment.
3. The princes are deprived of their power.
4. The city’s prosperity and pride, wealth and prowess, are all at an end.
III. JERUSALEM LAMENTED. The spectacle of a famous metropolis, the seat of historic government and of a consecrated temple, reduced to helplessness and disgrace, is a spectacle not to be beheld without emotion. We are reminded of the language in which an English poet represents the Roman conqueror, centuries afterwards, lamenting the sad but inevitable fate of Jerusalem:
“It moves me, Romans;
Confounds the counsel of my firm philosophy,
That Ruin’s merciless ploughshare should pass o’er
And barren salt be sown on you proud city!”
APPLICATION.
1. The transitoriness and mutability of earthly greatness are very impressively brought before us in this passage. Sic transit gloria mundi.
2. Eminence and privilege are no security against the operation of righteous law.
3. Repentance and obedience are the only means by which it may be hoped that advantages will be retained, and further opportunities of useful service afforded.T.
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES
Eze 19:1-9
Kingly power abused.
Without doubt, the main cause of Israel’s fall was the waywardness and vice of her kings. With few exceptions, they gave themselves up to evil ways. Corruption at the fountainhead became corruption in all the streams of national and domestic life. Idolatry was the root; and tyranny, anarchy, violence, and cruelly were the branches. This soon became intolerable to the surrounding nations.
I. KINGLY POWER WAS INTENDED AS A BENEFIT. What the shepherd is to his flock, the king should be to his people. He is intended to live and think and plan for their good. Wisdom, not self-will, ought to be his supreme counsellor. As an army cannot succeed without a commander; as a ship cannot voyage prosperously without a pilot; as a family cannot do well without a parent; so a kingdom must have a ruler. The administration of justice and of defence must have a living head. The appointment of a king, whether he be human or Divine, is a necessity for a nation’s prosperity; and that king will be either a blessing or a curse.
II. KINGLY POWER MAY BECOME SELFISH. The man who is exalted to the highest place of honour is so exalted that he may serve the nation. But, in a measure, he holds an irresponsible office. There is no higher power which can control or restrain him. Hence there is a great temptation for the abuse of office. The man may use his power to aggrandize himself, to increase his pleasures or his magnificence. Setting aside prudence, wisdom, benevolent regard for others, he may become arrogant, self-willed, tyrannical. The lower appetites of his nature may rule him, and the effect will be as if a beast ruled the people. Though a lion is chief among wild animals, he is but a beast still; and the worst features of the untamed lion were manifest in the kings of Israel and of Judah.
III. KINGLY POWER, IF SELFISH, BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE. This young lion learnt “to catch prey, it devoured men.” He who was set over the people to preserve life, to afford protection to their interests, perverted his high office, destroyed those he was appointed to save. The king is set in the stead of God, to reward obedience, and to punish transgression; by the abuse of his office he becomes an Apollyon, an ally of Satan. He destroys his people’s peace, destroys their fortunes, destroys their lives. His misrule encourages violence on the high ways, private murder, civil war, foreign invasion, An evil king is a fount of deaththe nation’s executioner.
IV. KINGLY POWER, WHEN ABUSED, MUST BE FETTERED. “The nations set against him on every side and spread their net over him: he was taken in their pit.” He who is unjust and violent in dealing with his own people will be unjust and insolent in dealing with surrounding nations. But neighbouring kings are more free to resent and punish royal insole,ice than are the subjects of the monarch. Hence it often happens that retribution comes from the mutual consent of foreigners. There is One who rules among the nations, higher that the highest king, and he can employ a thousand methods to restrain and chastise a tyrant. At times God employs the subjects of the realm; sometimes he employs death; sometimes he employs a foreign armya foreign league. It is a perilous thing to tamper with righteousness.D.
Eze 19:10-14
A nation’s rise and fall.
If the emblem chosen to represent the Hebrew kings was a lion, “the lion of the tribe of Judah,” the emblem of the nation was a vine. The vine was indigenous in the land; the whole territory was a vineyard. As the vine is chief among trees for fruitfulness, so Israel, on account of superior advantage, was expected to be chief among the nations for spiritual productiveness. The fruits of piety and righteousness ought to have abounded on every branch.
I. HER FAME.
1. It was a vine of the noblest quality. Her sap was rich; like Blood. She was of the choicest sort. Abraham was the parent stock, and Abraham was the highest kind of man”the friend of God.”
2. This vine was well situated. Of all lands God had chosen Canaan for the abode of his people. It had been chosen by unerring Wisdom, and prepared by omnipotent power. It lay central among the nations; it had natural excellence; it was the glory of all lands. Sharon and Carmel and Lebanon are still the synonyms for splendid fertility.
3. This vine actually flourished. “Her stature was exalted.” “She had strong rods.” Prosperity was not only possible; it was matter of fact. The vine bare prolifically. During the reigns of David and Solomon the people enjoyed an enviable prosperity. Wealth increased. Knowledge spread. Religion flourished. The people thronged to offer sacrifices. The sabbath was a delight. A magnificent temple was erected. The Jewish empire grew. Surrounding nations honoured the people that God had so signally blessed. Peace abounded in the land. There was contentment, order, plenty, national fame. Such rapid progress had never been known. What had been thus gained could have been maintained. The vine that has so nobly borne fruit can bear fruit still.
II. HER FOLLY. The fault of Israel is here rather implied than expressed. Her sin was unfruitfulness. Instead of pruning the rank branches of this vine, the husbandmen allowed them to grow; and soon all the strength of the tree ran out in branch and leaf. Instead of caring for clusters of holy fruit, “she had strong rods for the sceptres of them that bare rule.” The nation was bent rather upon display, showy magnificence, military glory, than upon the works of righteousness and religion. The rank and luxuriant growths of idolatry took the place of fruitful piety. There was a fever of self-exaltation. The people imagined they could live upon their past fame. The kings became incarnations of selfishness, and the people, like a flock of sheep, eagerly followed the base example. Unfruitfulness was her folly and her curse. A vine is worse than useless unless it bears fruit; and Israel was worse than useless in the world when she threw aside her loyalty to God.
III. HER FALL. “She was plucked up in fury.” A storm swept over her, which rooted her out of the ground. Here is depicted:
1. The vine‘s prostrate state. It was laid low. This is a graphic description of Israel’s defeat in war. In David’s day, no neighbouring king dared to whisper any defiance to Israel; now every surrounding army had made raids upon her territory and despoiled her possessions. The capitals, Jerusalem and Samaria, had been besieged and captured.
2. Demolition of the strong branches. The royal sceptre was broken. At this moment the king was a vassal, under tribute to the King of Babylon. Kingly rule was only a shadow and a pretence. Every strong arm in Judaea was withered.
3. The element of destruction had issued out of itself. “A fire is gone out of a rod of her branches, which hath devoured her fruit.” This language implies that it was the sin of her kings that brought about this terrible downfall. Had it not been for internal vice and folly, no foreign foe could have done Israel harm. For the arm of Jehovah was round about her. Sin has always the seed of punishment within itself. The fire came from within.
4. Yet there is a circumstance of hope. The vine is not left prostrateunrooted. The Divine Husbandman has intentions of future kindness. The vine shall again be planted in the land of Israel; meanwhile “it is planted in the wilderness, in a dry and thirsty ground.” This precludes despair. This preservation of the vine nourishes hope. But compared with former favours and privileges, this captivity is a barren wilderness. Bare preservation of life is all that can there be expected. Such disaster is fitting theme for human lamentation. What material for sorrow is supplied by wanton guilt!D.
HOMILIES BY W. JONES
Eze 19:1-9
A lamentation for fallen princes.
“Moreover, take thou up a lamentation for the princes of Israel, and say, What was thy mother?” etc. Here are three preliminary inquiries.
1. Who is addressed by the prophet? Or, whom are we to understand by the pronoun “thy”? “What was thy mother?” “Jehoiachin is addressed,” says the ‘Speaker’s Commentary.’ Hengstenberg says, “The address is to the man Judah, the people of the present.” And Schroder, “The address is directed to the people.” But, as we shall see, the people are probably represented by the lioness; and if such be the case, it is hardly congruous to say that they are addressed in the pronoun “thy;” for that would represent them at once as the “mother” and the offspring.
2. Who is represented by” fly mother, a lioness“? According to Schroder, “the mother of the people is Jerusalem” (cf. Gal 4:25, seq.; Lam 1:1). The general opinion is that the mother represents the people of Judah or of the whole Israel. Hengstenberg, “The mother is the people in itself.” Matthew Henry, “He must compare the kingdom of Judah to a lioness.” Scott, “The Jewish Church and nation is represented under the image of a lioness.” ‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ “The people represented by Judah.”
3. Who are represented by the two whelps? (Verses 3, 5.) It is generally agreed that by them are set forth the two princes for whom this lamenta tion is made, and that by the first whelp which “became a young lion” is signified Jehoahaz (2Ki 23:30). But opinion is divided as to whether the other whelp which was “made a young lion” represents Jehoiakim or Jehoiachin. Hengstenberg, Schroder, and the ‘Speaker’s Commentary’ say that it was Jehoiachin, for this amongst other reasons, that he “was not appointed by a foreign prince out of order, like his father Jehoiakim, but succeeded regularly with the consent of the people (2Ki 24:6).” But it is difficult to see how verses 6 and 7 can be applied to him, seeing that he reigned only three months and ten days (2Ch 36:9). On the other hand, if we take verses 5-9 as applying to Jehoiakim, then the ninth verse presents this difficulty, that it represents the prince as being carried into Babylon as a prisoner, and there brought into strongholds, and his voice never more heard upon the mountains of Israel; whereas it is said in 2Ki 24:6 that “Jehoiakim slept with his fathers;” and in Jer 22:19, “He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem.” But, as Dr. Milman remarks, “There is much difficulty about the death of Jehoiakim;” for in addition to the state merits just quoted from 2 Kings and Jeremiah, in 2Ch 36:6 it is said that Nebuchadnezzar “bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon.” Whether we conclude that Jehoiakim or Jehoiachin is referred to in 2Ch 36:5-9, difficulties meet us which perhaps at present cannot be completely cleared away. On the three questions at which we have glanced, the following remarks of Greenhill are deserving of quota tion: “It is said ‘thy mother’ in reference to each prince. Jehoahaz, ‘what is thy mother?’ Jehoiakim, ‘what is thy mother?’ By ‘mother’ here is meant Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah. Great cities and kingdoms are in a metaphorical sense mothers; they bring forth kings; they elect, crown, and set them up to rule.” But leaving questions of disputed interpretation, let us look at those aspects or illustrations of historical and moral truths which this lamentation sets forth. We discover here –
I. ROYAL POSITION AND POWER SYMBOLIZED. “What was thy mother? A lioness: she couched among lions, in the midst of the young lions she nourished her whelps.” “The people appears as a lioness,” says Hengstenberg, “on the ground of Gen 49:9, to which passage the couching in particular refers (cf. Num 23:24; Num 24:9; Isa 29:1), because it was a royal people, of equal birth with other independent and powerful nations, as this royal nature was historically displayed, especially in the times of David and Solomon The whelps of the mother are the sons of the King of Israel The bringing up of these among lions points to the fact that the kingdom of Israel was of equal birth with the mighty kingdoms of the heathen world.” And Schroder says excellently, “That she ‘lay down’ among the neighbouring royal states betokens majestic repose and conscious securitythe fearless one exciting fear by imposing power.” The power and prosperity thus indicated were especially realized during the later years of the reign of David and the greater portion of that of Solomon. Of this we have evidence in 1Ch 14:17; 1Ch 24:26-28; 2Ch 9:1-31.
II. ROYAL POSITION AND POWER ABUSED. “And she brought up one of her whelps; he became a young lion: and he learned to catch the prey, he devoured men.” The young lion is intended to represent Jehoahaz, who was raised to the throne by the people (2Ki 23:30). “He was an impious man,” said Josephus, “and impure in his course of life.” “And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done” (2Ki 23:32). And, according to our text, during his brief reign he abused his kingly power by oppressing his subjects. Then we have the abuse of kingly power in another sovereign (2Ch 9:5-7). It we take this as referring to Jehoiakim, it is difficult to see how it can be appropriately said that “she took another of her whelps, and made him a young lion,” seeing that he was raised to the throne by Pharaoh-Necho (2Ki 23:34). But in other respects the description here given suits him well (cf. 2Ch 9:6, 2Ch 9:7 with 2Ki 23:35-37). Josephus says that “he was of a wicked disposition, and ready to do mischief: nor was he either religious towards God or good-natured towards men” (‘Ant.,’ 10.5. 2). Again, if we translate 2Ch 9:7 as in the ‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ “he knew his palaces” (both Hengstenberg and Schroder translate “his” in this clause, and not “their” as in the Authorized Version), the reference to Jehoiakim becomes yet more clear; for he had a passion for building splendid edifices, and he gratified it by injustice and oppression (Jer 22:13-19). By both these princes their position and power were wickedly abused. Rank and might should be used in accordance with the will of God and for the good of man. Kings should employ their power for the protection and prosperity of their subjects.
“Since by your greatness you
Are nearer heaven in place, be nearer it
In goodness. Rich men should transcend the poor.
As clouds the earth; raised by the comfort of
The sun, to water dry and barren grounds.”
(Tourneive.)
But these princes used their power for the oppression and impoverishment of their subjects.
“When those whom Heaven distinguishes o’er millions,
Profusely gives them honour, riches, power,
Whate’er the expanded heart can wish; when they,
Accepting the reward, neglect the duty,
Or worse, pervert those gifts to deeds of ruin,
Is there a wretch they rule so mean as they,
Guilty at once of sacrilege to Heaven,
And of perfidious robbery to men?”
(Mallet.)
III. ROYAL POSITION AND POWER TAKEN AWAY. “The nations also heard of him; he was taken in their pit, and they brought him with chains unto the land of Egypt” (cf. 2Ki 23:31-34). There is here “an allusion to the custom, when the news arrives that a lion or other savage beast is committing mischief, of assembling on all sides to seize and slay it” (C.B. Michaelis). The “chains,” “hooks,” or “rings,” by which Jehoahaz is said to have been brought into Egypt, refer to the custom of putting a ring “through the nose of animals that require to be restrained, to attach to it the bridle by which they are led, by which also their power of breathing can be lessened” (cf. 2Ki 19:28). Jehoiakim also was stripped of the power which he had abused. “The nations set against him on every side from the provinces; and they spread their net over him,” etc. (2Ch 9:8, 2Ch 9:9). The historical explanation is given in 2Ki 24:1, 2Ki 24:2; 2Ch 36:5, 2Ch 36:6. Or, if 2Ch 36:8 and 2Ch 36:9 be applied to Jehoiachin, we have their explanation in 2Ki 24:10-16. When kings and princes abuse their power, in the providence of God it is taken away from them. Many examples of this might he cited; as Saul (1Sa 31:1-13.), Zimri (1Ki 16:8-20), Jehoram (2Ch 21:1-20.), Manasseh (2Ch 33:1-11). And, as Greenhill says, “Tiberius was poisoned or smothered by his own nephew; Caligula slain by his own guard; Vitrellius was overthrown in battle, taken prisoner, and drawn with a halter about his neck along the streets, half naked, and after many outrages done unto him, he was killed and cast into the Tiber. Leander, tyrant of Cyrena, was taken alive, and being sewed into a leathern bag, was cast into the sea. Thirty tyrants were slain in one day at Athens, by Theramenes, Thrasibulus, and Archippns, who did it with seventy men.” The measure they had meted unto others was measured also unto them. As they had done, so God requited them. These things call for lamentation on the part of the patriotic and the pious. When splendid opportunities are worse than neglected, and exalted position and power are grievously abused, and princes oppress their people, the wise and good do mourn. National sins and calamities should awaken the sorrow of all lovers of their God and country.W.J.
Eze 19:10-14
National prosperity and national ruin.
“Thy mother is like a vine in thy blood, planted by the waters,” etc. This paragraph completes the lamentation for the princes of Israel. The figure is changed from the lioness and the young lions to the vine and its branches and fruit. This similitude is frequently used in the sacred Scriptures to represent the people of Israel (Eze 15:1-8.; Eze 17:5-10; Psa 80:8-16; Isa 5:1-7; Jer 2:21). The parable before us presents two pictures.
