Ezekiel 17 commentary

EZEKIEL 17 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Two Eagles and a Vine
1 The word of the Lord came to me:
BARNES, "Ezekiel, after describing by a figure the circumstances and conditions of
the Jews and Zedekiah, the vassal of the Assyrian monarch, warns them of the delusive
character of their hopes of help from Egypt, protests against the perfidy which must
accompany such alliance, and points out that the restoration of the people of God will be
effected by a very different son of David. The close of this chapter is a striking prediction
of the kingdom of the Messiah.
GILL, "And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying. After the prophet had
been sent to charge the Jews with breaking the covenant with God, he is sent to rebuke
and threaten them for breaking covenant with men, even with the king of Babylon; by
whom they were in part carried into captivity, and another part remained in the land, as
will be hereafter seen.
HENRY, "We must take all these verses together, that we may have the parable and the
explanation of it at one view before us, because they will illustrate one another. 1. The
prophet is appointed to put forth a riddle to the house of Israel (Eze_17:2), not to puzzle
them, as Samson's riddle was put forth to the Philistines, not to hide the mind of God
from them in obscurity, or to leave them in uncertainty about it, one advancing one
conjecture and another another, as is usual in expounding riddles; no, he is immediately
to tell them the meaning of it. Let him that speaks in an unknown tongue pray that he
may interpret, 1Co_14:13. But he must deliver this message in a riddle or parable that
they might take the more notice of it, might be the more affected with it themselves, and
might the better remember it and tell it to others. For these reasons God often used
1

similitudes by his servants the prophets, and Christ himself opened his mouth in
parables. Riddles and parables are used for an amusement to ourselves and an
entertainment to our friends. The prophet must make use of these to see if in this dress
the things of God might find acceptance, and insinuate themselves into the minds of a
careless people. Note, Ministers should study to find out acceptable words, and try
various methods to do good; and, as far as they have reason to think will be for
edification, should both bring that which is familiar into their preaching and their
preaching too into their familiar discourse, that there may not be so vast a dissimilitude
as with some there is between what they say in the pulpit and what they say out. 2. He is
appointed to expound this riddle to the rebellious house, Eze_17:12. Though being
rebellious they might justly have been left in ignorance, to see and hear and not perceive,
yet the thing shall be explained to them: Know you not what these things mean? Those
that knew the story, and what was now in agitation, might make a shrewd guess at the
meaning of this riddle, but, that they might be left without excuse, he is to give it to them
in plain terms, stripped of the metaphor. But the enigma was first propounded for them
to study on awhile, and to send to their friends at Jerusalem, that they might enquire
after and expect the solution of it some time after.
JAMISON, "Eze_17:1-24. Parable of the two great eagles, and the cropping of the
cedar of Lebanon. Judah is to be judged for revolting from Babylon, which had set up
Zedekiah instead of Jehoiachin, to Egypt; God himself, as the rival of the Babylonian
king, is to plant the gospel cedar of Messiah.
The date of the prophecy is between the sixth month of Zedekiah’s sixth year of reign
and the fifth month of the seventh year after the carrying away of Jehoiachin, that is, five
years before the destruction of Jerusalem [Henderson].
K&D 1-10, "The Parable
Eze_17:1. And the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, Eze_17:2. Son of man, give a
riddle, and relate a parable to the house of Israel; Eze_17:3. And say, Thus saith the
Lord Jehovah, A great eagle, with great wings and long pinions, full of feathers of
variegated colours, came to Lebanon and took the top of the cedar: Eze_17:4. He
plucked off the topmost of its shoots, and brought it into Canaan's land; in a merchant-
city he set it. Eze_17:5. And he took of the seed of the land, and put it into seed-land;
took it away to many waters, set it as a willow. Eze_17:6. And it grew, and became an
overhanging vine of low stature, that its branches might turn towards him, and its
roots might be under him; and it became a vine, and produced shoots, and sent out
foliage. Eze_17:7. There was another great eagle with great wings and many feathers;
and, behold, this vine stretched its roots languishingly towards him, and extended its
branches towards him, that he might water it from the beds of its planting. Eze_17:8. It
was planted in a good field by many waters, to send out roots and bear fruit, to become
a glorious vine. Eze_17:9. Say, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Will it thrive? will they not
pull up its roots, and cut off its fruit, so that it withereth? all the fresh leaves of its
sprouting will wither, and not with strong arm and with much people will it be possible
to raise it up from its roots. Eze_17:10. And, behold, although it is planted, will it
2

thrive? will it not wither when the east wind touches it? upon the beds in which it grew
it will wither.
The parable (mâshâl, corresponding exactly to the New Testament παραβολή) is called
chīdhâh, a riddle, because of the deeper meaning lying beneath the parabolic shell. The
symbolism of this parable has been traced by many commentators to Babylonian
influences working upon the prophet's mind; but without any tenable ground. The figure
of the eagle, or bird of prey, applied to a conqueror making a rapid descent upon a
country, has as little in it of a specifically Babylonian character as the comparison of the
royal family to a cedar or a vine. Not only is Nebuchadnezzar compared to an eagle in
Jer_48:40; Jer_49:22, as Cyrus is to a bird of prey in Isa_46:11; but even Moses has
described the paternal watchfulness of God over His own people as bearing them upon
eagle's wings (Exo_19:4; Deu_32:11). The cedar of Lebanon and the vine are genuine
Israelitish figures. The great eagle in Eze_17:3 is the great King Nebuchadnezzar
(compare Eze_17:12). The article is simply used to indicate the species, for which we
should use the indefinite article. In Eze_17:7, instead of the article, we have ‫ד‬ ָ‫ח‬ ֶ‫א‬ in the
sense of “another.” This first eagle has large wings and long pinions; he has already
flown victoriously over wide-spread countries. ‫ר־ל‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬ , literally, which is to him the
variegated ornament, i.e., which he has as such an ornament. The feathers of variegated
ornamental colours point to the many peoples, differing in language, manners, and
customs, which were united under the sceptre of Nebuchadnezzar (Hitzig, etc.); not to
the wealth and splendour of the conqueror, as such an allusion is altogether remote from
the tendency of the parable. He came to Lebanon. This is not a symbol of the Israelitish
land, or of the kingdom of Judah; but, as in Jer_22:23, of Jerusalem, or Mount Zion,
with its royal palace so rich in cedar wood (see the comm. on Hab_2:17 and Zec_11:1), as
being the place where the cedar was planted (compare the remarks on Eze_17:12). The
cedar is the royal house of David, and the top of it is King Jehoiachin. The word
tzammereth is only met with in Ezekiel, and there only for the top of a cedar (compare
Eze_31:3.). The primary meaning is doubtful. Some derive it from the curly, or, as it
were, woolly top of the older cedars, in which the small twigs that constitute their foliage
are only found at the top of the tree. Others suppose it to be connected with the Arabic
dmr, to conceal, and understand it as an epithet applied to the foliage, as the veil or
covering of the tree. In v. 4, tzammereth is explained to be ‫ֹאשׁ‬ ‫ר‬ ‫יו‬ ָ‫ת‬ ‫יק‬ִ‫נ‬ ְ‫,ר‬ the topmost of
its shoots. This the eagle plucked off and carried ‫ץ‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ל־א‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ן‬ַ‫ַע‬‫נ‬ ְ‫,כּ‬ an epithet applied to
Babylonia here and in Eze_16:29, as being a land whose trading spirit had turned it into
a Canaan. This is evident from the parallel ‫יר‬ ִ‫ע‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ל‬ ְ‫כ‬ֹ‫,ר‬ city of traders, i.e., Babylon
(compare Eze_17:12). The seed of the land, according to Eze_16:13, is King Zedekiah,
because he was of the land, the native king, in contrast to a foreign, Babylonian
governor.
‫ח‬ ָ‫,ק‬ for ‫ח‬ ַ‫ק‬ָ‫,ל‬ after the analogy of ‫ם‬ ָ‫ח‬ ָ‫ק‬ in Hos_11:3, and pointed with Kametz to
distinguish it from the imperative. ‫ח‬ ַ‫ק‬ָ‫ל‬ ‫ל‬ ֶ‫א‬ is used as in Num_23:27. The ἁπ. λεγ.‫ה‬ָ‫פ‬ָ‫צ‬ ְ‫פ‬ַ‫צ‬
signifies, in Arabic and the Talmud, the willow, probably so called because it grows in
well-watered places; according to Gesenius, it is derived from ‫,צוּף‬ to overflow, literally,
the inundated tree. This meaning is perfectly appropriate here. “He set it as a willow”
means he treated it as one, inasmuch as he took it to many waters, set it in a well-
watered soil, i.e., in a suitable place. The cutting grew into an overhanging vine, i.e., to a
3