I. A PICTURE OF NATIONAL PROSPERITY. (Eze 19:10, Eze 19:11.)
1. Some features of national prosperity.
(1) Favourable circumstances. “A vine planted by the waters.” Palestine, the land of the chosen people, was very favourably situated in many respects. It was almost completely surrounded by natural fortifications. On their northern frontier were the ranges of Lebanon; from their southern frontier “stretched that ‘great and terrible wilderness,’ which roiled like a sea between the valley of the Nile and the valley of the Jordan.” On the east they were guarded by the eastern desert and by “the vast fissure of the Jordan valley;” and on the west by the Mediterranean, which, “when Israel first settled in Palestine, was not yet the thoroughfareit was rather the boundary and the terror of the Eastern nations.” And to the Western world the coast of Palestine opposed an inhospitable front, eze-5 Moreover, the land in which this vine was planted was remarkable for its fertility (cf. Num 13:27; Deu 8:7-9). Palestine, says Dean Stanley, “not merely by its situation, but by its comparative fertility, might well be considered the prize of the Eastern world, the possession of which was the mark of God’s peculiar favour; the spot for which the nations would contend; as on a smaller scale the Bedouin tribes for some ‘diamond of the desert,’ some ‘palm-grove islanded amid the waste.’ And a land of which the blessings were so evidently the gift of God, not as in Egypt of man’s Inborn’; which also, by reason of its narrow extent, was so constantly within reach and sight of the neighbouring desert, was eminently calculated to raise the thoughts of the nation to the Supreme Giver of all these blessings, and to bind it by the dearest ties to the land which he had so manifestly favoured.”
(2) Efficient rulers. “She had strong rods for the sceptre of them that bare rule.” “There grew up in Jerusalem-Judah strong shoots of David, able to rule (Gen 49:10).” All her kings were not eminent either for capability or character; but some of them certainly were; e.g. David, Solomon, Asa. Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, Hezekiah, Josiah.
(3) Manifest progress. “She was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many waters Her stature was exalted among the thick branches, and she appeared in her height with the multitude el her branches.” In the time of David and Solomon great was the prosperity of the nation (cf. 1Ch 14:17; 1Ch 29:26-28; 2Ch 9:1-31.). Even under Zedekiah (as we pointed out on Eze 17:5, Eze 17:6) an encouraging measure of progress and prosperity might have been attained if he had remained faithful to his engagements with the King of Babylon.
2. The great source of national prosperity. “She was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many waters.” “The many waters,” says Hengstenberg, “signify the Divine blessing which ruled over Israel, the rich influx of grace.” The Israelites in a special sense owed their national existence and power and prosperity to Jehovah their God. And in all times and places true and lasting national prosperity can only be attained by compliance with the Law of God and realization of his blessing. “Righteousness exalteth a nation,” etc.; “The throne is established by righteousness;” “The God of Israel, he giveth strength and power unto his people.” He also “bringeth princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.”
II. A PICTURE OF NATIONAL RUIN. (Eze 19:12-14.) Schroder calls attention to the sudden transition from the description of the prosperity of this vine to the declaration of its destruction. “Without the intervention of anything further, there follows its splendid growth, like a lightning-flash from the clear heavens, the complete overthrow of the vine, i.e. of Jerusalem-Judah, the birthplace of kings, and therewith the Davidic kingdom.”
1. Some features of this ruin.
(1) Favourable circumstances are exchanged for adverse ones. Formerly she was” planted by the waters;” and now she is “planted in the wilderness, in a dry and thirsty land.” The expression is figurative, setting forth their exile as a condition opposed to their growth and prosperity. “Such a wilderness may even be in the midst of a cultivated land.” In some respects, “Babylon was as a wilderness to those of the people that were carried captive thither.” They had lost their national life, their ancestral estates, many of their religious privileges, etc.
(2) Efficient rulers are no more. “Her strong rods were broken and withered; the fire consumed them She hath no strong rod to be a sceptre to rule.” The words, perhaps, refer to Zedekiah and his miserable overthrow (2Ki 25:4-7). And there was no one to retrieve their fallen fortunes, or to reign efficiently over the remnant of them that was left in the land (cf. Isa 3:6-8).
(3) Manifest progress is exchanged for desolation and ruin. “She was plucked up in fury, she was cast down to the ground, and the east wind dried up her fruit And fire is gone out of a rod of her branches, which hath devoured her fruit.” The commentary on these clauses we have in 2Ki 25:8-26; 2Ch 36:17-20; Jeremiah lit. 12-30; and in Lamentations.
2. The instrument of this ruin. “The east wind dried up her fruit” (cf. Eze 17:10; Hos 13:15). The east wind points to the Chaldeans as the instrument of the Divine judgment. The figure is appropriate, both because the Chaldeans dwelt in the east, and because the east wind is often injurious to vegetable life.
3. The cause of this ruin. “Fire is gone out of a rod of her branches, which hath devoured her fruit.” “The fire goes out from the chief stem of the branches: it does not take its rise from the Chaldees, but proceeds from the royal family itself, which by its crimes called down the Divine vengeance.” It was Zedekiah, by his base treachery towards Nebuchadnezzar, that at last brought on the ruin (Eze 17:15-21). “The desolation of kingdoms,” says Greenhill, “usually have been by their own kings and rulers, by those they have brought forth and set up; their follies, cruelties, treacheries, have fired and consumed their kingdoms.”
CONCLUSION.
1. Prosperity, both individual and national, is of God.
2. Ruin, both individual and national, is self-caused. “The fire of one’s own unrighteousness kindles the wrathful judgment of God.” “Men first become parched, then the rite consumes them.” “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself!”
3. Sin invariably leads to sorrow. It first causes lamentation to the good, and then leads to general lamentation. Sin may be committed amidst mirth and music, but it will speedily had to mourning and woe. “This is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation.”W.J.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Eze 19:1. A lamentation for the princes of Israel The expression alludes to the mournful songs sang at funerals. This chapter is of that species which Bishop Lowth calls, “Poetical Parables.” The style of itself is excellent, and the allegory well sustained. Houbigant, instead of princes, would read after the LXX, the prince; a reading which the following observations seem to countenance.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
8. The Lamentation over the Kingdom of Israel (Ezekiel 19.)
1, 2And do thou take up a lamentation for the princes of Israel. And say: How has thy mother lain downa lioness among lions [lionesses], among young lions she reared her whelps! 3And she brought up one of her whelps; he became 4a young lion, and learned to catch prey; he devoured men. And the heathen peoples heard of him, he was taken in their pit, and they brought him in chains 5to the land of Egypt. And she saw while [when] she waited, her hope had perished; then she took one of her whelps, made him a young lion. 6And he went up and down among the lions [lionesses], he became a young lion, and learned to catch prey; he devoured men. 7And he knew [knew well] his widows [palaces], and he laid waste their cities; and the land and its fulness were desolated 8by the noise of his roaring. And the heathen nations round about from the provinces set against him, and spread their net over him; he was taken in their pit. 9And they put him in ward in chains, and brought him to the king of Babylon, brought him into a stronghold, that his voice might no 10more be heard upon the mountains of Israel.Thy mother [is, was] like a vine, in thy blood, planted by the waters; fruitful and full of branches was it, 11from many waters. And it had strong rods for staves [sceptres] of rulers; and its growth was high, up among the clouds, and was conspicuous in its 12height, in the multitude of its branches. And it was plucked up in fury, cast to the ground, and the east wind dried up its fruit; broken and withered 13were its strong rods, fire consumed [devoured] them. And now it is planted in 14the wilderness, in a land of drought and thirst. And fire went out of a rod of its boughs, consumed [devoured] its fruit, and there was not in it [more] a strong rod, a staff [sceptre] for ruling. This is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation.
Eze 19:1. Sept.: …
Eze 19:3. K.
Eze 19:5. K. . , .
Eze 19:7. … . . , . . Vulg.: Didicit viduas facere, et in desertum adducere
Eze 19:9. … , . (For other copies read .)
Eze 19:10. … , Vulg.: quasi vinea in sanguine tuo super aquam(For there is a reading: in celsitudine tua.
Eze 19:11. . , …. Vulg.: statura ejus inter frondes
Eze 19:14. Sept.: … , . .
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
The parallel to Ezekiel 17. shows itself clearly in substance and form: that also referred to the kingdom of Jerusalem; this has the same enigmatic style, the same borrowing of figurative expressions from the plant and animal world, and agrees partially in general, and in particular expressions.
Eze 19:1. , introducing a partial contrast, so that the proverb of the previous chapter, from the side of the people, is now confronted by the lamentation, from the side of the prophet. It is an elegy (possibly on the model of songs like 2Ch 35:25, Hv.), a lament, whose occasion is contemplated as an existing reality. That which hangs over the kingdom is already an accomplished fact; one only requires to summon what has happened into the present, in order to anticipate easily what is about to happen. Comp. Eze 2:10.The princes (Eze 7:27; Eze 12:10; Eze 12:12) are evidently the existing kings, Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin, as royal types for the future of the Israelitish kingdom. According to Hv., the lament was devoted to the Davidic royal race in general. Purposely of Israel, because Davids house alone was legitimate over all Israel (Hv.)., paronomasia with .
Eze 19:2-9. The Kings
Eze 19:2. The address is directed to the people. According to Hengst., to the tribe of Judah, the people of the present. [Ewald makes Ezekiel sing beforehand, in the spirit of prophecy, a lament over Zedekiah, and his inevitable overthrow. Hitzig even alters the plural, princes, into the singular, prince (following the Sept.), for the sake of this interpretation. Rosenm. makes Jehoiachin the subject, who, like Ezekiel, was in exile.]The mother of the people is Jerusalem (Eze 21:25 [20]). Comp. Gal 4:25 sq. [Ewald: the ancient church. Hitzig: the people of Israel. Hv.: ancient Israel in its earlier glory. Klief.: Israel as a historical people. Hengst.: the people per se.] Perhaps an allusion to Isa 29:1 sq. Jerusalem-Judah, as in Ezekiel 16.The retrospective reference of the figure employed to Gen 49:9 sq. is evident, recommends itself also by the allusion to Judah, and is not gainsaid by Klief.; just because the figure is here turned in malam partem, all the more would the contrast suit as a set-off to the promise in Genesis 49. Comp. Num 23:24; Num 24:9. The royal nature is meant to be depicted (of equal birth with other independent and powerful nations, as this royal nature was historically displayed, especially in the times of David and Solomon, Hengst.): Jerusalem the royal city (Rev 5:5). The complaint fairly begins with . [Klief., on the other hand, assumes a double reproach, that Israel conforms itself to the heathen world-powers, and that it thus destroys its kings (!). Hence it is rather a complaint against the Israel of that time.]That she lay down among the neighbouring royal states betokens majestic repose and conscious security,the fearless one exciting fear by imposing power. (Comp. further Eze 16:14.)The simple result is, that among young lions ( is the young lion which already goes after prey; is any young creature which is still with its mother, in particular the young of the lion) Jerusalem brought up her royal children in royal splendour, for a kingly destiny. Perhaps also a hint at the first establishment of the kingdom of Israel, which would be like all the nations (1Sa 8:5-20)!
Eze 19:3. Shethe royal mother-city (Lam 1:1).The one of her young ones, so that in may be included the idea of the increase of the family, is described entirely from the natural side as a real young lion. is: to snatch away; hence: to acquire as booty; also: to tear asunder, into which sense the clause, he devoured men, immediately passes over. Comp. as to Jehoahaz, 2Ki 23:32. What is there said (2Ki 19:30) of the people of the land in reference to the anointing of Jehoahaz is taken by Hengst. in connection with this verse. He became a young lion, can also be equivalent to: became a king; and what follows may betoken the political development of kingly power.
Eze 19:4. Heard of him: as when the rumour of the proximity of a devastating lion spreads, and the hunting of the ravenous beast now begins; or, that their attention was directed towards him by his roaring, so that they proceeded to hunt him. As to the fact, see 2Ki 23:33-34 is a hook, a ring, which one puts through the nose of animals that require to be restrained (2Ki 19:18), to attach to it the bridle by which they are led, by which also their power of breathing can be lessened.
Eze 19:5. Up to this point, Egypt; now the other world-power, Babylon (2Ki 24:7). Comp. Ezekiel 17. Pharaoh Necho had appointed Jehoiakim king, who is left out of account in the lament, because death had deprived him of his crown, 2Ki 24:6. For the connection, he is omitted as Egyptian, and therefore not answering to the representation of Eze 19:3 (comp. Eze 19:6). After Jehoahaz only Jehoiachin can come into view., Niphal from (), to expect; Ewald: to be in pain, to feel feeble, hence to despair; she saw that she was deceivedher hope lost. Hv. as Gen 8:12 : and she saw that her hope was deferred and had come to nothing, to wit, the hope entertained at first of possibly procuring the deliverance of Jehoahaz through the humiliation of Egypt. Expectations from the other world-power, to which the eye could turn, are here most appropriate, since the Babylonish world-power was forming itself at that very time, is simply: while (when) she waited, she saw; her hope touching the one royal son had perished. Then she took, etc., 2Ki 24:8 sq. answers perfectly to the youthful age of Jehoiachin.
Eze 19:6. Jehoiachin conducted himself as a king, exactly like other kings; comp. Eze 19:3. If is to be translated lionesses, then the idea might thereby be made prominent that he acted after the manner of his mother, Eze 19:2-7. . Against the sense which Hv., Hengst., and others adopt, it may be said that the figure would be abandoned, and that 2Ki 24:9 refers to nothing so special as the defilement of widows. Hv.: their (collective: of the slain, Eze 19:6); Hengst.: his (whom he as king was bound to protect), at the same time the peoples widows, the person miserabiles. Others: he observed his widows (whom he had made so by devouring their husbands). He had them before his eyes. can hardly signify here widows in the ordinary sense, it would be so entirely against the parallelism (). The passage remains figurative; although the king referred to breaks through the figurative drapery, he is spoken of in a still more appropriate pictorial manner. As in Isa 13:22, the word in question is used poetically of widowed palaces, i.e. forsaken of their inhabitants, so here ironically. Jehoiachin is described (2Ki 24:9) as altogether like his father (Jehoiakim), which must not be overlooked; while (2Ki 23:32) it is said of Jehoahaz, more generally that he did as his fathers. If we were entitled to colour the portrait of Jehoiachin from our knowledge of Jehoiakim, then Jeremiah 22, especially Eze 19:13 sq., offers, in what is said of his despotic passion for building, all that is necessary for a good understanding of our passage. is therefore: he perceived, i.e. was anxious about (Gen 39:6), knewhis palaces, built by his father, which so soon (after three months) became widowed palaces. And as that was the object of his anxious thought and longing, his conduct corresponded, inasmuch as, for his palaces, he devastated the cities of others (their). [Ewald (like the Chald.) reads , from : shattered their palaces.] The words describe the disorder of the land. Eze 12:19.
Eze 19:8. The object of is completed from what follows. The heathen peoples round about, etc. Ewald: The gay Chaldean host (Eze 17:3). Hengst.: The provinces are the surrounding countries, as parts of the Chaldean empire; comp. 2Ki 24:2, according to which the Syrians, Ammonites, and Moabites were summoned against Jehoiakim, the father of Jehoiachin.Comp. Eze 19:4; Eze 12:13.
Eze 19:9. It is customary to transport lions in large and very strong cages (J. D. Mich.).The heathen-world thus made an end of the dominion. recalls Eze 19:8. In chains, as Eze 19:4. To the king of Babylon, counterpart to to the land of Egypt. As to further parallels, see the verses. Stronghold (Heb. pl.), an indefinite, poetic, general] term (Jdg 12:7). That his voice, etc., points back to Eze 19:7. 2Ki 24:12 could not be expressed otherwise, by means of the foregoing figure, than in terms parallel to Eze 19:4. The more special element of the history is concealed by the poetic veil.
Eze 19:10-14. The Mother of Kings
Just as in Ezekiel 17, a transition to another figure, namely, to that which is there (Eze 19:5 sq.) used as to King Zedekiah, the subject still remaining the kingdom.
Eze 19:10 The address, as in Eze 19:2, and the mother, who is compared to a vine, is also, as there, Jerusalem (Psa 80:9 [8]). In thy blood; Ewald: in his likeness, like thee (Zedekiah!):analogous to in thy name.Hengst.: it concerns thee ( = , comp. , Heb 11:19), i.e. what is here said of the mother applies pre-eminently to the people of the presenttua res agitur, etc. Kimchi and Rashi fix on , others derive from , or read ; where as Piscator, Hv., and others adopt , , in silentio tuo, in thy rest, the happy peaceful time (Isa 38:10), which hardly suits the line of thought, and doesnt at all fit into the figure of the vine. Gesen. reads: , in thy vineyard. The Sept. reads: , by the pomegranate tree, because vines and pomegranates were often found together (Num 20:5). Hitzig: He had thus a support in contradistinction to Eze 17:4. The simplest rendering is in thy blood, i.e. in the life of the stem of Judah. Eze 19:2 looked back to Gen 49:9 sq., and this verse looks back to Eze 19:11 of the same chapter, where the figurative allusion to the blood of the grape (Deu 32:14) suggests the point of connection with the vine figure. Comp. further at Eze 17:8; Eze 17:5.
Eze 19:11. There grew up in Jerusalem-Judah strong shoots of David, able to rule (Gen 49:10)., Eze 17:6. The singular suffix refers not to , but rather to , either to the one who was before their eyes, i.e. Zedekiah, or better still, with Hengst., to the sceptres conceived of as one, and thus to the royal race as a whole. The plural , which is peculiar to Ezekiel, has made many think of thickets,a profuse growth between the thick branches, rising above them. According to Ewald and most moderns, it stands for thicket-clouds and darkness. Hengst.: among the clouds, through and over them.And was conspicuous: subject .
Eze 19:12. Without the intervention of anything farther, there follows its splendid growth, like a lightning flash from the clear heavens, the complete overthrow of the vine, i.e. of Jerusalem-Judah, the birthplace of kings, and therewith the Davidic kingdom. Answering to it, there is here the Hophal of , its only instance. Only one must not assume, with most interpreters, that the banishment of the people is what is meant (Ewald also makes the whole congregation fall with the king). The distinction between the two paragraphs is merely this, that while Eze 19:2-9 bewailed the existing kings, both as bearers of the Davidic royalty, and at the same time as suggestive, by their fate, to the actual king; now Zedekiah, as he with whom the Davidic kingdom is subverted, becomes the subject of the lament, just as if everything had already happened. (Comp. Deu 29:27; 1Ki 14:15; Jer 12:17.)Eze 8:18. Through the anger of God. To the ground, etc. Pictorial, but not indicating the expatriation to another land.Eze 17:10; Eze 17:9., collective; comp. with Eze 19:11. The singular, construed with the plural of the verb, comprehends the strong rods in a single view, with reference to Zedekiah. The suffix refers to , not to . Comp. Eze 15:5; Eze 15:7. The fire, the divine judgment in its consuming character, as is explained by Eze 19:14.
Eze 19:13. And now, spoken in presence of the circumstances of the exile, concerning the remnant of the Davidic royal line. Hence planting after the withering and burning can still be spoken of, and this not on account of the people, but because the residue of the Davidic royal line is likewise in exile.The wilderness (figurative)without any allusion to Israels passing through the wilderness (Hengst.), which was altogether differentsimply describes, in contrast to Eze 19:10 sq., a condition of chastisement in which the vine, Judahs kingdom, cannot prosper.Drought, objective; thirst, subjective.
Eze 19:14 adds to (1) the wrath of God, and to (2) the Chaldeans as instruments (Eze 19:12), the explanation of the fire (Eze 19:12), to wit, (3) Zedekiahs offence (according to Eze 17:15 sq.). Comp. Eze 5:4; Jdg 9:15.Rod of its boughs (Eze 17:6) is the rod which the boughs made, which the strong vitality of the royal vine caused to shoot.The closing sentence appropriately includes both parts of the chapter,that which has happened and that which is to happen. , prophetic perfect. (It is not the fancy of a gloomy seer, but the prediction of a lamentation which will actually flow in a thousand voices from the mouth of the people, etc., Hengst.) Hv.: And it was for, etc.; as historical notice of the subsequently written prophecy, to attest its true fulfilment.
THEOLOGICAL REMARKS
1. Hvernick describes the fundamental character of this chapter as lyrical, prophetically elegiac. Ewald calls it the model of an elegyartistic as to the construction of its lines,the finest and most touching of all in the Old Testament. As to the form, he says: The long line prevails, but it is almost always divided in the middle into two complete halves, so that the second half abruptly broken off follows the first only like a brief, transient, sighing echo. And thus, what the construction of the whole song is, as to its two directions, is repeated in the line.
2. It is a song of three kings; or of two broken, and one breaking sceptre.
3. In regard to the historical relations, the carrying away of Jehoahaz to Egypt is parallel to that of Jehoiachin to Babylon. The intermediate Jehoiakim is left out; but because he is the more important and the characteristic person, for the beginning of the Babylonian servitude, Jehoiachin is retained in his true colours. (As similarly Zedekiah in Jeremiah 27)
4. In the lion-figure, the nobler passes over into the less noble aspect, on which Hengst. remarks: By the constitution of human nature, arrogance is inseparably connected with high rank, and therewith a rude barbarity towards all who are barriers in its way. He only who walks with God can escape this natural consequence, and the walk of faith is not the attainment of every man. It should, however, be the attainment of every one of the people of God; and where it is wanting, so that the corrupt nature unfolds itself without opposition, there the divine vengeance takes effect. Jehoahaz showed himself a barbarous tyrant towards his own subjects, whereas the kingdom of Israel was designed to exhibit a heroic energy against the enemies of the people of God. On this account he was punished.
5. The Messianic hope was bound up with the Davidic kingdom, whose subversion is here illustrated from Eze 18:22 sq., and its fulfilment is shown in this, that He who appeared in the world, declared, not without a reference to our chapter, I am the true Vine.
HOMILETIC HINTS
Eze 19:1 sq.: In all times the sorrowful and the joyful have been expressed in poetry (L.).Sacred poetry a companion on the heights and in the depths of life and feeling. See the Psalms.Princes should be pious people, who care for the eternal as well as temporal welfare of their subjects, who judge equitably, avoid tyranny, and corrupt none by their example. But when subjects do not pray for their princes, and descend everywhere to the level of beasts in their habits, God gives them beasts as princes. For the sins of a people tyrants rule over them (L.).
Eze 19:2. So long as the Jewish people acted according to the law of God, they rested in safety and without fear (Schm.).Judah brought up, in its princes, the rods of Gods chastisement (Richt.).The society of bad men only makes one become more wicked (Stck.).
Eze 19:3. A royal up-bringing, when it is merely that, makes royal sinners. Great lords, alas! frequently bear lions and such like not merely on their escutcheons. That they also do, who drain men of everything, even to their blood (B. B.).There are men-eaters who yet devour no men.
Eze 19:4. Violence is always topped by greater violence or cunning.Many a court, though it be the princes own, is the pit in which the lion is taken!There are also chains for kingstheir minions.
Eze 19:5 sq. In the place of one tyrant a second can come.
Eze 19:7. Through a prince, his land also suffers.The kings voice should be terrible to the wicked only, never to the good (L.).To the lions roaring belong cabinet orders, royal edicts.
Eze 19:8 sq. What a network is woven about princes by court intrigues!The fate of tyrants has usually been a sad one. God has pits, nets, hunters, and cages for them even in this world, but certainly in the next (L.).He who lives like a beast, shall be requited like a beast (Stck.).At last the lions roaring on the mountains dies away.
Eze 19:10. In Judah there was royal blood,the lion and the vine together.Apply that to the blood of Christ! (Richt.)He who can count the drops of water, may count the number of Gods acts of love (B. B.).It is of Gods unmerited grace that some royal houses are blessed beyond others, and for this He will be honoured and praised, 2Sa 7:18 (St.).
Eze 19:11 sq. The higher the ascent, the deeper the fall; God remains the highest, the highest over all.The night before destruction is sometimes full of happiness and splendour.The bloom of princely houses, as of great cities and famous trading houses, is of a tender and easily withered nature.
Eze 19:13. Where Gods gracious presence with His word and Spirit is wanting, there a desert is; and the whole world is a land of drought, which can give no refreshment to the soul which hungers and thirsts for God (B. B.).The prosperous soil for princes and also for people is true religion.Where Gods word is despised, kingdoms themselves become a waste.
Eze 19:14. Each man supplies the fire for his own burning (Stck.).The fire of ones own unrighteousness kindles the wrathful judgment of God, Isa 1:31 (Schm.).Men first become parched, then the fire consumes them (Stck.).A little spark, a single sin apparently, and at first really a little one, can cause a great fire (Stck.).Till Christ no other king from Davids stem (Richt.).Every sin ends in lamentation, even here, but certainly there (Stck.).
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The Prophet, at the command of the Lord, is, in this chapter, lamenting for the princes of Israel. The language is, as usual, figurative.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
This is a very instructive chapter, especially to Ministers of the Gospel. The Prophet, under the similitude of a lioness bereaved of her whelps, sets forth the desolate state of the royal house of David, and the kings of Israel and Judah; and the Lord commands the Prophet to feel for the ruined state of the land, and especially for the princes of it. She had sat as a queen among the nations, and in Solomon’s days all the people of the earth had paid tribute to her. But now, like a lion fallen into a pit, and there taken in chains and carried to a cage, the Lord’s heritage was given for a prey into the hands of her enemies. Reader! if we spiritualize the subject, and in what is here said, behold the Church of Jesus (for His Church it was before the after-fall in Adam), what a sad representation doth it afford! Who can behold the melancholy state of Zion, from the fall to the present hour, but must sensibly feel for the desolations the enemy of souls hath induced. And although, blessed be God, redemption is secure, and like Israel from Babylon, when the seventy years determined were run out, deliverance came, yet it behoves, the people of God to mourn during the triumphs of the accursed foe. Lam 1:12 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Devourers and Endeavourers
Eze 19:3
It was a beast, and yet it devoured men men that were intended in the Divine purpose and love to be sons of God. It was no ordinary quality of men that this beast learned to devour; the message is delivered to ‘the princes of Israel’. ‘What is thy mother?’ A woman degraded, bestialized. ‘A lioness… and she brought up one of her whelps; it became a young lion, and it learned’ a word to be specially noted ‘ to catch the prey; it devoured men.’ The whole lamentation is allegorical. Never omit the ideal from your criticism. We may unduly exalt the ideal or parabolical, or we may unduly repress it, and, shutting it out of our purview, we may starve our highest faculties and get nothing out of the Bible but letters, syllables, written and printed in iron and in ink.
I. ‘It devoured men.’ That is an allegorical lion, a beast that lived long ago, a beast that is dead. There you mistake the whole case. This ravenous lion is not only a lion now, but the beast is alive in every one of us.
There are two classes in the world at this moment Endeavourers and Devourers. There they are, and you can follow which band you please endeavourers, devourers and you cannot belong to the betwixt-and-between party. Perhaps you would not like to belong to the endeavourers, because that name may have to your perverted taste somewhat of cant and infatuation about it, and you want to see how the idea goes on before you join it, and you will join it most lovingly when it does not need you. There are many persons waiting to applaud me as soon as I become a very great man. Then they are my friends, they always were my friends; they had not said much about it perhaps, but they always had a warm side to me, and if ever I became a millionaire twice over and were the prime favourite of the throne, why, of course they knew me.
II. What remark occurs to you when thinking about the devourers? A very commonplace remark, but only commonplace because it is profoundly true The devourer always takes the easy course. That is why I contemn him. God never takes easy courses. Jesus never took an easy course. That is one of the reasons why I from a merely literary point of view delight in the conception of the Jesus of the New Testament. From the very first He would do hard work; He said He would save the world. There are some propositions that glorify themselves by their very boldness. Audacity may be an element and a seal of subdued and holy ambition.
We have in the first instance a devourer of men; in the second instance we have a Saviour of men. Which are we going to follow? which will really do us good? which will talk to us upon the greatest subjects? Let us listen to the conversation of both, and determine by the tone of the conversation which is the devourer and which is the endeavourer or saviour.
Joseph Parker, City Temple Pulpit, vol. III. p. 214.
References. XX. 2. J. Baldwin Brown, The Soul’s Exodus and Pilgrimage, Phi 1 and 164. XX. 6. G. Davidson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lii. 1897, p. 72.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
XVI
PROPHECIES ON THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM (CONTINUED)
Ezekiel 15-24
We may ask ourselves at the outset, What purpose did Jeremiah serve in preaching forty years the downfall of the city, warning the people of their sins, though he knew that downfall was absolutely certain, yet all the time seeking to save the city? Why should God require a man to give forty years of his life to guard the people against the inevitable? Why should he require of a man like Ezekiel so many years of preaching to those already in exile concerning the fall of the city of Jerusalem? Why should he exert himself in the manner in which he did, to warn those in Babylon of the fall of Jerusalem?
Jeremiah’s preaching had this effect: It prepared the people in a measure for the downfall of their Temple and their capital and thus helped them to keep faith in God. Whereas, the fall of their capital and city without such a warning would have inevitably shattered their faith in God. Jeremiah’s prophecies of the restoration and the glorious future also helped the earnest heart to prepare for that future and for that restoration. Ezekiel’s preaching to the exiles in Babylon also prepared them for the fall of Jerusalem and also preserved their faith in God. It furnished them with truth to keep alive their faith during the period when their Temple was gone; it also served as a stay during the period of the exile and prepared them for the return. Though it seems that Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s long ministries were temporarily fruitless, yet they were the means of preparing the people for a possible future and their work abides.
Why did Ezekiel use all these symbols, figures and metaphors to those people who were already in exile in Babylon? It was to prepare their faith, so that when the shock came they might withstand it and be ready to return when God called them. As a result of Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s preaching, nearly 50,000 people were prepared to return as soon as the decree of Cyrus was sent forth. One may see no immediate result of his preaching, yet when he is preaching what God wants him to preach, the fruits may be all the greater because they are delayed.
In Eze 15 we have the parable of the vine tree and its interpretation. This is a parable in which Israel is likened to a vine tree among the trees of the forest. The vine tree is a very lowly tree. It is of comparatively little use. The wood thereof is not taken for fire, nor do people make pins or pegs from it. It is simply cast forth to be burned as rubbish. It is not profitable for anything. Then what does he mean? The Kingdom of Judah was among the great kingdoms of the world as the lowly vine tree was among the trees of the forest. It was of little use; it would not do for wood to burn; it would not do to make furniture or anything useful. It was simply cast off. All this we readily see would have its effect upon the people. It is a blow at their national pride. It goes to show that a mere vine of the forest that is cast away and burned as rubbish may be destroyed, while the lordly trees of the forest are still preserved. Judah is a lowly, contemptible kingdom beside the other kingdoms, and it is no great thing if she does perish. Notice, he makes no mention of the fruit of the vine. There was no fruit to this vine. In the case of the grape the vine is useless when there is no fruit; the vine is utterly valueless and fit only to be cast off. Thus he prophesied that Jerusalem should be burned with fire and its inhabitants destroyed.
In Eze 16 we have an allegory of the foundling child and its interpretation. This whole chapter is an allegory. Judah is described as a wretched outcast infant on the very day of its birth, thrown out into the field, a thing all too frequently done among Semitic and other Oriental peoples. There the infant lay, ready to perish. Jehovah comes along and sees the child thus in its neglected, wretched, forsaken condition; takes pity upon it; cares for it in the best way possible; rears it up until the child, a female child, becomes a young woman. She becomes of marriageable age, and then she is espoused to her husband, Jehovah. He adorns her with all the beauties with which a bride can possibly be adorned, and crowns her with a beautiful crown, and as Eze 16:14 says, “Thy renown went forth among the nations for thy beauty; for it was perfect, through my majesty which I had put upon thee.” All went well for a time, but the foundling child which had the disposition of the Amorite and of the Hittite, very soon became the faithless bride and then rapidly degenerated into a shameless and abandoned prostitute. She prostituted herself with Egypt, with Assyria, and with Babylonia and their gods; then went into the very extreme of wickedness and sank to the very lowest depths of shame.