vine spreading out its branches in all directions, though not growing very high, as the
following expression ‫ת‬ ַ‫ל‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫מ‬ ‫ק‬ more clearly shows. The object of this growth was, that
its branches might turn to him (the eagle), and its roots might be under him (the eagle).
The suffixes attached to ‫יו‬ָ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ and ‫יו‬ ָ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ח‬ ַ‫תּ‬ refer to ‫ר‬ֶ‫ֶשׁ‬‫נ‬. This allusion is required not only
by the explanation in Eze_17:14 (? Eze_17:14, Eze_17:15), but also by Eze_17:7, where
the roots and branches of the vine stretch to the (other) eagle. In Eze_17:6, what has
already been affirmed concerning the growth is briefly summed up again. The form
‫ה‬ ָ‫ֹאר‬‫פּ‬ is peculiar to Ezekiel. Isaiah has ‫ה‬ ָ‫אר‬ֻ‫פּ‬ sah h = ‫ה‬ ָ‫ר‬ ֻ‫א‬ ְ‫פּ‬ in Ezekiel 10:33. The word
signifies branch and foliage, or a branch covered with foliage, as the ornament of a tree. -
The other eagle mentioned in Eze_17:7 is the king of Egypt, according to Eze_17:15. He
had also large wings and many feathers, i.e., a widely spread and powerful kingdom; but
there is nothing said about pinions and variegated colours, for Pharaoh had not spread
out his kingdom over many countries and peoples, or subjugated a variegated medley of
peoples and tribes. ‫ן‬ַ‫פ‬ָ‫,כּ‬ as a verb ἁπ. λεγ.., signifies to yearn or pine after a thing; in
Chaldee, to hunger. ‫ת‬ ‫ק‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫,ל‬ that he (the eagle-Pharaoh) might give it to drink, or water
it. The words ‫ת‬ ‫ג‬ ֻ‫ֲר‬‫ע‬ ַ‫מ‬ ‫הּ‬ָ‫ע‬ ָ‫טּ‬ ַ‫מ‬ are not connected with ‫ת‬ ‫ק‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫,ל‬ but with ‫ה‬ ָ‫ח‬ ְ‫ל‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ and ‫ה‬ָ‫פ‬ְ‫נ‬ַ‫,כּ‬
form the beds of its planting, i.e., in which it was planted; it stretched out roots and
branches to the other eagle, that he might give it to drink. The interpretation is given in
Eze_17:15. The words ‫ת‬ ‫ק‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫ל‬ ‫הּ‬ ָ‫ת‬ ‫,א‬ which are added by way of explanation, do not
interrupt the train of thought; nor are they superfluous, as Hitzig supposes, because the
vine had water enough already (Eze_17:5 and Eze_17:8). For this is precisely what the
passage is intended to show, namely, that there was no occasion for this pining and
stretching out of the branches towards the other eagle, inasmuch as it could thrive very
well in the place where it was planted. The latter is expressly stated once more in Eze_
17:8, the meaning of which is perfectly clear, - namely, that if Zedekiah had remained
quiet under Nebuchadnezzar, as a hanging vine, his government might have continued
and prospered. But, asks Ezekiel in the name of the Lord, will it prosper? ‫ח‬ַ‫ל‬ ְ‫צ‬ ִ‫תּ‬ is a
question, and the third person, neuter gender. This question is answered in the negative
by the following question, which is introduced with an affirmative ‫א‬ ‫ֲל‬‫ה‬. The subject to
‫ק‬ ֵ‫ַתּ‬‫נ‬ְ‫י‬ and ‫ס‬ ֵ‫ס‬ ‫ק‬ְ‫י‬ dna is not the first eagle (Nebuchadnezzar), but the indefinite “one”
(man, they). In the last clause of v. 9 ‫ת‬ ‫א‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ ַ‫מ‬ is a substantive formation, used instead of
the simple form of the infinitive, after the form ‫א‬ָ‫שּׂ‬ ַ‫מ‬ in 2Ch_19:7, with the termination
‫ת‬ , borrowed from the verb ‫ל'ה‬ (compare Ewald, §160b and 239a), and the construction
is the same as in Amo_6:10 : it will not be to raise up = it will not be possible to raise it
up (compare Ges. §132, 3, Anm. 1). To raise it up from its root does not mean to tear it
up by the root (Hävernick), but to rear the withered vine from its roots again, to cause it
to sprout again. This rendering of the words corresponds to the interpretation given in
Eze_17:17. - In Eze_17:10 the leading thought is repeated with emphasis, and rounded
off. The east wind is peculiarly dangerous to plants on account of its dryness (compare
Gen_41:6, and Wetstein on Job_27:21 in Delitzsch's Commentary); and it is used very
appropriately here, as the Chaldeans came from the east.
CALVIN, “In this chapter the Prophet shows that the Jews were utterly foolish in
4

thinking themselves safe, since they had God as their adversary. At the end of the
chapter he promises indeed the restoration of the Church, and heralds the kingdom
of Christ: but the principal part of the chapter is consumed with this teaching, that
the Jews were utterly foolish in promising themselves safety for the city, the temple,
and their kingdom: for, as it now appeared, they had violated the covenant of God
and he had rejected them. When deprived of God’s help, what could they do? This
was egregious folly to hope for a prosperous state of their kingdom when their
power was diminished and cut off, and they were reduced almost to the very last
straits. But since the Prophet’s discourse came be understood without a knowledge
of the history, I shall therefore make a beginning: When Nebuchadnezzar appointed
Zedekiah king, he also made him tributary to himself. He was made king at the will
or rather by the lust of the king of Babylon, when Jeconiah was led captive. (2 Kings
24:15; 2 Chronicles 36:10; Jeremiah 37:1.) Jeconiah had not sinned greatly, but
when he saw himself unable to resist, he surrendered himself with his mother and
children; he was carried away to Babylon, and there was treated humanely and
even splendidly, although not royally. Nebuchadnezzar, foreseeing much trouble if
he set any of his satraps over Judea, and fearing daily tumults, appointed Mattaniah
king, to whom he gave the name Zedekiah; this was the last king: already, as I have
said, the royal dignity was greatly diminished: it was tributary to Nebuchadnezzar,
and Zedekiah’s sway was but precarious. His position depended on the will of his
conqueror, and he who placed him on the throne could remove him as often as he
pleased. A little while afterwards, when he saw that Nebuchadnezzar was at a
distance, he made an agreement with the king of Egypt, and thought he should have
sufficient help if Nebuchadnezzar were to return again with an army. And the
Egyptians, as we have elsewhere said, were sufficiently desirous of this treaty. For
they saw the Babylonian monarchy gradually increasing, and it was probable that,
when the Jews were utterly subdued, Nebuchadnezzar would not be content with
those boundaries, but would attack Egypt in like manner, and absorb that kingdom,
as he had done others. Hence a reason for their entering into the treaty was at hand,
since the king of Egypt thought that Judea would be a defense if Nebuchadnezzar
should come down with his army: and certainly the Jews must receive the assault
first. Whatever be the meaning, Zedekiah, through despising his oath, as we shall
see, revolted to the Egyptians, and when Nebuchadnezzar afterwards demanded
tribute, Zedekiah refused, through reliance on that covenant which he had made
with the Egyptians. We now see how foolish the Jews were in sleeping carelessly in
that miserable state to which they had been reduced. For when their power was
unbroken they could not sustain the attack of the king of Babylon: their king was
then a mere dead image, and nothing but a shadow: yet they indulged in pride not
only against Nebuchadnezzar but also against the Prophets and God himself, just as
if they were flourishing in wealth and power and complete prosperity. Hence
5

Ezekiel now refutes and rebukes this arrogance. He shows how easy it was for the
Babylonians to overthrow them again, since when they attacked them before they
were subdued, they easily compelled them to surrender.
COFFMAN, "Verse 1
THE PARABLE OF THE TWO EAGLES
The prophecy of this chapter was directed against another false hope of the house of
Israel, namely, the national conviction that God's promises to the house of David
was an unconditional guarantee that the prosperity of Israel would continue
forever, no matter what the moral and spiritual condition of the people was. "They
thought that God could not fail toward Zedekiah without reversing his ancient
promises to the house of David. Here, the prophet revealed that Zedekiah would
receive the due reward of his evil deeds; and, that despite that, God would yet fulfill
all of his glorious promises to the Chosen People, though, from human observation,
all appeared to be lost, the kingdom of David would be exalted in latter times."[1]
There would indeed be raised up one to sit upon the throne of David; but that spoke
of Jesus' resurrection from the grave, and his ascension to the right hand of God,
those glorious events which far more than adequately fulfilled all of God's promises
to David (Acts 2:29-35).
Concerning the date of the chapter, the last preceding date mentioned by Ezekiel
was in Ezekiel 8:1, which was 592 B.C. and the next date mentioned by the prophet
(Ezekiel 20:1) was eleven months later. "From Ezekiel 17:20, it is clear that this
prophecy was uttered a year or two earlier than the date given in Ezekiel 20:1, say,
about 590 B.C."[2]
THE FIRST EAGLE
6

Ezekiel 17:1-6
"And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of man, Put forth a riddle,
and speak a parable unto the house of Israel; and say, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah:
A great eagle with great wings and long pinions, full of feathers, which had divers
colors, came unto Lebanon and took the top of the cedar: he cropped off the
topmost of the young twigs thereof, and carried it unto a land of traffic; he set it in a
city of merchants. 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. 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 twigs."
The analogy here is called both a riddle and a parable. Indeed, it is both. How the
clipping from the cedar became, first "as a willow tree," and later as a vine is not
explained.
"The first eagle here represents the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar."[3] "The
great eagle' mentioned here is from the Hebrew [~neser], which actually means the
griffon vulture; and that is the basis for the Revised Standard Version rendition
here."[4] It appears to us that a vulture is more in keeping with the personality of
Nebuchadnezzar than an eagle!
"The cedar of Lebanon ..." (Ezekiel 17:3). is a reference to the land of Palestine.
"The topmost of the young twigs thereof ..." (Ezekiel 17:4). refers to the young king
Jehoiachin.[5]
"The seed of the land which was planted ..." (Ezekiel 17:5). is a reference to
Zedekiah."[6]
7

"Fruitful soil ... many waters, etc...." (Ezekiel 17:5). These express the beauty and
fertility of Palestine.
"Land of traffic ... city of merchants ..." (Ezekiel 17:5). These indicate Babylon, to
which Jehoiachin and the first company of deportees were carried away.
"And the roots thereof were under him ..." (Ezekiel 17:6). "This means that
Zedekiah's dependence upon Babylon would not change."[7] The earlier statement
here that "his branches turned toward him (the king of Babylon)" indicates the
same thing. As long as Zedekiah remained true to his sworn allegiance to the king of
Babylon, all went well with the kingdom; but his rebellion brought on the swift and
total destruction of Jerusalem.
ELLICOTT, "This chapter contains a “riddle” or “parable “(Ezekiel 17:3-10), with
its explanation (Ezekiel 17:11-21), closing with a clear Messianic prophecy couched
in language taken from the parable (Ezekiel 17:22-24). While it is a distinct
communication, it belongs to the same series of prophecies which began with the
vision of Ezekiel 8-11, and is continued through Ezekiel 19. The meaning of the
parable is made entirely clear by the explanation the first eagle (Ezekiel 17:3-6) is
Nebuchadnezzar; “the top of his young twigs” is Jehoiachin, carried to Babylon; the
“vine of low stature” is Zedekiah; the second eagle is Pharaoh (Ezekiel 17:7). The
historical facts on which the parable is based are recorded in 2 Kings 24:8-20; 2
Chronicles 36:9-13; Jeremiah 37 and Jeremiah 52:1-7.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 17:1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Ver. 1. And the word of the Lord came.] In the foregoing chapter God had
threatened the inhabitants of Jerusalem for violating their covenant with him; and
here he threateneth them no less for breach of covenant with men. In case of
disobedience to himself, he showeth much patience many times; but in case of
disloyalty to a lawful sovereign, against oath especially, he is quick and severe in his
executions.
8

EBC, "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 Ezekiel’s 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 Zedekiah’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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. Nebuchadnezzar’s
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
9

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" (Ezekiel 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" (Ezekiel 17:17). The writer of the
Lamentations again shows us how sadly the prophet’s 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". [Lamentations 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 Zedekiah’s 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
10

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" (Ezekiel 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 Zedekiah’s kingdom, which was a human institution without ideal
significance, that of the Messianic age will be a fresh creation of Jehovah’s 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 Ezekiel’s 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 Josiah’s sons, appears to have been even
during his father’s 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,
11

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. [Jeremiah 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 Ezekiel’s 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 Ezekiel’s 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
12

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 writer’s 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 (Ezekiel 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,
13

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" (Ezekiel 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-
14

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-
15

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" (Ezekiel 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 ruler’s
sceptre (Ezekiel 19:14). The monarchy, once the glory and strength of Israel, has in
its last degenerate representative involved the nation in ruin.
16

Such is Ezekiel’s final answer to those of his hearers who clung to the old Davidic
kingdom as their hope in the crisis of the people’s fate.
PETT, " Prophecy In Parable
Ezekiel 17:2
The word "riddle" may in this connection mean parable, picture, symbol; whatever
will excite and interest the imagination. "A great eagle with great wings,
longwinged, full of feathers, which had divers colours"—this is a parabolical
representation of Nebuchadnezzar—"came unto Lebanon"—came unto
Jerusalem—"and took the highest branch of the cedar"—there was so much cedar
in Jerusalem and in the holy edifice that the term "Lebanon" became not
inappropriate as a description of the holy city itself. "He cropped off the top of his
young twigs"—the reference here is to Jehoiakim; there was also a "vine of low
stature," the reference being to Zedekiah; "There was also another great eagle"—
the reference here is to Pharaoh. In order to see the whole image in its proper
historical relation and perspective, compare 2 Kings 24:8-20; 2 Chronicles 36:9-13;
Jeremiah 37 , Jeremiah 52:1-7 : put all these passages together, and you feel the
atmosphere of the sacred riddle or pictorial representation of a chapter in the
marvellous history of divine providence.
Note God"s method of creating interest in his administration or way of doing
things—"Son of Prayer of Manasseh , put forth a riddle." God will appeal to our
interest in some way. If the zephyr has not voice enough to arrest us, God will
employ the thunder; if the little silvery streamlet, hurrying through its green banks,
has nothing to say to us, the great floods shall lift up their voices and compel us to
attend. God is trying to get at our attention by every possible means; now by a star,
now by a flower; now by a great social revolution, now by the overturning of
dynasties; now by the pulling up of old trees in which men have built their nests for
ages; now by taking away a little child, now by throwing down a fortune which had
taken a lifetime to build; now by a solemn Psalm , now by an appeal as if uttered by
a lute: thus, and Song of Solomon , and every way, God is trying to get at our
17

attention, to arrest our thought, to compel us to think, if afterwards he might
constrain us to pray. The direct way is not always the best. There cannot be two
masters of providence: let God be King. Some men are much too direct and
practical; they do not allow for the variety which is characteristic of the human
mind: such men are gifted with stubbornness, and it is often called steadfastness, a
very different term—the one poor, iron-like, and altogether without accommodation
or tenderness; and the other a fine mixture of elements, culminating in strength that
may be leaned upon. Who shall say which is the best method of getting hold of
people"s attention? The circuitous way may sometimes be the shortest way. There
are some people who have no imagination. When they hear the word imagination
they are amused. Were we to charge, as we could well do, some preachers and
theologians who are always full of fear about other people with the want of
imagination, how merry they would be! They would almost be constrained to
prolong the feast that they might laugh the more merrily at our folly; because they
associate with imagination false meanings. Imagination is the highest faculty of the
mind, it is almost that other mind that associates itself with the highest enjoyments
and uses of immortality. There are others who have no practical judgment, or
sound, prosaic, real reason; they are all feathers, like an owl; you do not know
where they are, when they will return, or whether they will ever come home again
God must arrest them with great stone pillars, with huge granite walls; to appeal to
their imagination would be to appeal to what does not exist. Who will say there is
only one way of preaching, teaching, educating young men? There are a thousand
ways: what we want is that a man shall say when his way is not being adopted, This
will suit a good many: God bless the teacher in this effort; he is not now speaking to
me, but to persons who can understand that way alone; let Heaven"s grace make
hearts tender as he unravels his parable, as he takes up his harp and discourses
upon it sweet, mysterious music. When a preacher is setting forth riddle and
parable, the man who falsely thinks himself a logician—for there can only be a
logician once in a generation—should pray that the parable may be blessed. When
the preacher or teacher is seeking by hard, strong argument to force home a truth,
those who live on wings should carry themselves as high as possible, that they may
bring down a larger, riper blessing upon the teacher and his method. This is God"s
administration; this is the many-coloured robe of providence with which he would
clothe our naked shoulders. Let us make room for all men, all talents: the Church of
the living God is not constituted of one colour; it is that marvellous rainbow-like
aggregation of hues which, when revolving with the speed of God"s own thought,
becomes a perfect white. What has come to us—a riddle, a parable, a dream, a
process of logic, a historical induction? Take God"s gift, and through it find the
Giver.
18