As a result of this absolute abandonment to wickedness, this prostitution of herself to idol worship, the nation is doomed to destruction at the hands of the very people after whom she had gone, and whose gods she had sought and worshiped. They were to gather around her from every side and were to destroy and lay waste the very bride of Jehovah. This passage is doubtless the analogue of that famous passage in Rev 17 , where the apostate church is compared to the harlot sitting upon the beast. He goes on and compares Jerusalem with Samaria and with Sodom. Notice verse Eze 16:46 : “Thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters, that dwelleth at thy left hand; and thy younger sister that dwelleth at thy right hand is Sodom and her daughters.”
In Eze 16:48 he says that Jerusalem is worse and more shameless than even Sodom: “As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.” In Eze 16:49 he gives the sin of Sodom: “Pride, fulness of bread, and prosperous ease,” the besetting sins of the society women of every city of the land. Eze 16:51 says, “Neither hath Samaria committed half of thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations,” and Eze 16:53 says, “I will turn again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, and the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them.”
What does he mean by saying that Sodom shall return from her captivity? No Sodomite was preserved; everyone perished. I think it means that in a future age all the land shall be reclaimed and even the place of Sodom shall be repeopled and, when restored and repeopled, will be like unto the inhabitants of Samaria and Jerusalem; that they will be loyal and true with new hearts and right spirits. It cannot be taken literally, for it is impossible that a Sodomite could return from captivity. It is necessary to read carefully all this allegory at one sitting to get its effect, to see and feel its force. It is powerful. Israel was not the descendant of an Amorite nor a Hittite. She had the blood of Chaldea and of Aram, but what he means is that there was in Israel from the very first the seeds of idolatry that existed in those Amorites among whom she lived. Thus Ezekiel prophesies the return of Samaria, the return and restoration of Jerusalem as well as Sodom, the last no doubt in a figurative sense.
We have had symbols, symbolic actions, and parables; now we have a riddle. The riddle is this, Eze 17:3 f: “A great eagle with great wings and long pinions, full of feathers, which had divers colours, came unto Lebanon, and took the top of the cedar; he cropped off the topmost of the young twigs thereof, and carried it into a land of traffic; he set it in a city of merchants.” And in Eze 17:5 it says, “He took also of the seed of the land, and planted it in a fruitful soil; he placed it beside many waters; he set it as a willow tree.” Verse Eze 17:6 : “And it grew, and became a spreading vine of low stature, whose branches turned toward him, and the roots thereof were under him: so it became a vine, and brought forth branches, and shot forth sprigs.” Then it began to send its roots in another direction as we see from verse Eze 17:7 : “There was also another great eagle with great wings and many feathers: and, behold, this vine did bend its roots toward him, and shot forth its branches toward him, that he might water it.”
What is the meaning of it? The first great eagle was Nebuchadnezzar who came from Babylon and lopped off the top of the cedar, Jehoiachin, the son of Josiah, and carried him away to Babylon with seven thousand of the best people. He then set Zedekiah upon the throne and made him a feeble, weak vassal, with the hope that Zedekiah would depend upon him, pay him tribute, seek strength and power from Babylon, i.e., send out his roots to Babylon. But instead of that, Zedekiah begins to plot with Pharaoh-Necho of Egypt and instead of sending roots toward Babylon, he sent them toward Egypt. This is the riddle and the explanation. The riddle found in Eze 17:1-10 and the explanation in Eze 17:11-21 .
In Eze 17:22-23 we have the promise of a universal kingdom. He uses the same figure, that of the lofty top of the cedar, the symbol of the lawful descendant, the legitimate heir to the throne of Israel. After the return, God is going to take the lofty top of the cedar and crop off a twig from the topmost limb and plant it in the top of a high mountain in Israel. The latter part of Eze 17:23 says, “And under it shall dwell all birds of every wing; in the shade of the branches thereof shall they dwell.” Here he means that from the royal family of David, a twig, the topmost twig, shall be taken by Almighty God, and shall be set upon a high and lofty throne and his kingdom shall become so large, so wide, so broad, that its dominion will be universal, and all the peoples of the world will come to lodge under its branches and enjoy its protection. This, of course, is the messianic kingdom.
In Eze 18 we have Ezekiel’s discussion on the moral freedom and responsibility of the individual before God. This is the most important theological contribution which Ezekiel made to the thought of his age. In this chapter he meets one of the most perplexing problems that ever troubled men. It was the great religious problem of his age. When Jeremiah prophesied the restoration of the people to their land, he said that the time would come when they would no longer say, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge,” but each one should bear and suffer for his own sins and sustain an individual, personal relationship to God. Individualism, liberty in religion, was a messianic principle with Jeremiah, but Ezekiel is already living in the new order of things, and he takes up the problem that confronted Jeremiah: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are on edge.”
What does he mean? It was a proverbial saying and there is implied in it a reproach against divine providence; a suggestion that God is unjust in his administration of the laws of the world; that the children are suffering wrongfully for sins they never committed, but which their fathers committed. All that is implied in it, but the real significance of the proverb is this: “The sins of which you accuse us were born in us; we can’t help them; we must sin; our fathers sinned and the evil has been transmitted to us; we can’t help ourselves.”
The proverb rose out of the fact that God dealt with nations as units, and the individual shared the effects of that dealing. That was the case with Israel all down through the ages until this period. But now when the greatest crisis in the history of the nation had come, the nation destroyed, the city burned, the Temple gone, the ceremonial and ritual at an end, the national religious life collapsed, what would be the effect? The only way in which religion could be preserved was for them to realize that each individual soul had an individual and personal relationship to God. This was something new in the history of religion, this idea of individual responsibility to and relationship with God.
Ezekiel meets this great problem and deals with it fairly and squarely. There are two principles brought out in this chapter, which are these:
1. “All souls [individual personalities] are mine, saith the Lord.”
2. “I have no pleasure in the death of any one of these persons. I do not wish any one of them to perish. It grieves me that they do. I have no pleasure in it.”
And then, arising from these two principles are two conclusions:
1. Each soul’s destiny depends upon its relation to God.
2. It is their privilege to repent and turn from sin.
The following is an analysis of the chapter:
1. The individual man is not involved in the sins and fate of his people or his forefathers (Eze 18:1-20 ). He says in Eze 18:5 , “If a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,” and the latter part of Eze 18:9 , “he is just, he shall surely live.” Verse Eze 18:10 : “And if he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood he [the robber] shall surely die.” Verse Eze 18:13 : “But hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase shall he then live? He shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.” In the latter part of Eze 18:17 , he says, “The righteous man shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.” In other words, no man shall die because of his father’s sins, but because of his own, and no man shall be responsible for his son’s sins, but for his own. Each individual shall bear his own personal relationship to God and that alone.
2. The individual soul does not lie under the ban of its own past (Eze 18:21-23 ). Ezekiel means to say this: “If any man going on in sin, should turn from his sin and should repent and get right with God, he shall live. He is no slave to his moral environment, no victim of the sins of his ancestors, he is not compelled to go on in sin. He means to say also that if a man going on and doing right should fall into sin and do unrighteousness, then he shall die in his iniquity; he shall suffer its consequences; he shall not have attributed to him anything of his past righteousness; that would be completely nullified. He shall not have an average made of his righteousness and wickedness, but according to the condition of his heart at that time he shall either live or die. Now, that does not abrogate the law of heredity; it does not say that we do not inherit evil tendencies; it does not say that the result of our past lives will not continue with us, but it does say that everything depends upon the man’s personal and individual relationship to his sins and to his God; that the trend of his mind, the bent of his character, is that which fixes his destiny.
In other words, it is the doctrine of moral freedom which implies individual responsibility, with a possibility of repentance, a possibility of sin, a possibility of individual relationship to God, a possibility of life or death. This chapter is worthy of long and careful study.
There is a lamentation in Eze 19 , set forth in two parables. Here Ezekiel represents Jerusalem as a lioness. She brought up one of her cubs, or whelps, and he became a young lion; the nations came, caught him, bound him, and he was carried away to Egypt. That was Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah. When he was gone, the lioness brought up another one of her whelps and he grew up to be a young lion. The nations came against him and he was caught and carried away to Babylon that his voice should be no more heard on the mountains of Judah. That was Jehoiachin. He makes no mention of Jehoiakim for he was only a vassal set upon the throne by Pharaoh, not the chosen heir to the throne. He makes no mention of Zedekiah for he also was a vassal placed upon the throne by Nebuchadnezzar, not by the choice of the people, and he was not one of the lioness’s whelps.
Then, Eze 19:10-14 , he describes the mother as a vine, and shows how the vine is to be plucked up, burned, and destroyed, signifying the end of the reign of Zedekiah with the destruction of his capital.
The prophet reviews the past history of Israel in Eze 20:20 and emphasizes the principle that has saved Israel, viz: Jehovah’s regard for his own name. The elders came to inquire of Ezekiel about the law, or about the fate of the city. Ezekiel said that God would not be inquired of by them. He then goes on to review the history of Israel, and shows them the principle which actuated Jehovah in the saving of that nation. It is this: In Eze 20:9 he says, “I wrought for my name’s sake, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt.” And in Eze 20:14 he refers to their salvation in the wilderness: “I wrought for my name’s sake, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations” and in Eze 20:22 , referring to his dealing with them while in the wilderness, he says, “Nevertheless I withdrew my hand, and wrought for my name’s sake, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations.” And from Eze 20:30-44 Ezekiel, in prophetic vision, sees that the return from captivity, the restoration from Babylon, the setting up of the glorious messianic kingdom in Jerusalem and Judah, will be done on this very same principle, viz: Jehovah’s regard for his own name.
The following is a summary of the contents of Eze 20:45-21:32 :
1. The fire in the forest of the South (Eze 20:35-49 ). The South refers to Judah and Jerusalem. Ezekiel sees from his situation in Babylon a fire raging in the South and burning the nation. It is a fire that shall not be quenched.
2. The sword of Jehovah shall be on Jerusalem (Eze 21:1-27 ). In substance, it is this: The sword of Jehovah is the sword of Nebuchadnezzar. It is coming against the city. When it is drawn it shall be sheathed no more. From Eze 21:8-17 we have Ezekiel’s “Song of the Sword,” a peculiar dirge picturing the sharpness of the sword and the anguish of the people. From Eze 21:18-27 the prophet represents the king of Babylon as undecided whether he should attack Ammon or Jerusalem first. He stands at the parting of the ways, and uses divination; he shook the arrows to and fro, he consulted the teraphim, he looked in the liver. He drew forth the arrow marked, “Jerusalem.” Hence he marches there first.
3. Threatening prophecy against Ammon (Eze 21:28-32 ). This contains very little that is different from the prophecy against Jerusalem and from what shall follow. The prophet repeats in Eze 21:22 , in new form, the same charge he has been making over and over again; the same that Jeremiah had made so repeatedly: the sins of Jerusalem are idolatry, bloodshed, open licentiousness, incest, and almost every other conceivable form of evil. Because of all this her destruction was certain and necessary, and all nations were involved in it.
We have the symbolism of two harlot women in Eze 23 . This is a history of two harlot women, Samaria and Jerusalem, under the names of Aholah and Aholibah. This is largely a repetition of Eze 16 . The chief thoughts are as follows:
1. The infidelities of Samaria with Assyria and Egypt (Eze 23:1-10 ).
2. The infidelities of Jerusalem with Assyria, Babylon and Egypt (Eze 23:11-21 ).
3. Therefore, her fate shall be like that of Samaria (Eze 23:22-35 ).
4. A new description of their immoralities and another that of punishment (Eze 23:36-49 ).
The date of the prophecy in Eze 24 is the very day upon which Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem, August 10, 588 B.C. The prophet here performs a symbolic action just as the siege begins. He takes a caldron, a great iron pot. The Lord tells him to pour water into it, to gather pieces of flesh, good pieces, the thigh and shoulder and choice bones; to take from the choicest of the flock, and to pile the wood up under it and to make it boil well. “Let the bones thereof be boiled in the midst of it.” Thus the symbolic action is carried on by Ezekiel.
What does it mean? At the moment Nebuchadnezzar began to surround Jerusalem the prophet performs this action. Jerusalem was the caldron; the inhabitants were the flesh therein, Jehovah was kindling the fire; he was piling up the wood and setting it ablaze, so that the unfortunate city would be seething and boiling and roasting as the flesh in a caldron. It was made so hot that the very rust of the iron was purged out and left it clean. In other words, Jerusalem should be so cleansed by the captivity and destruction of its city, that there would be left only the pure and clean (Eze 24:1-14 ). (See the author’s sermon on this paragraph in The River of Life.)
Another symbolic action occurs on the death of Ezekiel’s wife (Eze 24:15-27 ). The prophet mourns not. There is a very remarkable statement in the Eze 24:16 . God says to Ezekiel, “Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke: yet thou shalt neither mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down. Sigh, but not aloud, make no mourning for the dead; bind thy headtire upon thee, and put thy shoes upon thy feet, and cover thy lips, and eat not the bread of men.” Then he says, “So I spake unto the people in the morning; at even my wife died; and I did in the morning as I was commanded.” This symbolic action actually happened.
He says in Eze 24:18 , “I spake unto the people in the morn under the overwhelming grief that had fallen upon him so suddenly, he showed no signs of grief, he shed no tears, and heaved not an audible sigh. The people were unable to understand his actions, verse Eze 24:19 : “And the people said unto me, Wilt thou not tell us what these things are to us, that thou doest so?” He tells them: “And ye shall do as I have done: ye shall not cover your lips, nor eat the bread of men.” He means that very soon, as by a single stroke, a swift and inevitable stroke of justice, their fair and beloved city, Jerusalem, shall be destroyed, and they will be so stunned, so bewildered, so dumbfounded, so paralyzed that they will be unable to eat bread or even to sigh. In that stunned and dazed condition they shall bear their almost unbearable burden. It was a striking symbol, very touching, and it must have bad great effect.
QUESTIONS
1. To what end were the ministries of Jeremiah and Ezekiel?
2. What the parable of the vine tree and its interpretation? (Eze 15 .)
3. Give the allegory of the foundling child and its interpretation (Eze 16 ).
4. What the riddle of Eze 17 , what is its explanation, and what is the great promise in the latter part of this chapter?
5. What is Ezekiel’s discussion on the moral freedom and responsibility of the individual before God? (Eze 18 .)
6. What the lamentation in Eze 19 , and bow is it act forth in two parables? Give their interpretation.
7. What the principle upon which Jehovah acted toward Israel discussed in Eze 20 , and what the details of the discussion?
8. Give a summary of the contents of Eze 20:45-21:32 .
9. What the renewed charge against Jerusalem? (Eze 22 )
10. Who the two harlot women of Eze 23 and what the chief thoughts of this chapter?
11. What the meaning and application of the boiling pot and the blood on a rock? (Eze 24:1-14 .)
12. Explain the prophet’s action at the death, of his wife.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Eze 19:1 Moreover take thou up a lamentation for the princes of Israel,
Ver. 1. Moreover take thou up a lamentation. ] A threnodia, a doleful ditty. In all ages things joyful and sorrowful were made up in songs and ballads for popular use.
For the princes of Israel.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Ezekiel Chapter 19
Eze 19
“Moreover take thou up a lamentation for the princes of Israel, and say, What is thy mother? A lioness: she lay down among lions, she nourished her whelps among young lions. And she brought up one of her whelps: it became a young lion, and it learned to catch the prey; it devoured men. The nations also heard of him; he was taken in their pit, and they brought him with chains unto the land of Egypt.” (Ver. 1-4) Such was the end of Jehoahaz or Shallum, son of Josiah, unrighteous son of a righteous father, who died in Egypt whither Pharaoh-nechoh carried him prisoner.