Observe how God works through instrumentality. We do not know the full meaning
of that word. Sometimes we stop at the instrument, and forget the Hand that is
using it. What a great figure the king of Babylon makes in this chapter! Yet the king
of Babylon knew nothing as to what he was doing; he held councils, and projected
schemes, and elaborated policies, and thought himself a prime mover in the whole
action of this dramatic and exciting story. What have kings to do with the order of
the world? Nothing. What have noisy legislators, and pugnacious debaters, and
dreadful theological controversialists to do with the final shaping and rule of all
human processes? Nothing. God works by instrumentality. The Lord uses the king
of Babylon, and the king of Babylon thinks he is using God. Who can measure the
depth of human folly? Who built the prison which is a necessary structure in all
society? God built it Who arrests the thief and hales him to the judgment seat? The
constable? No: society takes up the felon. The constable"s hand is not one of five
fingers only, strong, muscular, lithe fingers; the constable would be thrown down
and trodden upon if he did not represent society, conviction, justice, righteousness;
and before that every Judas falls back, blanched, depleted, shamed. Yet kings nod
their heads at one another and imagine themselves prime factors; and every Prayer
of Manasseh , in his own house, or business, or other little way, thinks himself a
king. We know not that all things are governed by the Lord. Who erected the Cross
of Christ? Not the Jews, except in an intermediate, transient way; God built the
Cross, or it would only have been a Roman gallows. The Cross was fashioned in
eternity. If we had eyes that could see, instead of the blurred vision that can really
see nothing, we should discern the shadow of the Cross upon the face of every star
and every flower, and on the disc of the whole scheme of things. Who kindled the
fires of martyrdom? God. Let it never be supposed that the children of God were
handed over to the merest tyrants and representatives of brutal temper and black
blood, that they might wreak their vengeance on purity, simplicity, and godliness.
There is a sense in which bad men did it, or in which infatuated good men did it, but
God was all the while educating the world by suffering, by exhibitions of heroism;
and who can tell what compensations thrilled the hearts of those who were unknown
till persecution dragged them into fame and chased them up to heaven? We know
not how God speaks to the heart. We have never had a message from quite the edge
of the grave; words have been spoken to us, it may be, within ten feet of the tomb,
but not from the very edge of the grave itself; what visions then shone on the
departed soul we cannot tell; here and there some exceptional instance of triumph
has been recorded: but who knows how God receives into his arms at last those who
are ready for home? The Lord reigneth. There are no accidents. There are no mere
tyrannies. There are no sub-gods. Nero was a creation of the Almighty. He did not
19

know it; the poor, emaciated, gluttonous, bibulous soul did not know it: but the
devil himself is a black servant in the great household. It will be explained at last: let
the Lord reign.
Ponder God"s interpretation of an oath. "Therefore thus saith the Lord God; As I
live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken,
even it will I recompense upon his own head." Zedekiah plighted his oath to
Nebuchadnezzar, and Zedekiah"s oath is called the Lord"s oath. That is a mistake
which many persons make when they suppose that they are taking an oath: it is
God"s oath that they are taking, it is God"s word that they are plighting. There is
the upper side of an oath, that relates to the throne of God. Zedekiah swore in the
name of God, and God said, That word must be carried out, because my name has
been used in sanctioning and authenticating it. We must not bandy about the divine
name, and imagine God takes no heed of it. There are many ways of setting aside
God. God will not be set aside. We vote him out of our Parliament and out of our
history, and we think we have got rid of him. He will come again, rendingly,
judicially, penally; may he not come destructively! When an oath is taken profanely
it is not done with. If you have used the king"s seal, you are responsible for that
stamp; the wax is no longer common wax. Where did you find the seal? How did
you use it? Why did you employ it? What is the meaning of it? Have you been
trifling with your best self, and not only doing Song of Solomon , but seeking to
force eternity into your menial service? The Lord is a jealous God, in the sense of
seeking the issues of all human actions, and showing men by divers providences that
they are not acting on their own responsibility alone, until they renounce the name
of God, and even then they suddenly stumble upon the throne of judgment. How
many vows have we broken? Let every man answer the question himself; it is not
the business even of a pastor to tear open wounds that are hardly cicatrised, gashes
in the life out of which the red blood is still oozing. Let every man testify to himself
and to God as to how he has broken vows and made oaths of no account, and so
familiarised himself with altars at which he has sworn that the altars have become
common stone, mud, without fire, or glory, or divinity. We best rebuke the oath-
breaker by keeping the vows we have made ourselves. When we are careful about
our own vows and oaths we shall be quiet but mighty examples, rebuking with
severest accusation and reproach those who use human language merely for
personal convenience.
What is the meaning of all these riddles and parables inspired by Heaven? The
20

answer is given in Ezekiel 17:22-24. These verses have been accepted by Jewish
commentators and by Christian commentators alike as referring to the Messiah, to
be read and pondered and grasped as to their inner meaning and effect. God winds
up the whole parable and its application by some marvellous words; he says, "And
all the trees of the field shall know that I the Lord have brought down the high tree,
have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree
to flourish: I the Lord have spoken and have done it." Then what mistakes we have
to correct! We had been thinking otherwise of the whole schemes of things. What a
revelation there will be at last, what a different view, what a correction of our
misinterpretations of providence! Everything has been of God. Is the high tree
down? God felled it. Is the low tree exalted? God lifted it upwards to the blue
heavens. Is the green tree dry, withered, utterly desiccated? God hath sucked its
juice, and left it a barren, blighted thing in the meadow. Is the dry tree flourishing?
Is the tree that men thought dead beginning to show signs of vitality? Are there
spring buds upon it? Are the birds looking at it curiously, as if by-and-by mayhap
they may build even there? The Lord hath made the dry tree to flourish. This is
divine sovereignty. The God of the riddle and the God who works his will among the
trees must be regarded as the same God. What is true in this verse which closes the
chapter is true to all human life. Is one man successful? God made him Song of
Solomon , in the degree in which his success was legitimate, healthy, righteous. Is a
man vainly, viciously successful? The green tree shall be dried up. Is a man
humbled, laid low in the dust? God may have done that for the man"s salvation;
after a day or two who can tell what may happen, if the overthrow has been
accepted in the right spirit, and if instead of being turned in the direction of despair
it has been turned in the direction of self-examination and self-accusation, and
penitence, and broken-heartedness? Is the nation suffering from singular visitation?
Is trade going away? Are men working much for nothing? Do men rise in the
morning simply that they may sting themselves with disappointments all the day,
and come back at night to seek rest from a world of tumult and worry? God is
looking on, and he will know when to send the ships back to the ports, and when to
revive commerce, and when to make the desert blossom as the rose. Is an enemy
hard upon me? It is not the enemy, it is God: I have been doing wrong; when I have
opposition to encounter I must ask myself serious questions; as for any man that can
assail me, who is he? what faculty has he? what can he do? "Be not afraid of them
that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do." The king of
Babylon may be sent to smite me because I have forgotten the King of heaven. Have
no fear of your enemies, but interpret their enmity aright. If a man"s ways please
the Lord he will make even his enemies to be at peace with him; if a man shall try to
be right and good, virtuous, generous, and to live a divine life, no weapon that is
formed against him shall prosper; it shall be forged, it shall be whetted, it shall be
21

lifted up, but it shall never come down upon the head of him for whom it was
intended. How joyous would be our life if we could live in this strong conviction!
Some of us have had opposition enough, and we have now lived long enough to
thank God for it. Opposition made us. Patronage will kill any man; success will turn
almost any head. We cannot be helped by recommendation beyond a very little
degree; but we can be helped all but infinitely by contempt, neglect, sneering,
mockery, foolish, baseless reproach and accusation. There is no man in the front line
of the section of life to which he belongs who has not been set there by hostility. But
the hostility has been rightly interpreted, rightly accepted, piously applied. The man
on whom the stroke has fallen has kissed the rod and said it is in the hand of God.
The Lord having discoursed by the medium of a parable upon the greatness and the
glory of certain men, says, "Shall it prosper? shall he not pull up the roots thereof,
and cut off the fruit thereof, that it wither? it shall wither in all the leaves of her
spring, even without great power or many people to pluck it up by the roots thereof.
Yea, behold, being planted, shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither, when the
east wind toucheth it? it shall wither in the furrows where it grew." "I have seen the
wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. Yet he passed
away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found." Asaph
beheld the world, and thought it had turned itself upside down, that virtue was
somewhere wailing like a lost child, and vice was eating up the banquet of heaven.
He stepped into the sanctuary, and all was explained.
BI 1-10, "Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel.
Prophecy in parable
The word “riddle” may in this connection mean parable, picture, symbol; whatever will
excite and interest the imagination. If the zephyr has not voice enough to arrest us, God
will employ the thunder; if the little silvery streamlet, hurrying through its green banks,
attend. Who will say there is only one way of preaching, teaching, educating young men?
There are a thousand ways: what we want is that a young man shall say when his way is
not being adopted. This will suit a good many: God bless the teacher in this effort; he is
not now speaking to me, but to persons who can understand that way alone; let heaven’s
grace make hearts tender as he unravels his parable, as he takes up his harp and
discourses upon its sweet, mysterious music. When a preacher is setting forth riddle and
parable, the man who falsely thinks himself a logician—for there can only be a logician
once in a generation—should pray that the parable may be blessed. When the preacher
or teacher is seeking by hard, strong argument to force home a truth, those who live on
wings should carry themselves as high as possible that they may bring down a larger,
riper blessing upon the teacher and his method. This is God’s administration: this is the
many-coloured robe of providence with which He would clothe our naked shoulders.
What has come to us—a riddle, a parable, a dream, a process of logic, a historical
22