But it fared no better with others from others; for God was forgotten, and evil ways ended as evilly. “Now when she saw that she had waited, and her hope was lost, then she took another of her whelps, and made him a young lion. And he went up and down among the lions, he became a young lion, and learned to catch the prey and devoured men. And he knew their desolate places, and he laid waste their cities; and the land was desolate, and the fulness thereof, by the noise of his roaring. Then the nations set against him on every side from the provinces, and spread their net over him; he was taken in their pit. And they put him in ward in chains, and brought him to the king of Babylon: they brought him into holds, that his voice should no more be heard upon the mountains of Israel.” (Ver. 5-9) Jehoiachin felt the chains of Nebuchadnezzar, as did Zedekiah with greater pain and ignominy, for indeed his guilt was great and bold against Jehovah. Hence the prophet could but bewail. “Thy mother is like a vine in thy blood, planted by the waters: she was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many waters. And she had strong rods for the sceptres of them that bare rule, and her stature was exalted among the thick branches, and she appeared in her height with the multitude of her branches. But she was plucked up in fury, she was cast down to the ground, and the east wind dried up her fruit: her strong rods were broken and withered; the fire consumed them. And now she is planted in the wilderness, in a dry and thirsty ground. And fire is gone out of a rod of her branches, which hath devoured her fruit, so that she hath no strong rod to be a sceptre to rule. This is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation.” (Ver. 10-14) It was not by weakness the chosen people or their princes fell; it was not by reason of strength that Egypt or Babylon prevailed. They turned from Jehovah to sin and must, as they do, serve the basest of the Gentiles in sorrow. The sceptre centres in Shiloh, who will return in power, as surely as He was crucified in weakness.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Eze 19:1-14
1As for you, take up a lamentation for the princes of Israel 2and say,
‘What was your mother?
A lioness among lions!
She lay down among young lions,
She reared her cubs.
3’When she brought up one of her cubs,
He became a lion,
And he learned to tear his prey;
He devoured men.
4Then nations heard about him;
He was captured in their pit,
And they brought him with hooks
To the land of Egypt.
5When she saw, as she waited,
That her hope was lost,
She took another of her cubs
And made him a young lion.
6And he walked about among the lions;
He became a young lion,
He learned to tear his prey;
He devoured men.
7He destroyed their fortified towers
And laid waste their cities;
And the land and its fullness were appalled
Because of the sound of his roaring.
8Then nations set against him
On every side from their provinces,
And they spread their net over him;
He was captured in their pit.
9They put him in a cage with hooks
And brought him to the king of Babylon;
They brought him in hunting nets
So that his voice would be heard no more
On the mountains of Israel.
10Your mother was like a vine in your vineyard,
Planted by the waters;
It was fruitful and full of branches
Because of abundant waters.
11And it had strong branches fit for scepters of rulers,
And its height was raised above the clouds
So that it was seen in its height with the mass of its branches.
12But it was plucked up in fury;
It was cast down to the ground;
And the east wind dried up its fruit.
Its strong branch was torn off
So that it withered;
The fire consumed it.
13And now it is planted in the wilderness,
In a dry and thirsty land.
14And fire has gone out from its branch;
It has consumed its shoots and fruit,
So that there is not in it a strong branch,
A scepter to rule.’
This is a lamentation, and has become a lamentation.
Eze 19:1 take up The VERB (BDB 669, KB 724, Qal IMPERATIVE) literally means to lift or to carry. Here it is used in an idiom for speak loudly or make heard.
It is surprising that this chapter does not start with the word of the LORD came to me saying (cf. Eze 1:3; Eze 6:1; Eze 7:1; Eze 11:14; Eze 12:1; Eze 12:8; Eze 12:17; Eze 12:21; Eze 12:26; Eze 13:1; Eze 14:2; Eze 14:12; Eze 15:1; Eze 16:1; Eze 17:1; Eze 18:1; Eze 20:2; Eze 20:45; Eze 21:1; Eze 21:8; Eze 21:18; Eze 22:1; etc.). Does this imply that chapters 18 and 19 form a literary unit? I think not since chapter 19 is a poetic lamentation.
lamentation This term (BDB 884) refers to a specific type of funeral song (cf. Eze 2:10; Eze 19:1; Eze 19:14; Eze 26:17; Eze 27:2; Eze 27:32; Eze 28:12; Eze 32:2; Eze 32:16). It becomes a literary marker for a new topic (genre, cf. Isa 14:3-21; Amo 5:1-3). In prophetic literature there are several standard oracle forms.
1. promise oracle
2. court terminology
3. funeral dirge
A good brief discussion of funeral rites in Israel can be seen in Roland DeVaux’s Ancient Israel, vol. 1, pp. 57-61.
the princes of Israel This (BDB 672) title (prince) is used in Ezekiel to refer to several groups.
1. King Zedekiah, Eze 7:27; Eze 12:10; Eze 12:12; Eze 21:25
2. leaders of Judah, Eze 21:12; Eze 22:6; Eze 45:8-9
3. future Davidic kings, Eze 34:24; Eze 37:25; Eze 44:3; Eze 45:7; Eze 45:16-17; Eze 45:22; Eze 46:2; Eze 46:4; Eze 46:8; Eze 46:10; Eze 46:12; Eze 46:16-18; Eze 48:21-22
4. foreign kings, Eze 26:16; Eze 27:21; Eze 30:13; Eze 32:29; Eze 38:2-3; Eze 39:1; Eze 39:18
The term implies members of a royal family. Here, because it is PLURAL, it refers to the king and others of his extended family in places of leadership.
Eze 19:2-9 This section of the lamentation refers to the kings of Judah, from the death of Josiah until the fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.).
1. Jehoahaz (Shallum, cf. Jer 22:11), 2Ki 23:31-33, who was Josiah’s son and successor, but exiled by Pharaoh Neco II after three months and replaced by
2. Jehoiakim (Eliakim), 2Ki 23:34 to 2Ki 24:7, who was also a son of Josiah. He reigned eleven years and died. He was replaced by
3. Jehoiachin (Jeconiah, Coniah), 2Ki 24:8-17, who reigned three months and was exiled to Babylon (cf. 2Ki 19:9, 597 B.C.) by Nebuchadnezzar II and replaced with
4. Zedekiah, 2Ki 24:18-20, who was placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar II. He rebelled and was captured, blinded, and exiled to Babylon.
Eze 19:2 your mother This refers to national Israel (cf. Eze 19:10) producing a line of Davidic kings (cf. Gen 49:9; Num 23:24; Rev 5:5). This ceased with Zedekiah’s exile. In a sense Zerubbabel (Sheshbazzar, Ezr 1:8) continued the Davidic line (cf. Hag 2:23; Zechariah 4).
Eze 19:7
NASBdestroyed
NKJVknew
NRSV, JPSOAravaged
TEVwrecked
NJBtore down
The MT has knew (, BDB 393), but most English translations assume an emendation destroyed (), following the Targums. With it, this poetic line is parallel to Eze 19:7 b. However, the UBS Hebrew OT Project gives the emendation a C rating.
NASBfortified towers
NKJVdesolate places
NRSVstrongholds
TEVforts
NJBpalaces
JPSOAwindows
The MT has windows (, BDB 48), but most English translations use an emendation citadel or strongholds (, BDB 74), which is primarily a change of the second consonant from L to R. The MT is understandable in context as it is. The UBS Hebrew OT Project gives it an A rating.
Eze 19:10-14 These verses change the metaphor describing Judah’s royal family not as a lion pride but a huge, tall grapevine. They also change time frames back to the beginnings of a unified kingdom (i.e., Saul, David, Solomon). The vine is described as
A. Positive
1. planted by waters, Eze 19:10
2. fruitful, Eze 19:10
3. full of strong branches, Eze 19:10-11
4. tall above the clouds, Eze 19:11
B. Negative
1. plucked up in fury, Eze 19:12
2. cast down to the ground, Eze 19:12
3. east wind dried up its fruit, Eze 19:12
4. strong branch torn off, Eze 19:12
5. planted in a wilderness, Eze 19:13
6. planted in a dry land, Eze 19:13
7. burned, Eze 19:14
The royal family was decimated (similar to chapter 17).
The lion metaphor for Judah may refer to Jacob’s prophecies about his children (esp. Judah, cf. Gen 49:9). Balaam also used this imagery to describe Israel (cf. Num 23:24; Num 24:9).
Eze 19:10
NASB, NRSVvineyard
NKJVbloodline
TEVgrapevine (Targums and LXX, vine)
NJB–omitted–
Peshitta,
JPSOAin your blood
The MT has blood (, BDB 196).The UBS Text Project (p. 58) gives it a C rating (considerable doubt). Most English translations have an emendation.
1. to be like ()
2. height
3. vineyard ()
4. omit the phrase (cf. REB).
The Ancient Near East often used the metaphor of a giant tree to describe world powers (e.g., Eze 17:3; Eze 17:22-24; Eze 19:10-14; Eze 31:2-18; Dan 4:4-17; Dan 4:19-27; and possibly Amo 2:9).
Eze 19:11
NASB, NKJV,
TEVbranches
NRSV, NJBstem
There is a wordplay between branches (BDB 641), which can mean staff, and scepter (BDB 986), also notice the same play in Eze 19:14.
NASB, TEVthe clouds
NKJV, NRSV,
NJBthe thick branches
NIDOTTE, vol. 3, p. 310, reads In Eze 19:11; Eze 31:3; Eze 31:10; Eze 31:14 one should read ‘clouds’ from ‘b, rather than ‘branches’ from ‘bt. The UBS Hebrew OT Project gives clouds an A rating.
Eze 19:12 the east wind This term (construct BDB 924 and 870) is used in Ezekiel many times (over fifty), but most often in chapters 40-48 simply as the east. It denotes (1) the direction of the rising sun or (2) a metaphor for destruction (i.e., desert wind), often with the added theological connotation of being sent by YHWH to accomplish His purposes.
1. Gen 41:6; Gen 41:23; Gen 41:27
2. Exo 10:13; Exo 14:21(positive)
3. wisdom literature, Job 27:21; Job 38:24; Psa 48:7; Psa 78:26 (representative sample)
4. Isa 27:8
5. Jer 18:17
6. Eze 17:10; Eze 19:12; Eze 27:26
7. Hos 13:15
8. Jon 4:8
9. Hab 1:9
The hot desert wind (Arabic, sirocco wind), like the rain, is at YHWH’s disposal! Wind (BDB 924, ruah) is often associated with YHWH’s power (i.e., Spirit) in the OT.
Eze 19:14 Fire is YHWH’s instrument of judgment (cf. Eze 15:4; Eze 20:47-48, see Special Topic at Eze 1:4). There will be no Davidic king after the exiled Zedekiah. Even Zerubbabel (Sheshbazzar, Ezr 1:8) was only a prince of the line, not a direct son. The direct son of 2 Samuel 7 will be the Messiah.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
princes. Septuagint reads”prince”(singular) Here refers to Zedekiah.
Israel. Put here for Judah. See note on 1Ki 12:17.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 19
Moreover, take thou up a lamentation ( Eze 19:1 )
So this is a lamentation. Notice at the beginning he says a lamentation and then at the end he said, “This is a lamentation and shall be a lamentation.” Now if I were a Bible critic, I would tell you why this wasn’t a lamentation. If I were in the school of higher criticism, one of those biblical scholars.
Moreover, take up a lamentation for the princes of Israel, and say, What is thy mother? She’s a lioness: she laid down among the lions, and she nourished her whelps among the lions ( Eze 19:1-2 ).
These are the princes now. Your mother is a lioness. She laid down among the lions.
And she brought up one of her whelps: and it became a young lion, and it learned to catch the prey; and it devoured men. And the nations also heard of him; and he was taken in their pit [caught in their trap], and they brought him with chains unto the land of Egypt ( Eze 19:3-4 ).
That would be the prince, or the king Jehoahaz.
Now when she saw that she had waited, and her hope was lost, then she took another of her whelps, and made him a young lion ( Eze 19:5 ).
This would be Jehoiachin.
And he went up and down among the lions, and he became a young lion, and learned to catch the prey, and devoured men. And he knew their desolate palaces, and he laid waste their cities; and the land was desolate, and the fullness thereof, by the noise of his roaring. Then the nations set against him on every side from the provinces, and spread their net over him: he was taken in their pit. And they put him in a ward in chains, and they brought him to the king of Babylon: and they brought him unto [the prisons] the holds, and his voice should no more be heard upon the mountains of Israel ( Eze 19:6-9 ).
Jehoiachin was carried away captive to Babylon.
And thy mother is like a vine in thy blood, planted by the waters: she was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many waters. And she had strong rods for the sceptres of them that bare rule, and her stature was exalted among the thick branches, and she appeared in her height with the multitude of her branches. But she was plucked up in fury, she was cast down to the ground, and the east wind dried up her fruit: her strong rods were broken and withered; the fire consumed them. And now she is planted in the wilderness, in a dry and thirsty ground. And fire is gone out of a rod of her branches, which hath devoured her fruit, so that she hath no strong rod to be a sceptre to rule. This is a lamentation, and shall be a lamentation ( Eze 19:10-14 ).
It, of course, speaks of the end of the kings of Israel because of their being conquered. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Eze 19:1-6
PROPHETIC FUNERAL FOR THE
EARTHLY HOUSE OF DAVID
This chapter is a dirge written by Ezekiel as a prophetic funeral for the earthly end of the House of David. As Cooke stated it:
“Ezekiel could write fine poetry when he chose; and on this occasion the impulse came from a mixed emotion, his pride in the royal house of Judah, and his pity for the misfortunes of the young princes.
Evidently, Cooke overlooked the fact that it was upon the express commandment of the Lord himself that Ezekiel wrote this dirge; and although it may not be doubted that Ezekiel did himself experience deep emotions in the expression of this lament, the prior experience of God Himself participated in the sorrow at the earthly failure of the house of David.
There are actually two laments here, the first under the allegory of a lioness and her whelps, and the second under the figure of a vine, a rod of which caused its total destruction. The first is in Eze 19:1-9; the second is in Eze 19:10-14.
Dummelow noted that these laments appear to be (1) for the nation as a whole, (2) for the royal house of David, or (3) for Hammutal, the mother of Zedekiah. Actually, the lament is for all of Israel, about to suffer the irrevocable loss of their status as God’s Chosen People, the final end of their racial status in God’s sight, and their integrity as an independent nation, a true independence which they would never more attain.
At this point in Israel’s history, there were no rulers of the kingdom that any man could trust. The wickedness of the ungodly men Ezekiel had just described in the preceding chapter was a true picture of Israel’s kings, best described as a den of wild animals! All of them were doomed to death; and, “A dirge, normally, was sung or chanted after the death of the deceased and during the funeral; but Ezekiel here expressed the Lord’s sadness over the failure of the Judean leadership by chanting this elegy over her terminal rulers before their deaths occurred.
In other words, Ezekiel publicly preached the funeral of Judah’s wicked kings while they were still alive! It must have been a very spectacular happening.
There was a special meter reserved in Hebrew literature for the writing of dirges, and it featured a distinctive pattern of one line with three beats, followed by a second line with two beats. Taylor noted that, “Only rarely can an English translation catch that distinctive feature. He illustrated the meter thus:
In-the-midst of lions she-crouched
Rearing her whelps.
The skillful use of this meter by Ezekiel throughout both the laments of this chapter makes the unity and Ezekiel’s authorship of it impossible of any intelligent denial.
“This lament, bewailing the overthrow of the royal house and the banishment of the whole nation into exile, forms a climax and finale to the preceding prophecies (Ezekiel 12-19) of the overthrow of Judah, and was well calculated to annihilate every hope that things might not really come to the worst after all.” God here preached Judah’s funeral!
Eze 19:1-6
“Moreover take thou up a lamentation for the princes of Israel, and say, What was thy mother? A lioness: she couched among lions, in the midst of young lions she nourished her whelps. And she brought up one of her whelps: he became a young lion, and he learned to catch the prey; he devoured men. The nations also heard of him; he was taken in their pit; and they brought him with hooks into the land of Egypt. Now when she saw that she waited, and her hope was lost, then she took another of her whelps, and made him a young lion. And he went up and down among the lions; he became a young lion, and he learned to catch the prey; he devoured men.”
“The princes of Israel …” (Eze 19:1). “Israel here is the whole Jewish nation over which the king of Judah was the only rightful sovereign.” The kings of Northern Israel were usurpers; and besides that, the Northern Israel was already in captivity and were no longer a factor in the prophetic considerations.
This paragraph outlines the disasters that befell the final kings of Judah, “in terms of the misfortunes of a brood of lion whelps.” Jeremiah discusses the descendants of Josiah in Jer 22:10-30.
The dramatic truth revealed by Ezekiel here is that, “Israel has put herself upon the level of the heathen nations around her, and has adopted the tyrannical and rapacious nature of the powers of the world. Israel has thus struck out upon a course opposed to her divine calling, and will now have to taste the bitter fruits of her heathen ways.
“One of her whelps …” (Eze 19:3). The first whelp mentioned here is a reference to Jehoahaz II (Shallum). “He was carried into captivity in Egypt after a brief three-months reign, during the year 609 B.C., by Pharaoh-Necco. Jehoiachim succeeded Jehoahaz II, but Ezekiel ignored him in this analogy, skipping over his rather long and bloody reign to the second whelp, which is Jehoiachin, (Jeconiah, or Coniah).
It is the mention of the first whelp’s being carried to Egypt that gives us the clue to his identity. Also, in this identification with Jehoahaz II gives us the clue for recognizing Jehoiachin as the second whelp. Neither one of the real “princes of Israel” reigned any more than three months. Both Jehoiachim and Zedekiah were vassals of foreign lords, Jehoiachim of Egypt, and Zedekiah of Babylon. Thus the pitiful termination of the “house of David” is seen in the 90-day reigns of his terminal princes. We are aware that many very learned scholars suppose that Jehoiachim and/or Zedekiah to be one of the two whelps; but Zedekiah is eliminated from consideration because he received a special elegy of his own in Eze 19:10-14, and does not particularly belong in the first one.
There is one very strong objection to our identification of these two whelps, and that was stated by Bruce. “Some scholars see Jehoiachin as the second whelp, but the language of Eze 19:6-8 does not fit him at all. This is true enough, but it does not fit Jehoahaz II either; and even Bruce admits him to be the first whelp.
Although neither Jehoahaz II nor Jehoiachin reigned long enough for their true character to manifest itself, their character is set forth here under the figure of ravaging lions that “devoured men.” This is God’s estimate of what those kings actually were; and God’s judgment of them is confirmed by the enmity of Egypt against the first one, and of Babylon against the second one, leading to their capture and deportation. The mention of their being taken in a pit, and “by hooks” conforms to the imagery of trapping wild beasts, and is not a description of their capture.
Plumptre agreed that Jehoiachim was not the second whelp; and Cooke also recognized that in Eze 19:9, “The allusion is to Jehoiachin, not to Zedekiah.
“Keil likewise identified the two whelps of this passage as Jehoahaz and Jehoachin, who were chosen here merely as examples, because they both fell into the hands of world powers. Moreover their fate showed very clearly what the end would inevitably be when the Jewish kings became ambitious to be “lions” like the kings of the nations around them.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
The last section in the prophet’s revelation of the righteousness of reprobation consists of his lament over the fallen princes of Judah. He first referred to Jehoahaz, the son and successor of Josiah, who was carried captive to Egypt. His mother, Judah, the prophet described as a lioness couched among lions, and nourishing her whelps. One of them was ensnared, and brought to Egypt. The mother disappointed, took another of her whelps.
The reference here is undoubtedly to Jehoiachin, who, after a brief reign in which he won certain victories, was carried away captive to Babylon.
The last moment in the lament has to do with the failure of Zedekiah and the ruin wrought by him. The mother is now likened to a vine which once was fruitful, and out of which grew strong rods as rulers. Her present condition is then described in contrast. Plucked up in fury, her strong rulers ceased, and out of her rods went forth a fire that destroyed. That is to say, Judah’s final destruction had come through those having rule over her, and the reference undoubtedly was to Zedekiah.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Chapter Nineteen
The Fallen Prince Of Judah
This chapter brings the present series to an end. In it God shows why the promises made to Judah of old seemed to fail of fulfilment. These had been predicated on the obedience of the people. But both they and their rulers had forfeited all title to blessing by their corrupt behavior. The Lord makes this plain, although He speaks in parabolic form as He so frequently does in this book.
Moreover, take thou up a lamentation for the princes of Israel, and say, What was thy mother? A lioness: she couched among lions, in the midst of the young lions she nourished her whelps. And she brought up one of her whelps: he became a young lion, and he learned to catch the prey; he devoured men. The nations also heard of him; he was taken in their pit; and they brought him with hooks unto the land of Egypt-vers. 1-4.
In the previous chapters we have seen exposed the guilt of the people. Now the Lord makes manifest the wickedness of their kings. While only two are brought definitely before us, suggesting that this lamentation was intended to exercise the conscience of Zedekiah; yet the same evil ways had characterized all the last four kings of Judah. We may think of both Judah and Jerusalem, the capital city, as represented by the mother lioness. God had said of old through Jacob, Judah is a lions whelp (Gen 49:9); and Balaam had depicted the nation that he could not curse, in the same way: Behold the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion (Num 23:24). It is true the same figure is used of other tribes than Judah, as Gad (Deu 33:20), and Dan (Deu 33:22). But here in Ezekiel it is evident that Judah is in view, as the royal tribe with her place in Jerusalem. From this tribe He was to come, through Davids line, who should be the Lion of the tribe of Judah, who shall fulfil at last all the promises of God (Rev 5:5).
Upon the death of the godly king Josiah, his son Jehoahaz, or Shallum, as he is otherwise called, was crowned king in his fathers stead. He is the young lion spoken of here. But he proved to be an unprincipled weakling, and was taken captive by Pharaoh-Necho and carried down to Egypt, never to return to the land of Palestine.
Now when she saw that she had waited, and her hope was lost, then she took another of her whelps, and made him a young lion. And he went up and down among the lions; he became a young lion, and he learned to catch the prey; he devoured men. And he knew their palaces, and laid waste their cities; and the land was desolate, and the fulness thereof, because of the noise of his roaring. Then the nations set against him on every side from the provinces; and they spread their net over him; he was taken in their pit. And they put him in a cage with hooks, and brought him to the king of Babylon; they brought him into strongholds, that his voice should no more be heard upon the mountains of Israel-vers. 6-9.
When it became apparent that it was hopeless to look for the return of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, whom the king of Egypt had set up in place of his brother, was recognized as king; but after eleven years he was carried to Babylon. Then in their desperation the people of Judah turned to the son of Jehoiakim, a youth of eighteen years of age, whose name closely resem- bled that of his father, Jehoiachin, or Jeconiah. He seems to be the young lion referred to here, as it was he and not his father whom Judah herself chose as king. But his reign was for less than four months, for Nebuchadnezzar came again into the land and carried him away in chains to Babylon, setting up Mattaniah, older brother of the deposed king, in his stead, and changing his name to Zedekiah. It was he who sat on the throne at this time; and it was his heart and conscience that this lamentation over the departed glory of the throne of David, was designed to reach; but alas, he was too far gone in the path of self-will to heed the message addressed to him. Therefore the fate of all the three kings before him might well serve as a warning to him. Actually because of his perversity he was to suffer worse things than any of them, for his sons were to be slain before his eyes, and then those eyes were to be put out and he himself carried as a blind and brokenhearted man to Babylon.
Thy mother was like a vine, in thy blood, planted by the waters: it was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many waters. And it had strong rods for the sceptres of them that bare rule, and their stature was exalted among the thick boughs, and they were seen in their height with the multitude of their branches. But it was plucked up in fury, it was cast down to the ground, and the east wind dried up its fruit: its strong rods were broken off and withered; the fire consumed them. And now it is planted in the wilderness, in a dry and thirsty land. And fire is gone out of the rods of its branches, it hath devoured its fruit, so that there is in it no strong rod to be a sceptre to rule. This is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation-vers. 10-14.
In this part of the lamentation God reverts to a figure formerly used. Judah was like a vine, which at one time had been fruitful and had spread abroad because of the blessing of the Lord when she walked in obedience to His Word. So rich was her fruitage that she is represented as a great vine with many spreading branches, supported by strong rods that the clusters of grapes might be properly harvested. But a change had come about because of her revolt from the law of God. She had chosen the path of self-will, and so the surrounding nations were permitted to destroy her branches, and the east wind of adversity wrought havoc with her fruit. Now she was as a broken, withered vine planted in the desert where all was waste and dry. Moreover, the fire of judgment had devoured the rods and the branches until at last there was no sceptre to rule. The last of her kings was about to go into captivity, and she should never know again a king of Davids line until He shall come, whose right it is to reign, our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall yet sit upon the throne of His father David and build again the tabernacle of David that is fallen down.
The departed sceptre may seem to be in contradiction of Gen 49:10, The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver (or the rulers staff) from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be. But here it is evidently the tribal sceptre, not the royal sceptre, that is in view. Judah remained a distinct and separate tribe until Shiloh-the Prince of Peace-came the first time, only to be rejected. Jacobs prophecy shall have its complete fulfilment when He comes again and the people shall gather together unto Him, owning Him as their rightful King.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
take: Eze 19:14, Eze 2:10, Eze 26:17, Eze 27:2, Eze 32:16, Eze 32:18, Jer 9:1, Jer 9:10, Jer 9:17, Jer 9:18, Jer 13:17, Jer 13:18
the princes: 2Ki 23:29, 2Ki 23:30, 2Ki 23:34, 2Ki 24:6, 2Ki 24:12, 2Ki 25:5-7, 2Ch 35:25, 2Ch 36:3, 2Ch 36:6, 2Ch 36:10, Jer 22:10-12, Jer 22:18, Jer 22:19, Jer 22:28, Jer 22:30, Jer 24:1, Jer 24:8, Jer 52:10, Jer 52:11, Jer 52:25-27, Lam 4:20, Lam 5:12
Reciprocal: Psa 76:4 – mountains Jer 7:29 – and take Eze 28:12 – take up Eze 32:2 – take up Amo 5:1 – I take
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Eze 19:1. The prophet was told to make a lamentation for the princes of Israel, which means Judah in this case since the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel had been in exile more than a century at the time of this writing.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Section 6 (Eze 19:1-14).
The victories of the Gentiles over the line of David, so that under them Israel never obtains her hope.
In this chapter we return to the lessons furnished by the history of the people. The prevailing of Gentile power over the line of David, spite of the promises of God given to it, is here pointed out. The hope which these promises awakened, Israel seemed not to obtain. We have not this fact merely, however, but the plain reason for it, which its very brevity makes all the more vivid. Two pictures of Israel are set side by side before us, Jerusalem and her king being the representatives of Israel; and these pictures are intended to cast light upon one another. There is a certain incongruity between them which at first sight makes the connection difficult, but which is the very point intended to be pressed. Jerusalem as the lioness among lions is the very secret of Jerusalem’s present broken-down condition as God’s vine.
The lamentation is over the princes of Israel; it is the kingdom that is before us, and the question is asked, “What was thy mother?” The answer is, “A lioness; she lay down among lions; she nourished her whelps in the midst of the young lions.” She is a kingdom among the kingdoms of the earth, in a relation to them which makes her offspring as their offspring, and reproduces in them the Gentile characters. There is, truly, a Lion of the tribe of Judah; it is a title of Christ Himself, and He will arise in this character to put down all enemies at last by one decisive stroke. The book of Revelation shows us Christ after this manner, as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. When the seer looks to see this Lion, however, he sees the Lamb. These things are not incongruous or contradictory in Him. The Lamb is His true and inner character; and all the way through it is the Lamb that is upon the throne, and it is the Lamb whose wrath is dreaded. The rod of iron, to use another figure, is in His hand; but it is the Shepherd’s rod none the less. Judgment is not only in behalf of righteousness, but it is the fruit of love itself. He must manifest Himself against the enemies of His people; He must destroy those that destroy the earth.
But the lion which is spoken of here is a very different one. Indeed, Israel was nothing now but a Gentile power, with the lawlessness and selfish spirit that belongs to man in nature. Her offspring manifest this: “She brought up one of her whelps. It became a young lion, and he learned to catch prey; he devoured men.” The statement is as decisive as it is short. This is not God’s picture of the “Ruler amongst men,” surely. It is not David’s picture in his final song; and we see how truly he realized it when he owned that his house was “not so with God.” Indeed, it was not, as the disorders already manifested plainly showed; but this being so, the rule of the line of David could not justify its existence; for even God’s promise would not do this apart from its possessing the characters of true rule, which it had not. Thus it directly follows that when “the nations heard of him, he was taken in their pit, and they brought him with hooks into the land of Egypt.” It is the fate of Jehoahaz that is referred to; it is his history generalized for our consideration. What would people do with a man-eating lion? The pit and the hooks were the only right treatment for such.
But Jehoahaz is only one example out of many: “And when she saw that she had waited and her hope was lost, she took another of her whelps and made him a young lion; and he went up and down among the lions; he became a young lion, and learned to catch prey: he devoured men.” We scarcely know whether it is Jehoachin who is spoken of here, or Zedekiah who replaced him. It is really of no consequence. In any case, it is but another lion’s whelp, like the former; and as the character is like, so also must be the result.
There is some further description to bring out fully the moral of the whole. The first expression is difficult, and there is some question with regard to the text. “He knew their palaces:” more strictly perhaps, “He knew their widows;” but it may mean, rather, their solitary or widowed places or palaces. Some would read it: “He broke down their palaces,” which would seem to connect better with what follows. But we have to be careful in Scripture how we take what seems simplest to be the best. The general thought, however, is plain: “He laid waste their cities, and the land was desolate and its fulness” (i.e., all that was in it), “because of the noise of his roaring.” His voice was evidently more pretentious than his power, but his power was enough, such as it was, to make a desolation, whereas there should have been prosperity. This repeats, therefore, only more emphatically, what was the character of these lion whelps. The consequence is that the same destruction comes upon him, only now from another side. “Then the nations set themselves against him on every side from the provinces, and spread their net over him. He was taken in their pit, and they put him into a cage with hooks, and brought him” (this time) “to the king of Babylon. They brought him into strongholds, that his voice should no more be heard upon the mountains of Israel.” This would make it look more like Zedekiah, the last king; but in any case it is the justification of the Gentile overthrow of David’s house, and it is a complete one. It may be said, of course, that these Gentiles were none of them any better. The answer is plain, that Israel, with all her privileges and her knowledge of God, should have been better; and that the profession of this knowledge could not possibly be permitted to dishonor God, accompanied, as it was, with the full heathen character.
This ends the first picture. Now, in opposition to this, we have what Israel should have been, what it was in the mind of God according to the place in which He had set it for Himself upon the earth. Here the address is, one would say, to Zedekiah: “Thy mother like thee is as a vine planted by the waters.” That seems the most probable rendering of another difficult expression. Naturally, the mother was like her offspring in character; but that is not the point here: it is place, not character; and the place of the king in Israel was to exhibit rightly the character corresponding to the place which God had given to the nation, the mass of which had departed from Him. Ezekiel, as Isaiah also, had already used the same figure, reminding us of fruitfulness as the only purpose of a vine, of its weakness and dependence. It was in this weakness that Israel would find her strength; it was in drawing from the one Source of all blessing that all her fruitfulness was to be found; and God had in Israel’s case done all that could be done in this respect. For a short time, intermittently, it was fruitful; but, by reason of many waters with which God had encompassed it, it grew strong rods for sceptres of them that bare rule, and its stature was exalted among the thick boughs, and it became conspicuous by its height with the multitude of its branches. That is all that is said as to its condition; but we have had abundance heretofore to show that, whilst in weakness she was to find strength, she turned her very blessings, alas, into instruments for her weakness.
These strong rods for sceptres were indeed conspicuous in such times as those of David and Solomon, when the kingdom stretched from the Edomite Gulf to the Euphrates; but it was at this very time that the seed was being sown of the disasters which were soon to follow. The idolatry under Solomon blasted it at once; and though God indeed bore with them in long patience, so that the history of the divided kingdom was prolonged for centuries, yet it forebode the end as a sure thing, and it came at last: “It was plucked up in fury, it was cast down to the ground, and the east wind dried up its fruit; its strong rods were broken and withered; the fire consumed them.” So much wood, useful for nothing else when the fruit was gone, as already shown -was proper fuel for the fire. Israel still remained, but in how different a condition! “And now it is planted in the wilderness in a dry and thirsty land, and the fire is gone out of a rod of its branches” (Zedekiah seems clearly intimated here), “it hath devoured its fruit, so that there is in it no strong rod to be a sceptre for ruling.” The kingdom had passed -passed with every hope that could be grounded upon man as man. It had passed in the righteous judgment of God upon it; and yet who can forbear to mourn for the blighting? “This is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation.”
We have thus reached already the close of this sad history. The last section here, extended beyond what is usual, gives us the summary of it all before the final judgment, which we reach in the last chapter of this division, where the siege of the city by Nebuchadnezzar is announced as having begun, and closes therefore the first division of the prophecy.