induction? Take God’s gift, and through it find the Giver. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Truth taught through the imagination
The imagination is the grand organ whereby truth can make successful approaches to
the mind. Some preachers deal much with the passions: they attack the hopes and fears
of men; but this is a very different thing from the right use of the imagination, as the
medium of impressing truth. Jesus Christ has left perfect patterns of this way of
managing men; but it is a distinct talent, and a talent committed to very few. It is an easy
thing to move the passions: a rude, blunt, illiterate attack may do this; but to form one
new figure for the conveyance of truth to the mind is a difficult thing. The world is under
no small obligation to the man who forms such a figure . . . The figure of Jesus Christ
(the Parables) sink into the mind, and leave there the indelible impress of the truth
which they convey. (Cecil’s Remains.)
Illustrating the truth
The subject matter of Christian teaching preeminently requires illustration. The
barrister has, in a new case, that which stimulates attention, while the preacher has an
oft-told tale to set before his people. (Andrew Fuller.)
2 “Son of man, set forth an allegory and tell it to
the Israelites as a parable.
CLARKE, "Son of man, put forth a riddle - Riddle, Anglo-Saxon, from to divine;
a thing that must be curiously investigated and sifted, to find out the meaning; and
hence, riddle, a sort of coarse sieve to clean corn, to separate coarse chaff and straws
from the pure grain. An instrument formerly used for divination. This is not far removed
from the Hebrew ‫חידה‬ chidah, from ‫חד‬ chad, to penetrate; not that which penetrates
the mind, but which we must penetrate to find out the sense.
GILL, "Son of man, put forth a riddle,.... A dark saying, but a smart one: "whet a
whetting" (k), as in the Hebrew; something at first sight difficult to be understood, yet
amusing and entertaining; and, when solved, very useful and instructive:
23

and speak a parable unto the house of Israel; or, "concerning the house of Israel"
(l); as the Targum and Syriac version; something relating to them, and what would aptly
describe and represent their case; for the prophet was bid to take such a method, not to
hide things from them, but rather the more strongly to represent them to them; seeing
hereby their attention would be excited, and things would be more fixed in their
memories, and they would be put upon studying the meaning of them; and when
explained to them, and understood, which was quickly done, they might be the more
affected with them.
JAMISON, "riddle — a continued allegory, expressed enigmatically, requiring more
than common acumen and serious thought. The Hebrew is derived from a root, “sharp,”
that is, calculated to stimulate attention and whet the intellect. Distinct from “fable,” in
that it teaches not fiction, but fact. Not like the ordinary riddle, designed to puzzle, but
to instruct. The “riddle” is here identical with the “parable,” only that the former refers
to the obscurity, the latter to the likeness of the figure to the thing compared.
CALVIN, “But I come to the words Son of man, set forth in enigma: the noun and
the verb mutually answer to each other, hence any one may if he please render the
Prophet’s words, by saying enigmatize an enigma: for the Prophet here speaks of
allegorical language, ‫,חידה‬ chideh, signifies the same as “allegory,” where the words
are different from the sense, that is, where the sense is wrapped up in obscure
involutions: but we know that God sometimes spoke enigmatically when unwilling
to be understood by the impious and disbelieving. But here the obscurity of the
sentence has another meaning, namely, that the Jews should be waked up, and this
prophecy should penetrate their minds: we know their extreme hardness, and hence
if the Prophet had spoken simply and in his accustomed language, they had not been
so attentive. This therefore is the reason why, God orders him to speak
enigmatically. He now adds, ‫ומשל‬ ‫,משל‬ vemeshel meshel. We know that meshel is a
remarkable sentence, and is the word used by Solomon as the title of his proverbs:
‫,משל‬ meshel, then, means the same as apothegm: but it is sometimes taken for
likeness: and in this place God so denounces destruction upon the Israelites in an
allegory, as to illustrate his language by a comparison, since otherwise it would have
been obscure. Be this as it may, God so prefaced his address, that the Jews might
acknowledge the message to be no common one, but that it ought to affect them
seriously. The usual reason for speaking enigmatically does not hold good here,
namely, that the Jews were unworthy of the doctrine of salvation, since the Prophet
will very shortly explain what he had hitherto uttered in figure and allegory. It is
indeed true, that Christ spoke in parables to the people, because the disciples alone
were capable of familiar and pure teaching. Of unbelievers, also, Isaiah says,
Prophecy shall be to you a sealed book. Hence I will speak with this people in a
24

strange and barbarous tongue, and they shall not proceed beyond the rudiments.
(Matthew 13:0.) But, as I have said, the obscurity of this teaching was only a
preparation, that the people should strictly attend to the subject here set before
them.
COKE, "Verse 2
Ezekiel 17:2. Put forth a riddle— That is to say, a continued metaphor, or figurative
speech; an allegory. The prophets frequently offer their instruction under this kind
of enigmatical parables. Our Saviour complied with this taste of the easterns in his
Gospel. See Calmet.
ELLICOTT, "(2) A riddle . . . a parable.—What the prophet has to say is called a
riddle as well as a parable, because there is something in it recondite and obscure—
something which, until it is explained, should excite the minds of the people to guess
its meaning.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the
house of Israel;
Ver. 2. Son of man, put forth a riddle.] Acue acumen, sharpen a sharpening, or whet
a whetting. The prophet might have expressed God’s mind in fewer words; but then
it would not have taken so deep an impression. Parents must whet God’s word upon
their children, [Deuteronomy 6:7] ministers upon their people, and Christians upon
one another for the increase of love and good works. [Hebrews 10:24] Riddles
exercise the wit, and parables help the memory, and excite both attention and
affection.
POOLE, " These two verses are preface to what follows in the chapter.
A riddle; a dark saying, which calls for thorough consideration to understand and
25

apply it, because the meaning is different to the sound of the words.
A parable; the same thing redoubled in different words. And it is likely the prophet
is commanded to use a parable, because those Eastern people were much used to
and taken with this kind of discourse.
The house of Israel, i.e. the remainders of the house of Israel, whether of the ten
tribes, or of the two tribes.
PARKER, " Prophecy In Parable
Ezekiel 17:2
The word "riddle" may in this connection mean parable, picture, symbol; whatever
will excite and interest the imagination. "A great eagle with great wings,
longwinged, full of feathers, which had divers colours"—this is a parabolical
representation of Nebuchadnezzar—"came unto Lebanon"—came unto
Jerusalem—"and took the highest branch of the cedar"—there was so much cedar
in Jerusalem and in the holy edifice that the term "Lebanon" became not
inappropriate as a description of the holy city itself. "He cropped off the top of his
young twigs"—the reference here is to Jehoiakim; there was also a "vine of low
stature," the reference being to Zedekiah; "There was also another great eagle"—
the reference here is to Pharaoh. In order to see the whole image in its proper
historical relation and perspective, compare 2 Kings 24:8-20; 2 Chronicles 36:9-13;
Jeremiah 37 , Jeremiah 52:1-7 : put all these passages together, and you feel the
atmosphere of the sacred riddle or pictorial representation of a chapter in the
marvellous history of divine providence.
Note God"s method of creating interest in his administration or way of doing
things—"Son of Prayer of Manasseh , put forth a riddle." God will appeal to our
interest in some way. If the zephyr has not voice enough to arrest us, God will
employ the thunder; if the little silvery streamlet, hurrying through its green banks,
26

attend. God is trying to get at our attention by every possible means; now by a star,
now by a flower; now by a great social revolution, now by the overturning of
dynasties; now by the pulling up of old trees in which men have built their nests for
ages; now by taking away a little child, now by throwing down a fortune which had
taken a lifetime to build; now by a solemn Psalm , now by an appeal as if uttered by
a lute: thus, and Song of Solomon , and every way, God is trying to get at our
attention, to arrest our thought, to compel us to think, if afterwards he might
constrain us to pray. The direct way is not always the best. There cannot be two
masters of providence: let God be King. Some men are much too direct and
practical; they do not allow for the variety which is characteristic of the human
mind: such men are gifted with stubbornness, and it is often called steadfastness, a
very different term—the one poor, iron-like, and altogether without accommodation
or tenderness; and the other a fine mixture of elements, culminating in strength that
may be leaned upon. Who shall say which is the best method of getting hold of
people"s attention? The circuitous way may sometimes be the shortest way. There
are some people who have no imagination. When they hear the word imagination
they are amused. Were we to charge, as we could well do, some preachers and
theologians who are always full of fear about other people with the want of
imagination, how merry they would be! They would almost be constrained to
prolong the feast that they might laugh the more merrily at our folly; because they
associate with imagination false meanings. Imagination is the highest faculty of the
mind, it is almost that other mind that associates itself with the highest enjoyments
and uses of immortality. There are others who have no practical judgment, or
sound, prosaic, real reason; they are all feathers, like an owl; you do not know
where they are, when they will return, or whether they will ever come home again
God must arrest them with great stone pillars, with huge granite walls; to appeal to
their imagination would be to appeal to what does not exist. Who will say there is
only one way of preaching, teaching, educating young men? There are a thousand
ways: what we want is that a man shall say when his way is not being adopted, This
will suit a good many: God bless the teacher in this effort; he is not now speaking to
me, but to persons who can understand that way alone; let Heaven"s grace make
hearts tender as he unravels his parable, as he takes up his harp and discourses
upon it sweet, mysterious music. When a preacher is setting forth riddle and
parable, the man who falsely thinks himself a logician—for there can only be a
logician once in a generation—should pray that the parable may be blessed. When
the preacher or teacher is seeking by hard, strong argument to force home a truth,
those who live on wings should carry themselves as high as possible, that they may
bring down a larger, riper blessing upon the teacher and his method. This is God"s
administration; this is the many-coloured robe of providence with which he would
27

clothe our naked shoulders. Let us make room for all men, all talents: the Church of
the living God is not constituted of one colour; it is that marvellous rainbow-like
aggregation of hues which, when revolving with the speed of God"s own thought,
becomes a perfect white. What has come to us—a riddle, a parable, a dream, a
process of logic, a historical induction? Take God"s gift, and through it find the
Giver.
Observe how God works through instrumentality. We do not know the full meaning
of that word. Sometimes we stop at the instrument, and forget the Hand that is
using it. What a great figure the king of Babylon makes in this chapter! Yet the king
of Babylon knew nothing as to what he was doing; he held councils, and projected
schemes, and elaborated policies, and thought himself a prime mover in the whole
action of this dramatic and exciting story. What have kings to do with the order of
the world? Nothing. What have noisy legislators, and pugnacious debaters, and
dreadful theological controversialists to do with the final shaping and rule of all
human processes? Nothing. God works by instrumentality. The Lord uses the king
of Babylon, and the king of Babylon thinks he is using God. Who can measure the
depth of human folly? Who built the prison which is a necessary structure in all
society? God built it Who arrests the thief and hales him to the judgment seat? The
constable? No: society takes up the felon. The constable"s hand is not one of five
fingers only, strong, muscular, lithe fingers; the constable would be thrown down
and trodden upon if he did not represent society, conviction, justice, righteousness;
and before that every Judas falls back, blanched, depleted, shamed. Yet kings nod
their heads at one another and imagine themselves prime factors; and every Prayer
of Manasseh , in his own house, or business, or other little way, thinks himself a
king. We know not that all things are governed by the Lord. Who erected the Cross
of Christ? Not the Jews, except in an intermediate, transient way; God built the
Cross, or it would only have been a Roman gallows. The Cross was fashioned in
eternity. If we had eyes that could see, instead of the blurred vision that can really
see nothing, we should discern the shadow of the Cross upon the face of every star
and every flower, and on the disc of the whole scheme of things. Who kindled the
fires of martyrdom? God. Let it never be supposed that the children of God were
handed over to the merest tyrants and representatives of brutal temper and black
blood, that they might wreak their vengeance on purity, simplicity, and godliness.
There is a sense in which bad men did it, or in which infatuated good men did it, but
God was all the while educating the world by suffering, by exhibitions of heroism;
and who can tell what compensations thrilled the hearts of those who were unknown
till persecution dragged them into fame and chased them up to heaven? We know
28

not how God speaks to the heart. We have never had a message from quite the edge
of the grave; words have been spoken to us, it may be, within ten feet of the tomb,
but not from the very edge of the grave itself; what visions then shone on the
departed soul we cannot tell; here and there some exceptional instance of triumph
has been recorded: but who knows how God receives into his arms at last those who
are ready for home? The Lord reigneth. There are no accidents. There are no mere
tyrannies. There are no sub-gods. Nero was a creation of the Almighty. He did not
know it; the poor, emaciated, gluttonous, bibulous soul did not know it: but the
devil himself is a black servant in the great household. It will be explained at last: let
the Lord reign.
Ponder God"s interpretation of an oath. "Therefore thus saith the Lord God; As I
live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken,
even it will I recompense upon his own head." Zedekiah plighted his oath to
Nebuchadnezzar, and Zedekiah"s oath is called the Lord"s oath. That is a mistake
which many persons make when they suppose that they are taking an oath: it is
God"s oath that they are taking, it is God"s word that they are plighting. There is
the upper side of an oath, that relates to the throne of God. Zedekiah swore in the
name of God, and God said, That word must be carried out, because my name has
been used in sanctioning and authenticating it. We must not bandy about the divine
name, and imagine God takes no heed of it. There are many ways of setting aside
God. God will not be set aside. We vote him out of our Parliament and out of our
history, and we think we have got rid of him. He will come again, rendingly,
judicially, penally; may he not come destructively! When an oath is taken profanely
it is not done with. If you have used the king"s seal, you are responsible for that
stamp; the wax is no longer common wax. Where did you find the seal? How did
you use it? Why did you employ it? What is the meaning of it? Have you been
trifling with your best self, and not only doing Song of Solomon , but seeking to
force eternity into your menial service? The Lord is a jealous God, in the sense of
seeking the issues of all human actions, and showing men by divers providences that
they are not acting on their own responsibility alone, until they renounce the name
of God, and even then they suddenly stumble upon the throne of judgment. How
many vows have we broken? Let every man answer the question himself; it is not
the business even of a pastor to tear open wounds that are hardly cicatrised, gashes
in the life out of which the red blood is still oozing. Let every man testify to himself
and to God as to how he has broken vows and made oaths of no account, and so
familiarised himself with altars at which he has sworn that the altars have become
common stone, mud, without fire, or glory, or divinity. We best rebuke the oath-
29

breaker by keeping the vows we have made ourselves. When we are careful about
our own vows and oaths we shall be quiet but mighty examples, rebuking with
severest accusation and reproach those who use human language merely for
personal convenience.
What is the meaning of all these riddles and parables inspired by Heaven? The
answer is given in Ezekiel 17:22-24. These verses have been accepted by Jewish
commentators and by Christian commentators alike as referring to the Messiah, to
be read and pondered and grasped as to their inner meaning and effect. God winds
up the whole parable and its application by some marvellous words; he says, "And
all the trees of the field shall know that I the Lord have brought down the high tree,
have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree
to flourish: I the Lord have spoken and have done it." Then what mistakes we have
to correct! We had been thinking otherwise of the whole schemes of things. What a
revelation there will be at last, what a different view, what a correction of our
misinterpretations of providence! Everything has been of God. Is the high tree
down? God felled it. Is the low tree exalted? God lifted it upwards to the blue
heavens. Is the green tree dry, withered, utterly desiccated? God hath sucked its
juice, and left it a barren, blighted thing in the meadow. Is the dry tree flourishing?
Is the tree that men thought dead beginning to show signs of vitality? Are there
spring buds upon it? Are the birds looking at it curiously, as if by-and-by mayhap
they may build even there? The Lord hath made the dry tree to flourish. This is
divine sovereignty. The God of the riddle and the God who works his will among the
trees must be regarded as the same God. What is true in this verse which closes the
chapter is true to all human life. Is one man successful? God made him Song of
Solomon , in the degree in which his success was legitimate, healthy, righteous. Is a
man vainly, viciously successful? The green tree shall be dried up. Is a man
humbled, laid low in the dust? God may have done that for the man"s salvation;
after a day or two who can tell what may happen, if the overthrow has been
accepted in the right spirit, and if instead of being turned in the direction of despair
it has been turned in the direction of self-examination and self-accusation, and
penitence, and broken-heartedness? Is the nation suffering from singular visitation?
Is trade going away? Are men working much for nothing? Do men rise in the
morning simply that they may sting themselves with disappointments all the day,
and come back at night to seek rest from a world of tumult and worry? God is
looking on, and he will know when to send the ships back to the ports, and when to
revive commerce, and when to make the desert blossom as the rose. Is an enemy
hard upon me? It is not the enemy, it is God: I have been doing wrong; when I have
30

opposition to encounter I must ask myself serious questions; as for any man that can
assail me, who is he? what faculty has he? what can he do? "Be not afraid of them
that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do." The king of
Babylon may be sent to smite me because I have forgotten the King of heaven. Have
no fear of your enemies, but interpret their enmity aright. If a man"s ways please
the Lord he will make even his enemies to be at peace with him; if a man shall try to
be right and good, virtuous, generous, and to live a divine life, no weapon that is
formed against him shall prosper; it shall be forged, it shall be whetted, it shall be
lifted up, but it shall never come down upon the head of him for whom it was
intended. How joyous would be our life if we could live in this strong conviction!
Some of us have had opposition enough, and we have now lived long enough to
thank God for it. Opposition made us. Patronage will kill any man; success will turn
almost any head. We cannot be helped by recommendation beyond a very little
degree; but we can be helped all but infinitely by contempt, neglect, sneering,
mockery, foolish, baseless reproach and accusation. There is no man in the front line
of the section of life to which he belongs who has not been set there by hostility. But
the hostility has been rightly interpreted, rightly accepted, piously applied. The man
on whom the stroke has fallen has kissed the rod and said it is in the hand of God.
The Lord having discoursed by the medium of a parable upon the greatness and the
glory of certain men, says, "Shall it prosper? shall he not pull up the roots thereof,
and cut off the fruit thereof, that it wither? it shall wither in all the leaves of her
spring, even without great power or many people to pluck it up by the roots thereof.
Yea, behold, being planted, shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither, when the
east wind toucheth it? it shall wither in the furrows where it grew." "I have seen the
wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. Yet he passed
away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I sought him, but he could not be found." Asaph
beheld the world, and thought it had turned itself upside down, that virtue was
somewhere wailing like a lost child, and vice was eating up the banquet of heaven.
He stepped into the sanctuary, and all was explained.
PETT, "Verse 2
“Son of man, put forth a riddle and speak a parable to the house of Israel.”
31