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
CLOSE OF PART ONE
Lack of space makes it necessary to crowd the remainder of Part 1 into a single lesson, but nothing vital to its general understanding will be lost, as the chapters are, to a certain extent, repetitions of the foregoing.
LAMENTATIONS FOR THE PRINCES (Ezekiel 19)
The theme of this chapter is found in the first and last verses. The princes are the kings of Judah Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, whose histories were made familiar in the closing chapters of 2 Kings , 1 Chronicles. Judah is the lioness (Eze 19:2). Jehoahaz is the first of her young lions (Eze 19:3), and Jehoiachin the second (Eze 19:4-9). Zedekiah is probably in mind in Eze 19:14.
REJECTION OF THE ELDERS (Ezekiel 20)
Eze 20:1 gives the occasion for this message, which falls into two great parts. Eze 20:1-32 recite the peoples rebellions against God during five distinct periods, i.e., in Egypt (Eze 19:2-9), in the wilderness (Eze 20:10-17), on the borders of Canaan (Eze 20:18-26), when a new generation arose in Canaan (Eze 20:27-29), and finally in the prophets own time (Eze 20:30-32). The explanation of Eze 20:25-26 seems to be that God chastised them, as in Numbers 25, by permitting Baals worshippers to tempt them to idolatry, ending in judgment upon them. The easy success of the tempters arts, showed how ready they were to be led astray (compare Eze 20:39).
Eze 20:32 should not lightly be passed over. It was in the heart of these Jews to live like the heathen round about them, and so escape the odium of having a peculiar God and law of their own. Moreover, they seemed to be getting nothing for it but threats and calamities, whereas the heathen seemed to be prospering. But God said it shall not be at all, and how literally this has been fulfilled is seen in the later history of the Jews down to our day. Though the Jews seem so likely to have blended with the rest of mankind and laid aside their distinctive peculiarities, yet they remained for centuries dispersed among all nations and without a home, but still distinct.
Eze 20:33 begins the second division of the prophecy. Lest the covenant people should abandon their distinctive hopes, and amalgamate with the surrounding heathen, God tells them that, as the wilderness journey from Egypt was made subservient to discipline, and also to the taking from among them the rebellious, so a severe discipline (such as the Jews for long have been actually undergoing) would be administered to them during the next exodus for the same purpose (Eze 20:38), and to prepare them for the restored possession of their land (Hos 2:14-15). This was only partially fulfilled at the return from Babylon; its full accomplishment is future.
THREE MESSAGES OF JUDGMENT (Ezekiel 21)
The three messages of this chapter explain themselves to those who have followed the lessons thus far. The first might be designated the parable of the sighing prophet (Eze 21:1-7), the second, that of the sword of God (Eze 21:8-17), while the third is notable for the prophecy that thereafter there should be no true king of Israel till the Messiah came (Eze 21:26-27; Act 15:14-17).
JERUSALEMS PRESENT SINS (Ezekiel 22)
The repetition of Jerusalems sins as given here suggests chapter 20; but there they were stated in a historical review, emphasis resting on the past, while here it is on the present.
AHOLAH AND AHOLIBAH (Ezekiel 23)
Here we have a parabolic portrayal similar to the adulterous wife in chapter 16; only that in this case it is not idolatries which are emphasized as violating the marriage covenant, but their worldly spirit, their alliances with the heathen for safety rather than confiding in God.
THE PERIOD OF SILENCE BEGINS (Ezekiel 24)
Ezekiel proves his divine mission by announcing, though three hundred miles away, the very day of the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (Eze 24:1-2). The ninth year means that of Jehoiachins captivity, which was also that of Ezekiel.
There was a self-confident proverb among the people (Eze 11:3) expressed in the sentence: This city is the caldron and we be the flesh. They meant that Jerusalem would prove an iron caldron-like defense from the fire of the Babylonian hosts around about them in the siege; but God tells them that their proverb would fit the case in a different way (Eze 24:3-14). Jerusalem should be a caldron set upon the fire, but the people, so many pieces of flesh subjected to boiling water within.
At Eze 24:15 a period of silence begins for the prophet, covering the three years of the siege (compare v. 1 and 27 of the chapter, with Eze 33:21-22). The opening of the period is marked by a personal calamity the death of the prophets wife (Eze 24:16-18). Ezekiel is not forbidden sorrow, but only the loud expression of it after the oriental manner, that his countrymen might be moved to ask the question (Eze 24:19) whose answer constitutes the remainder of the chapter. When Jerusalem would be destroyed, the calamity would be so felt that the ordinary usages of mourning would be suspended, or perhaps it signified that they could not in their exile manifest their sorrow, but only mourn one toward another. Thus the prophet was a sign unto them (Eze 24:24).
QUESTIONS
1. What is the title of chapter 19, and to whom does it refer?
2. What gives occasion for the rejection of the elders (v. 20)?
3. Analyze the first part of this chapter.
4. Explain verses 25-26 and verse 32.
5. What Messianic promise is found in Eze 21:27?
6. How would you explain chapter 33?
7. How does Ezekiel prove his inspiration in chapter 24?
8. How is the proverb about the caldron understood?
9. How long a period of silence is enjoined on the prophet?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Eze 19:1-2. Take up a lamentation for the princes of Israel The expression alludes to the mournful songs sung at funerals. Such a lamentation the prophet is directed to apply to the mournful condition of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. And say, What is thy mother? What resemblance shall I use to express the nature, deportment, and state of the mother of these princes, namely, Judea, or the Jewish nation? The prophet proposes a question that may be applied to each prince distinctly. A lioness Here is an allusion, says Grotius, to Gen 49:9, where Judah is represented under the emblem of a lion, and Judea was among the nations like a lioness among the beasts of the forest; she had strength and sovereignty. And the young lions which she produced are the princes, Josiahs successors, whose life and disgraces the prophet here points out. She lay down among the lions She remained in grandeur and security in the neighbourhood of many powerful kings. She nourished her whelps among lions She multiplied and increased in power, notwithstanding the envy of all the neighbouring nations.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Eze 19:2-3. Thy mother was a lionessshe brought up one of her whelps; it became a young lion. These words are cited from Jacobs testamentary benedictions, in which Judah is called a lions whelp. Gen 49:9. But here the appellation is given in the sense of Isa 29:1. Woe to Ariel; that is, the lion of God. Belligerent kings are often called lions. St. Paul says of Nero, God delivered me from the mouth of the lion.
Eze 19:4. He was taken in their pit. 1 Kings 23:33, 34. Man by ingenuity exercises his sovereignty still over the beasts of the earth. He displays the superiority of reason by drawing the fish from the deep, and by taking the fowls of heaven dead or alive at his pleasure. The largest of animals, the fiercest and swiftest of wild beasts, he takes with equal ease, by palisading the trees of the woods in the form of a cross or of the letter X, in the centre of which he digs a pit, and covers it over with boughs, rotten sticks, grass or leaves. Here, in the morning, he sometimes finds a lion, a tiger or a wolf, and disposes of his enemy at pleasure. Into this pit, with dogs and shouts, he drives the more peaceful buffalo, the deer, and other granivorous animals. This mode of taking them may illustrate many expressions of David respecting the pit.
Eze 19:6-7. He went up and down among the lionsdevoured menlaid waste their cities. After Davids house became idolaters, God apparently impaired their intellect; they did not know the relative weakness of their small kingdom. The scriptures say of Jehoahaz, that he did evil in the sight of the Lord. He levied war on his own subjects.
Eze 19:13-14. She, once a flourishing vine on the mountains of Israel, as in Psalms 80. and Isaiah 5., is now transplanted into the wilderness, dried and parched with the east wind of captivity. She has no strong rod to become a sceptre; not one prince of Davids house fit to fill his fathers throne.
REFLECTIONS.
From the parables in this chapter, we have deeply to lament the misconduct of the kings and the councils of Judah, during the last periods of the kingdom. They forfeited the crown, so long promised to the house of David, and brought the last of calamities on their country. Instead of knowing that their kingdom was incomparably weaker than Babylon in the east, and Egypt in the west, and seeking divine protection, as Samuel, David, and Jehoshaphat did, the young Jehoahaz was a lion in shedding innocent blood at home, and in depredations on the neighbouring states in alliance with the Egyptians. Hence Pharaoh-Necho, after a short reign of folly for three months, put him in chains for a life of repentance.
The other whelp was Jehoiakim, who was not made wise by his brothers errors. Against Egypt, to which he was tributary, he durst not offend. But he shed blood at home, and engaged in depredations on the allies of Babylon. This brought upon him the vengeance of Nebuchadnezzar, who took and plundered Jerusalem before the Egyptians could afford them succour, and led the king in chains to Babylon. The age was now growing more polite. Nebuchadnezzar seldom slew a king, but with counsellors he was prodigal of blood. Thus Zion, now loaded with sins, was promiscuously spoiled by her enemies: she had help neither in God nor man.
Nebuchadnezzar behaved as handsomely to the jews as the king of Egypt had done, by leaving Zedekiah on the throne of his fathers. Now Zion, the mother, is no more compared to a lion, as under David, but to a tender vine, which needed the support of neighbouring states. But the Egyptians being thought the more lenient of the two powers which now swayed the east and the west, she completed her final ruin by shooting out her roots towards the waters of the Nile. Hereby she despised the Lords repeated counsel by the prophets, not to lean on that bruised reed; and she despised the Chaldeans by a breach of solemn oath made in the name of the Lord. Hence Nebuchadnezzar with the hottest indignation came and burnt her temple and all the fenced cities with fire. Thus, in the fatal errors of Judah, we have a mirror of instruction for states and kingdoms. There is no nation which sanctions the violation of public morals, and forsakes the worship of God, but must err more and more till destruction completes their ruin. On a similar scale, it is just the same with men who forsake the good ways of the Lord, and fall into gross and grievous sins. They who were reputed wise, now are fools indeed. They cover themselves and their families with a blot, and their sins will often be mentioned to warn posterity. Oh may a thousand voices, and a thousand motives of terror and love, keep back the soul from presumptuous sins. The sins of Judah caused the vine, or Zion, to be plucked up; to be much dried by the east wind, and to be planted in the wilderness, in a dry and thirsty ground. Not literally indeed, for the jews wept by the waters of Babylon. But spiritually they had no altar, no reading of the law, and no regular worship; their harps were hung on the willow, as in Psalms 137. Thus apostasy makes the church an abhorrence, cuts off the streams of mercy, and brings death and destruction on the soul.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ezekiel 19. Dirge Over the Kings.From a chapter which has the ring almost of dogmatic theology, we pass to one of pure elegiac poetry, in which Ezekiel deals a death-blow to the vain hopes reposed in the monarchy (cf. Eze 12:1-15, Ezekiel 17).
Eze 19:1-9. Judah the Lioness.Mother Judah is compared to a lioness, and the kings are her whelps. Eze 19:1-9 celebrates the sorrowful fate of Jehoahaz (Eze 19:2-4) and Jehoiachin (Eze 19:5-9), each of whom was carried into exile after a reign of only three monthsJehoahaz to Egypt in 608, Jehoiachin to Babylon in 597 B.C. The might of Judah and her kings is idealised in this lament, and the fate of the monarchs is described in terms appropriate to the capture of a lion (Eze 19:4, Ezekiel 8 f.)dangerous beasts were sometimes trapped in pits. (In Eze 19:4 heard of should be clamoured against, in Eze 19:5 waited practically = waited in vain, but the word is quite uncertain. In Eze 19:7 knew should perhaps be ravaged.) The melancholy cadence of the last sentence is very fine
That his voice should be heard no more
On the mountains of Israel.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
19:1 Moreover take thou up a lamentation for the {a} princes of Israel,
(a) That is, Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, Josiah’s sons, who for their pride and cruelty are compared to lions.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The lion and her cubs 19:1-9
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Ezekiel was to lament (Heb. qinah) for the princes of Israel. This is the first of five laments in Ezekiel (cf. Eze 26:17-18; Ezekiel 27; Eze 28:12-19; Eze 32:1-16). Laments usually utilize the qinah or limping form of rhythm in Hebrew, and this one does. The qinah form consists normally of three accented words followed by two accented words in a couplet. For example in Eze 19:2 in the NASB this rhythm is discernible: "She lay down among young lions; she reared her cubs." Usually translations cannot capture the rhythm of the Hebrew text. This rhythm gives a sorrowful feeling to the composition as it is read in Hebrew. The form is quite common in the Old Testament, especially in Lamentations, Psalms, and some of the prophetical books. [Note: For other characteristics of the qinah genre, see Block, The Book . . ., pp. 592-93.]
"A dirge was normally sung or chanted, by professional mourners after the death of the deceased and during his funeral. Ezekiel expressed the Lord’s sadness over the Judean leadership’s failure by chanting this elegy over her final rulers prior to their deaths . . ." [Note: Alexander, "Ezekiel," p. 830.]
However this dirge is also a riddle (cf. Eze 17:1-10). Ezekiel used the term "princes" to describe Judah’s kings (Eze 7:27; Eze 12:10; Eze 12:19; et al.).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE END OF THE MONARCHY
Eze 12:1-15; Eze 17:1-24; Eze 19:1-14
IN spite of the interest excited by Ezekiels prophetic appearances, the exiles still received his prediction of the fall of Jerusalem with the most stolid incredulity. It proved to be an impossible task to disabuse their minds of the pre-possessions which made such an event absolutely incredible. True to their character as a disobedient house, they had “eyes to see, and saw not; and ears to hear, but heard not”. {Eze 12:2} They were intensely interested in the strange signs he performed, and listened with pleasure to his fervid oratory; but the inner meaning of it all never sank into their minds. Ezekiel was well aware that the cause of this obtuseness lay in the false ideals which nourished an overweening confidence in the destiny of their nation. And these ideals were the more difficult to destroy because they each contained an element of truth, so interwoven with the falsehood that to the mind of the people the true and the false stood and fell together. If the great vision of chapters 8-11 had accomplished its purpose, it would doubtless have taken away the main support of these delusive imaginations. But the belief in the indestructibility of the Temple was only one of a number of roots through which the vain confidence of the nation was fed; and so long as any of these remained the peoples sense of security was likely to remain. These spurious ideals, therefore, Ezekiel sets himself with characteristic thoroughness to demolish, one after another.
This appears to be in the main the purpose of the third subdivision of his prophecies on which we now enter. It extends from chapter 12 to chapter 19; and in so far as it can be taken to represent a phase of his actual spoken ministry, it must be assigned to the fifth year before the capture of Jerusalem (August, 591-August., 590 B.C.). But since the passage is an exposition of ideas more than a narrative of experiences, we may expect to find that chronological consistency has been even less observed than in the earlier part of the book. Each idea is presented in the completeness which it finally possessed in the prophets mind, and his allusions may anticipate a state of things which had not actually arisen till a somewhat later date. Beginning with a description and interpretation of two symbolic actions intended to impress more vividly on the people the certainty of the impending catastrophe, the prophet proceeds in a series of set discourses to expose the hollowness of the illusions which his fellow exiles cherished, such as disbelief in prophecies of evil, faith in the destiny of Israel, veneration for the Davidic kingdom, and reliance on the solidarity of the nation in sin and in judgment. These are the principal topics which the course of exposition will bring before us, and in dealing with them it will be convenient to depart from the order in which they stand in the book and adopt an arrangement according to subject. By so doing we run the risk of missing the order of the ideas as it presented itself to the prophets mind, and of ignoring the remarkable skill with which the transition from one theme to another is frequently effected. But if we have rightly understood the scope of the passage as a whole, this wilt not prevent us from grasping the substance of his teaching or its bearing on the final message which he had to deliver. In the present chapter we shall accordingly group together three passages which deal with the fate of the monarchy, and especially of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah.