What was to follow was a riddle to be solved and a parable, here a story with a
hidden meaning (but which was to be explained), with an important message for the
people of Israel.
PULPIT, "
Put forth a riddle, etc. Again there is an interval of silence, till another theme is
suggested to the prophet's mind and worked out elaborately. This he describes as a
"riddle" (same word as the "dark speeches" of Numbers 12:8, the "hard questions"
of 1 Kings 10:1). It will task the ingenuity of his hearers or readers to interpret it,
and so he subjoins (Ezekiel 17:12-24) the interpretation. That interpretation enables
us to fix the occasion and the date of the prophecy. It was the time when Zedekiah
was seeking to strengthen himself against Nebuchadnezzar by an Egyptian alliance.
3 Say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord
says: A great eagle with powerful wings, long
feathers and full plumage of varied colors came to
Lebanon. Taking hold of the top of a cedar,
BARNES, "A great eagle ... - Probably the golden eagle, whose plumage has the
variety of color here depicted. The eagle (the king of birds) is a natural representative of
monarchs (compare, Jer_48:40), and was an Assyrian emblem.
With great wings, Iongwinged - literally, “great of wing, long of pinion,” because
32

he has swept victoriously over widely distant lands - of divers colors, because his
subjects are of various races and tongues. Jerusalem is here called “Lebanon” because
Lebanon is the proper home of the cedar. The “highest branch” or “topshoot” is
Jeconiah, the rightful king of Jerusalem, the “young twigs” are his children and the
princes carried by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon.
CLARKE, "A great eagle - Nebuchadnezzar. See Jer_48:40; Jer_49:22; Dan_7:4.
And see here, Dan_7:12, where it is so applied.
Great wings - Extensive empire.
Long-winged - Rapid in his conquests.
Full of feathers - Having multitudes of subjects.
Divers colors - People of various nations.
Came unto Lebanon - Came against Judea.
The highest branch - King Jehoiachin he took captive to Babylon.
The cedar - The Jewish state and king.
GILL, "And say, thus saith the Lord God,.... The riddle is not the prophet's, nor
the parable his, but the Lord God's; and exceeding beautiful and apt it is, to signify the
things designed by it; the wisdom of God is greatly displayed in it:
a great eagle; which is Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, as it is explained, Eze_17:12;
who is compared to an eagle for his power and authority, that being the king of birds,
and for his swiftness and voracity in conquering and subduing kingdoms; see Jer_
48:40;
with great wings; so the Babylonish monarchy is signified by a lion with eagle's wings,
Dan_7:4; and the two parts of the Roman empire, into which it was divided at the death
of Theodosius, are called two wings of a great eagle, Rev_12:14; and so here it may
denote the large kingdoms and provinces which belonged to the Babylonian monarchy;
see Est_1:1;
longwinged; or having a "long member" (m); meaning the body of the wing, which was
long; and so, as the wings spread, may signify the breadth of his dominion, this the
length of them, and both their extensiveness:
full of feathers; of cities, towns, people, armies, wealth, and riches:
which had divers colours; or an "embroidery" (n); like that of the weaver, only
needle work, consisting of various colours; and so it alludes to such eagles as are called
the golden eagle, and "asterias", from their golden colour, and their being spotted like
stars, and which are said to be of the largest size, as Bochart, from Aelianus (o),
observes; and may signify people of divers languages, customs, manners, and
circumstances, subject to the government of the king of Babylon:
33

came unto Lebanon; the northern border of the land of Judea, and invaded it; where
were the mountain and forest of Lebanon, famous for the cedars that grew there, from
whence the whole land may here take its name, as being more apt for the allegory used:
or the city of Jerusalem, where were the temple built of the cedars of Lebanon, as many
of its palaces and houses also were; whither the king of Babylon came, and took it, and
who came northward, as Babylon was:
and took the highest branch of the cedar; by the "cedar" is meant, either the
nation in general, or the royal family in particular; and by the "highest branch" the then
reigning king, Jeconiah with the princes and nobles of the land, who were taken and
carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar; see 2Ki_24:14.
HENRY 3-4, "Let us now see what the matter of this message is.
I. Nebuchadnezzar had some time ago carried off Jehoiachin, the same that was called
Jeconiah, when he was but eighteen years of age and had reigned in Jerusalem but three
months, him and his princes and great men, and had brought them captives to Babylon,
2Ki_24:12. This in the parable is represented by an eagle's cropping the top and tender
branch of a cedar, and carrying it into a land of traffic, a city of merchants (Eze_17:3,
Eze_17:4), which is explained Eze_17:12. The king of Babylon took the king of
Jerusalem, who was no more able to resist him than a young twig of a tree is to contend
with the strongest bird of prey, that easily crops it off, perhaps towards the making of
her nest. Nebuchadnezzar, in Daniel's vision, is a lion, the king of beasts (Dan_7:4);
there he has eagle's wings, so swift were his motions, so speedy were his conquests.
Here, in this parable, he is an eagle, the king of birds, a great eagle, that lives upon spoil
and rapine, whose young ones suck up blood, Job_39:30. His dominion extends itself far
and wide, like the great and long wings of an eagle; the people are numerous, for it is full
of feathers; the court is splendid, for it has divers colours, which look like embroidering,
as the word is. Jerusalem is Lebanon, a forest of houses, and very pleasant. The royal
family is the cedar; Jehoiachin is the top branch, the top of the young twigs, which he
crops off. Babylon is the land of traffic and city of merchants where it is set. And the
king of Judah, being of the house of David, will think himself much degraded and
disgraced to be lodged among tradesmen; but he must make the best of it.
JAMISON, "eagle — the king of birds. The literal Hebrew is, “the great eagle.” The
symbol of the Assyrian supreme god, Nisroch; so applied to “the great king” of Babylon,
his vicegerent on earth (Jer_48:40; Jer_49:22). His “wings” are his great forces. Such
symbols were familiar to the Jews, who saw them portrayed on the great buildings of
Babylon; such as are now seen in the Assyrian remains.
long-winged — implying the wide extent of his empire.
full of feathers — when they have been renewed after molting; and so in the full
freshness of renovated youth (Psa_103:5; Isa_40:31). Answering to the many peoples
which, as tributaries, constituted the strength of Babylon.
divers colours — the golden eagle, marked with star-like spots, supposed to be the
largest of eagles [Bochart]. Answering to the variety of languages, habits, and costumes
of the peoples subject to Babylon.
34

came unto Lebanon — continuing the metaphor: as the eagle frequents mountains,
not cities. The temple at Jerusalem was called “Lebanon” by the Jews [Eusebius],
because its woodwork was wholly of cedars of Lebanon. “The mountain of the Lord’s
house” (Isa_2:2). Jerusalem, however, is chiefly meant, the chief seat of civil honor, as
Lebanon was of external elevation.
took the highest branch — King Jeconiah, then but eighteen years old, and many
of the chiefs and people with him (2Ki_24:8, 2Ki_24:12-16). The Hebrew for “highest
branch” is, properly, the fleece-like tuft at the top of the tree. (So in Eze_31:3-14). The
cedar, as a tall tree, is the symbol of kingly elevation (compare Dan_4:10-12).
CALVIN, “Here the Prophet reasons from the greater to the less: for if
Nebuchadnezzar was able to subdue the whole kingdom with ease, when as yet the
Jews were untouched, how much more readily would he overthrow them when
wretched and all but ruined: for nothing remained which was not threatened with
ruin; and this is the meaning of the Prophet. But he compares King
Nebuchadnezzar to an eagle, whom he says was great, and then with large or
extended wings. There is no doubt that by wings, feathers, and plumes, he means the
regions and peoples over which Nebuchadnezzar presided; for we know that the
Chaldaeans possessed the monarchy of the East. Since, therefore, so many regions
and people obeyed Nebuchadnezzar’s sway, it is not surprising that the Prophet
calls him a great eagle, with ample wings, and with numerous feathers or plumes;
for where he now says, ‫הנוצה‬ ‫,מלא‬ mela henotzeh, full of feathers, he will shortly say,
‫נוצה‬ ‫,רב‬ reb notzeh, many feathers, when speaking of the king of Egypt. He says, the
wings were of divers colors; it is the same noun which the Prophet used in the last
chapter, when he said that the people were clad in precious garments; for thus the
Hebrews speak of Phrygian texture: hence he compares the wings of the king of
Babylon to a woven garment, resplendent with various colors; for although
Nebuchadnezzar held his throne at only one place, yet he had seized and subdued
many tributaries on all sides. This, the "Ezekiel 17:3. A great eagle, &c.— This
great eagle represents Nebuchadrezzar, according to all the interpreters; his
greatness, long wings, beautiful, abundant, and well-coloured plumage, denote the
force and greatness of his empire, the rapidity of his conquests, and the number of
his subjects. The Scripture has in more places than one described this prince under
the figure of an eagle. See Jeremiah 48:40; Jeremiah 49:22. Daniel 7:4. By his
coming to Lebanon, and taking the highest branch of the cedar, is meant his
invasion of Judaea, his investing the city of Jerusalem, and taking king Jehoiachin
and the princes captive. See Calmet. refore, is the reason for this variety; — but I
cannot proceed further at present.
35