That reverence for the royal house would form an obstacle to the acceptance of such teaching as Ezekiels was to be expected from all we know of the popular feeling on this subject. The fact that a few royal assassinations which stain the annals of Judah were sooner or later avenged by the people shows that the monarchy was regarded as a pillar of the state, and that great importance was attached to the possession of a dynasty which perpetuated the glories of Davids reign. And there is one verse in the Book of Lamentations which expresses the anguish which the fall of the kingdom caused to godly men in Israel, although its representatives were so unworthy of his office as Zedekiah: “The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of Jehovah, was taken in their pits, of whom we said, Under his shadow shall we live among the nations”. {Lam 4:20} So long therefore as a descendant of David sat on the throne of Jerusalem it would seem the duty of every patriotic Israelite to remain true to him. The continuance of the monarchy would seem to guarantee the existence of the state; the prestige of Zedekiahs position as the anointed of Jehovah, and the heir of Davids covenant, would warrant the hope that even yet Jehovah would intervene to save an institution of His own creating. Indeed, we can see from Ezekiels own pages that the historic monarchy in Israel was to him an object of the highest veneration and regard. He speaks of its dignity in terms whose very exaggeration shows how largely the fact bulked in his imagination. He compares it to the noblest of the wild beasts of the earth and the most lordly tree of the forest. But his contention is that this monarchy no longer exists. Except in one doubtful passage, he never applies the title king (melek) to Zedekiah. The kingdom came to an end with the. deportation of Jehoiachin, the last king who ascended the throne in legitimate succession. The present holder of the office is in no sense king by Divine right; he is a creature and vassal of Nebuchadnezzar, and has no rights against his suzerain. His very name has been changed by the caprice of his master. As a religious symbol, therefore, the royal power is defunct; the glory has departed from it as surely as from the Temple. The makeshift administration organised under Zedekiah had a peaceful if inglorious future before it, if it were content to recognise facts and adapt itself to its humble position. But if it should attempt to raise its head and assert itself as an independent kingdom, it would only seal its own doom. And for men in Chaldea to transfer to this shadow of kingly dignity the allegiance due to the heir of Davids house was a waste of devotion as little demanded by patriotism as by prudence.
I.
The first of the passages in which the fate of the monarchy is foretold requires little to be said by way of explanation. It is a symbolic action of the kind with which we are now familiar, exhibiting the certainty of the fate in store both for the people and the king. The prophet again becomes a “sign” or portent to the people-this time in a character which every one of his audience understood from recent experience. He is seen by daylight collecting “articles of captivity”-i.e., such necessary articles as a person going into exile would try to take with him-and bringing them out to the door of his house. Then at dusk he breaks through the wall with his goods on his shoulder; and, with face muffled he removes “to another place.” In this sign we have again two different facts indicated by a series of not entirely congruous actions. The mere act of carrying out his most necessary furniture and removing from one place to another suggests quite unambiguously the captivity that awaits the inhabitants of Jerusalem. But the accessories of the action, such as breaking through the wall, the muffling of the face, and the doing of all this by night, point to quite a different event-viz., Zedekiahs attempt to break through the Chaldaean lines by night, his capture, his blindness, and his imprisonment in Babylon. The most remarkable thing in the sign is the circumstantial manner in which the details of the kings flight and capture are anticipated so long before the event. Zedekiah, as we read in the Second Book of Kings, as soon as a breach was made in the walls by the Chaldaeans, broke out with a small party of horsemen, and succeeded in reaching the plain of Jordan. There he was overtaken and caught, and sent before Nebuchadnezzars presence at Riblah. The Babylonian king punished his perfidy with a cruelty common enough amongst the Assyrian kings: he caused his eyes to be put out, and sent him thus to end his days in prison at Babylon. All this is so clearly hinted at in the signs that the whole representation is often set aside as a prophecy after the event. That is hardly probable, because the sign does not bear the marks of having been originally conceived with the view of exhibiting the details of Zedekiahs punishment. But since we know that the book was written after the event, it is a perfectly fair question whether in the interpretation of the symbols Ezekiel may not have read into it a fuller meaning than was present to his own mind at the time. Thus the covering of his head does not necessarily suggest anything more than the kings attempt to disguise his person. Possibly this was all that Ezekiel originally meant by it. When the event took place he perceived a further meaning in it as an allusion to the blindness inflicted on the king, and introduced this into the explanation given of the symbol. The point of it lies in the degradation of the king through his being reduced to such an ignominious method of securing his personal safety. “The prince that is among them shall bear upon his shoulder in the darkness, and shall go forth: they shall dig through the wall to carry out thereby: he shall cover his face, that he may not be seen by any eye, and he himself shall not see the earth”. {Eze 12:12}
II.
In chapter 17 the fate of the monarchy is dealt with at greater length under the form of an allegory. The kingdom of Judah is represented as a cedar in Lebanon-a comparison which shows how exalted were Ezekiels conceptions of the dignity of the old regime which had now passed away. But the leading shoot of the tree has been cropped off by a great, broad-winged, speckled eagle, the king of Babylon, and carried away to a “land of traffic, a city of merchants.” The insignificance of Zedekiahs government is indicated by a harsh contrast which almost breaks the consistency of the figure. In place of the cedar which he has spoiled the eagle plants a low vine trailing on the ground, such as may be seen in Palestine at the present day. His intention was that “its branches should extend towards him and its roots be under him”-i.e., that the new principality should derive all its strength from Babylon and yield all its produce to the power which nourished it. For a time all went well. The vine answered the expectations of its owner, and prospered under the favourable conditions which he had provided for it. But another great eagle appeared on the scene, the king of Egypt, and the ungrateful vine began to send out its roots and turn its branches in his direction. The meaning is obvious: Zedekiah had sent presents to Egypt and sought its help, and by so doing had violated the conditions of his tenure of royal power. Such a policy could not prosper. “The bed where it was planted” was in possession of Nebuchadnezzar, and he could not tolerate there a state, however feeble, which employed the resources with which he had endowed it to further the interests of his rival, Hophra, the king of Egypt. Its destruction shall come from the quarter whence it derived its origin: “when the east wind smites it, it shall wither in the furrow where it grew.”
Throughout this passage Ezekiel shows that he possessed in full measure that penetration and detachment from local prejudices which all the prophets exhibit when dealing with political affairs. The interpretation of the riddle contains a statement of Nebuchadnezzars policy in his dealings with Judah, whose impartial accuracy could not be improved on by the most disinterested historian. The carrying away of the Judaean king and aristocracy was a heavy blow to religious susceptibilities which Ezekiel fully shared, and its severity was not mitigated by the arrogant assumptions by which it was explained in Jerusalem. Yet here he shows himself capable of contemplating it as a measure of Babylonian statesmanship and of doing absolute justice to the motives by which it was dictated. Nebuchadnezzars purpose was to establish a petty state unable to raise itself to independence, and one on whose fidelity to his empire he could rely. Ezekiel lays great stress on the solemn formalities by which the great king had bound his vassal to his allegiance: “He took of the royal seed, and made a covenant with him, and brought him under a curse; and the strong ones of the land he took away: that it might be a lowly kingdom, not able to lift itself up, to keep his covenant that it might stand” (Eze 17:13-14). In all this Nebuchadnezzar is conceived as acting within his rights; and here lay the difference between the clear vision of the prophet and the infatuated policy of his contemporaries. The politicians of Jerusalem were incapable of thus discerning the signs of the times. They fell back on the time-honoured plan of checkmating Babylon by means of an Egyptian alliance-a policy which had been disastrous when attempted against the ruthless tyrants of Assyria, and which was doubly imbecile when it brought down on them the wrath of a monarch who showed every desire to deal fairly with his subject provinces.
The period of intrigue with Egypt had already begun when this prophecy was written. We have no means of knowing how long the negotiations went on before the overt act of rebellion; and hence we cannot say with certainty that the appearance of the chapter in this part of the book is an anachronism. It is possible that Ezekiel may have known of a secret mission which was not discovered by the spies of the Babylonian court; and there is no difficulty in supposing that such a step may have been taken as early as two and a half years before the outbreak of hostilities. At whatever time it took place, Ezekiel saw that it sealed the doom of the nation. He knew that Nebuchadnezzar could not overlook such flagrant perfidy as Zedekiah and his councillors had been guilty of; he knew also that Egypt could render no effectual help to Jerusalem in her death-struggle. “Not with a strong army and a great host will Pharaoh act for him in the war, when mounds are thrown up, and the towers are built, to cut off many lives” (Eze 17:17). The writer of the Lamentations again shows us how sadly the prophets anticipation was verified: “As for us, our eyes as yet failed for our vain help: in our watching we have watched for a nation that could not save us”. {Lam 4:17}
But Ezekiel will not allow it to be supposed that the fate of Jerusalem is merely the result of a mistaken forecast of political probabilities. Such a mistake had been made by Zedekiahs advisers when they trusted to Egypt to deliver them from Babylon, and ordinary prudence might have warned them against it. But that was the most excusable part of their folly. The thing that branded their policy as infamous and put them absolutely in the wrong before God and man alike was their violation of the solemn oath by which they had bound themselves to serve the king of Babylon. The prophet seizes on this act of perjury as the determining fact of the situation, and charges it home on the king as the cause of the ruin that is to overtake him: “Thus saith Jehovah, As I live, surely My oath which he hath despised, and My covenant which he has broken, I will return on his head; and I will spread My net over him, and in My snare shall he be taken and ye shall know that I Jehovah have spoken it” (Eze 17:19-21).
In the last three verses of the chapter the prophet returns to the allegory with which he commenced, and completes his oracle with a beautiful picture of the ideal monarchy of the future. The ideas on which the picture is framed are few and simple; but they are those which distinguished the Messianic hope as cherished by the prophets from the crude form which it assumed in the popular imagination. In contrast to Zedekiahs kingdom, which was a human institution without ideal significance, that of the Messianic age will be a fresh creation of Jehovahs power. A tender shoot shall be planted in the mountain land of Israel, where it shall flourish and increase until it overshadow the whole earth. Further, this shoot is taken from the “top of the cedar”-that is, the section of the royal house which had been carried away to Babylon-indicating that the hope of the future lay not with the king de facto Zedekiah, but with Jehoiachin and those who shared his banishment. The passage leaves no doubt that Ezekiel conceived the Israel of the future as a state with a monarch at its head, although it may be doubtful whether the shoot refers to a personal Messiah or to the aristocracy, who, along with the king, formed the governing body in an Eastern kingdom. This question, however, can be better considered when we have to deal with Ezekiels Messianic conceptions in their fully developed form in chapter 34.
III.
Of the last four kings of Judah there were two whose melancholy fate seems to have excited a profound feeling of pity amongst their countrymen. Jehoahaz or Shallum, according to the Chronicler the youngest of Josiahs sons, appears to have been even during his fathers lifetime a popular favourite. It was he who after the fatal day of Megiddo was raised to the throne by the “people of the land” at the age of twenty-three years. He is said by the historian of the books of Kings to have done “that which was evil in the sight of the Lord”; but he had hardly time to display his qualities as a ruler when he was deposed and carried to Egypt by Pharaoh Necho, having worn the crown for only three months (608 B.C.). The deep attachment felt for him seems to have given rise to an expectation that he would be restored to his kingdom, a delusion against which the prophet Jeremiah found it necessary to protest. {Jer 22:10-12} He was succeeded by his elder brother, Eliakim, (Jehoiakim) the headstrong and selfish tyrant, whose character stands revealed in some passages of the books of Jeremiah and Habakkuk. His reign of nine years gave little occasion to his subjects to cherish a grateful memory of his administration. He died in the crisis of the conflict he had provoked with the king of Babylon, leaving his youthful son Jehoiachin to expiate the folly of his rebellion. Jehoiachin is the second idol of the populace to whom we have referred. He was only eighteen years old when he was called to the throne, and within three months he was doomed to exile in Babylon. In his room Nebuchadnezzar appointed a third son of Josiah-Mattaniah-whose name he changed to Zedekiah. He was apparently a man of weak and vacillating character; but he fell ultimately into the hands of the Egyptian and anti-prophetic party, and so was the means of involving his country in the hopeless struggle in which it perished.
The fact that two of their native princes were languishing, perhaps simultaneously, in foreign confinement, one in Egypt and the other in Babylon, was fitted to evoke in Judah a sympathy with the misfortunes of royalty something like the feeling embalmed in the Jacobite songs of Scotland. It seems to be an echo of this sentiment that we find in the first part of the lament with which Ezekiel closes his references to the fall of the monarchy (chapter 19). Many critics have indeed found it impossible to suppose that Ezekiel should in any sense have yielded to sympathy with the fate of two princes who are both branded in the historical books as idolaters, and whose calamities on Ezekiels own view of individual retribution proved them to be sinners against Jehovah. Yet it is certainly unnatural to read the dirge in any other sense than as an expression of genuine pity for the woes that the nation suffered in the fate of her two exiled kings. If Jeremiah, in pronouncing the doom of Shallum or Jehoahaz, could say, “Weep ye sore for him that goeth away; for he shall not return any more, nor see his native country,” there is no reason why Ezekiel should not have given lyrical expression to the universal feeling of sadness which the blighted career of these two youths naturally produced. The whole passage is highly poetical, and represents a side of Ezekiels nature which we have not hitherto been led to study. But it is too much to expect of even the most logical of prophets that he should experience no personal emotion but what fitted into his system, or that his poetic gift should be chained to the wheels of his theological convictions. The dirge expresses no moral judgment on the character or deserts of the two kings to which it refers: it has but one theme-the sorrow and disappointment of the “mother” who nurtured and lost them, that is, the nation of Israel, personified according to a usual Hebrew figure of speech. All attempts to go beyond this and to find in the poem an allegorical portrait of Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin are irrelevant. The mother is a lioness, the princes are young lions and behave as stalwart young lions do, but whether their exploits are praiseworthy or the reverse is a question that was not present to the writers mind.
The chapter is entitled “A Dirge on the Princes of Israel,” and embraces not only the fate of Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin, but also of Zedekiah, with whom the old monarchy expired. Strictly. speaking, however, the name qinah, or dirge, is applicable only to the first part of the chapter (Eze 19:2-9), where the rhythm characteristic of the Hebrew elegy is clearly traceable. With a few slight changes of the text the passage may be translated thus:-
1. Jehoahaz.
“How was thy mother a lioness!-
Among the lions,
In the midst of young lions she couched-
She reared her cubs;
And she brought up one of her cubs-
A young lion he became,
And he learned to catch the prey-
He ate men.”
“And nations raised a cry against him-
In their pit he was caught;
And they brought him with hooks-
To the land of Egypt” (Eze 19:2-4).
2. Jehoiachin.
“And when she saw that she was disappointed-
Her hope was lost.
She took another of her cubs-
A young lion she made him;
And he walked in the midst of lions-
A young lion he became;
And he learned to catch prey-
He ate men”.
“And he lurked in his lair-
The forests he ravaged:
Till the land was laid waste and its fulness-
With the noise of his roar”.
“The nations arrayed themselves against him-
From the countries around;
And spread over him their net-
In their pit he was caught.
And they brought him with hooks-
To the king of Babylon;
And he put him in a cage,
That his voice might no more be heard-
On the mountains of Israel” (Eze 19:5-9).
The poetry here is simple and sincere. The mournful cadence of the elegiac measure, which is maintained throughout, is adapted to the tone of melancholy which pervades the passage and culminates in the last beautiful line. The dirge is a form of composition often employed in songs of triumph over the calamities of enemies; but there is no reason to doubt that here it is true to its original purpose, and expresses genuine sorrow for the accumulated misfortunes of the royal house of Israel.
The closing part of the “dirge” dealing with Zedekiah is of a somewhat different character. The theme is similar, but the figure is abruptly changed, and the elegiac rhythm is abandoned. The nation, the mother of the monarchy, is here compared to a luxuriant vine planted beside great waters; and the royal house is likened to a branch towering above the rest and bearing rods which were kingly sceptres. But she has been plucked up by the roots, withered, scorched by the fire, and finally planted in an arid region where she cannot thrive. The application of the metaphor to the ruin of the nation is very obvious. Israel, once a prosperous nation, richly endowed with all the conditions of a vigorous national life, and glorying in her race of native kings, is now humbled to the dust. Misfortune after misfortune has destroyed her power and blighted her prospects, till at last she has been removed from her own land to a place where national life cannot be maintained. But the point of the passage lies in the closing words: fire went out from one of her twigs and consumed her branches, so that she has no longer a proud rod to be a rulers sceptre (Eze 19:14). The monarchy, once the glory and strength of Israel, has in its last degenerate representative involved the nation in ruin.
Such is Ezekiels final answer to those of his hearers who clung to the old Davidic kingdom as their hope in the crisis of the peoples fate.