COKE , "Ezekiel 17:3. A great eagle, &c.— This great eagle represents
Nebuchadrezzar, according to all the interpreters; his greatness, long wings,
beautiful, abundant, and well-coloured plumage, denote the force and greatness of
his empire, the rapidity of his conquests, and the number of his subjects. The
Scripture has in more places than one described this prince under the figure of an
eagle. See Jeremiah 48:40; Jeremiah 49:22. Daniel 7:4. By his coming to Lebanon,
and taking the highest branch of the cedar, is meant his invasion of Judaea, his
investing the city of Jerusalem, and taking king Jehoiachin and the princes captive.
See Calmet.
ELLICOTT, " (3) A great eagle with great wings.—In the original “the great eagle.”
This is explained in Ezekiel 17:12 of “the king of Babylon.” Nebuchadnezzar is
compared to an eagle also in Jeremiah 48:40; Jeremiah 49:22; and Cyrus to a bird
of prey in Isaiah 46:11. He has great and long wings, because he has already flown
victoriously over wide-spread lands; and he is “full of feathers which had divers
colours,” because he had embraced in his empire a variety of nations differing in
languages, manners, and customs.
Came unto Lebanon.—Jerusalem is called Lebanon, as in Jeremiah 22:23; because
Lebanon is the home of the cedar, and the royal palace in Jerusalem was so rich in
cedar as to be called “the house of the forest of Lebanon” (1 Kings 7:2).
The highest branch.—This is a word occurring only in Ezekiel (Ezekiel 17:22, and
Ezekiel 31:3-4; Ezekiel 31:10). It is of uncertain etymology, but is explained in
Ezekiel 17:4 as meaning “the top of his young twigs.” The English branch hardly
conveys the exact idea, and it would be better to translate “topshoot.”
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 17:3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD A great eagle with great
wings, longwinged, full of feathers, which had divers colours, came unto Lebanon,
and took the highest branch of the cedar:
Ver. 3. A great eagle with great wings.] An eagle, that king of birds, is a fit emblem
of an emperor; (a) as it is here of Nebuchadnezzar the Great. [Ezekiel 17:12
36

Jeremiah 48:40; Jeremiah 49:22] Monarchs, as eagles, have quick eyes, long talons,
fly high pitches, aim at great matters, strive to get above all others, choose
themselves high and firm seats, &c. See Job 39:27-30, with the notes. Ajax is called
αιτος, an eagle, in Pindarus; so is King Pyrrhus in Plutarch, and took delight in that
title. The Spaniard was well laughed at by Captain Drake and his forces when they
took Santo Domingo, 1585, and found in the townhall the King of Spain’s arms, and
under them a globe of the world, out of which issued, not a well-plumed eagle, but a
flying home, with this inscription, Non sufficit orbis the world is not enough. We
could not so well bridle his Pegasus at Santo Domingo, yet we put a stop to him at
Jamaica; but we have lately pulled his plumes in Flanders to some purpose, by
gaining from him Dunkirk, now (b) held by the English, and likewise Berghen,
another place of great strength, now held by the French; the good news whereof
came to us yesterday, being June 27, 1658. Praised be the holy name of God for ever.
Came unto Lebanon,] i.e., Unto Judea, which lieth near the forest of Lebanon,
which forest also lieth in the way from Babylon to Judea.
And took the highest branch of the cedar.] Taleam, the top branch. This was
Jeconiah. [2 Kings 24:12]
POOLE, " A great eagle; Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, as Ezekiel 17:12,
compared to a great eagle, king of birds, swift, strong, rapacious, and of a lofty
flight.
With great wings; mighty provinces on each side of his kingdom.
Long-winged; his kingdom was vastly extended, as Daniel 3:3 4:1; the greatest king
then living.
Full of feathers; his kingdom was very full of people.
37

Which had divers colours; were of divers nations, languages, and manners, so that
this eagle, nay be well thought to be that sort which is greatest in the kind, and best
resembleth him, who was the greatest monarch in the world at that time.
Came; invaded with a mighty army; he came not as a traveller to please his
curiosity, but as an invader to enlarge his dominion.
Unto Lebanon; either the temple built with cedars of Lebanon; or Jerusalem, the
chief city of the country where this great, fruitful, and pleasant hill was; or the
whole country set forth by its chiefest hill, which runs about a hundred and twenty-
five miles in length, and encloseth the land of Judea on the north side.
Took; took captive and carried away with him.
The highest branch; the king of Judah, Jehoiachin.
Of the cedar; either the royal family, or rather, the whole nation of the Jews.
HEDON, " The trees of the field; the great ones on earth, all considering persons.
Shall know; see and confess.
The high tree; Zedekiah, that would neither hearken to me, my prophets, or to
Nebuchadnezzar; or the kingdom of Babylon, which was brought low indeed, when
overthrown by Darius and Cyrus.
The low tree; either Jehoiachin’s lineage, or the church, which, from being low, was
exalted by the Lord, bending Cyrus to that work of restoring the captivity from
Babylon, and building the city and house of God: its meaning is, the advancing the
kingdom of Christ, and suppressing the enemies thereof.
38

Dried up the green tree; the same thing expressed in somewhat different words.
I the Lord have spoken; the power, goodness, and faithfulness of God, who can do
what he pleaseth, and will do what he promiseth, is the assurance of the future
accomplishment of his word.
PETT, "Verses 3-6
“And say, Thus says the Lord Yahweh, ‘A great eagle with great wings and long
pinions, full of feathers, which was many-coloured, came to Lebanon and took the
top of the cedar. He cropped off the topmost of its young twigs and carried it into a
land of trading (cana‘an). He took it into a city of merchandise. He took also of the
seed of the land, and planted it in a field prepared for seed, he placed it beside many
waters. He set it as a willow tree. And it grew and became a spreading vine of low
stature, whose branches turned towards him, and its roots were under him. So it
became a vine, and sprouted out its branches, and produced sprigs.”
The eagle is portrayed as powerful (a great eagle with great wings), ferocious and
threatening (long of pinion), and splendid (a full array of many-coloured feathers).
Compare for the eagle as such a harbinger of judgment Deuteronomy 28:49;
Jeremiah 28:40; Jeremiah 49:22; Lamentations 4:19; Habakkuk 1:8. Ezekiel 17:12
tells us that it represented the king of Babylon.
The tall cedar represents the rebel confederacy against him in Syria and Palestine,
in ‘Lebanon’, a term regularly used of the area (compare Joshua 1:4; 2 Kings 14:9;
2 Kings 19:23; Isaiah 10:34; Isaiah 37:24; Zechariah 11:1-3), proud and upstanding.
The cedars of Lebanon were famous as an example of what was tall and majestic
(Isaiah 2:13; 1 Kings 4:33; 2 Kings 14:9; Psalms 104:16; Ezekiel 31:3). Thus in
Judges 9:15 to ‘devour the cedars of Lebanon’ was to wreak havoc on a variety of
tall trees.
39

The top of the cedar represents their aristocracy. The ‘topmost of the young twigs’ is
probably Jehoiachin, king of Judah, seen from a patriotic viewpoint. He may have
been the leader of the confederacy that united to oppose Nebuchadnezzar.
Babylonia was at this time famous for its trade, Many imported goods came from
Babylon (compare Joshua 7:21; Revelation 18:11-15) and so it is described as ‘the
land of trade’, and Babylon itself as the city of merchants. They were seen by Israel
at the time as the trade centre of their world. The word for ‘trade’ is cana‘an, but
the land of Canaan would not be called by this name at that time, and the word can
also mean ‘trade’, which it almost certainly indicates here.
The ‘seed of the land’ refers to Zedekiah (Ezekiel 17:13, compare 2 Kings 24:17),
who replaced Jehoiachin as king when Jehoiachin was transported, planted in
fertile ground as though in a land where water did not depend on the rain but came
from its many rivers. Thus he was dependent for his growth on Babylon. The ‘many
waters’ of the Euphrates and Tigris with their tributaries are compared later with
the ‘many waters’ of Egypt and the Nile and thus refer to Babylon. He was set ‘like
a willow twig’, one that delights in water, and grew into a luxuriant vine (Compare
Isaiah 44:4). Nebuchadnezzar was concerned to gain his support and loyalty, and
watered him. But it was a vine of low stature, completely subservient and of limited
power. Its branches bent towards the king of Babylon and its roots were under him.
But in this way Zedekiah prospered and was fruitful.
PULPIT, "The eagle with great wings and long pinions (Revised Version) probably
the golden eagle, the largest species of the genus—stands for Nebuchadnezzar, as it
does in Jeremiah 48:40; Jeremiah 49:22. In Isaiah 46:11 the "ravenous bird"
represents Cyrus. Possibly the eagle head of the Assyrian god Nisroch (2 Kings
19:37; Isaiah 37:38) may have impressed the symbolism on Ezekiel's mind. A
doubtful etymology gives "the great eagle" as the meaning of Nisroch. The divers
colours indicate the variety of the nations under the king's sway (Daniel 3:4 : Daniel
4:1). If the cedar was chosen to t,e the symbol of the monarchy of Judah, then it
followed that Lebanon, as the special home of the cedar, should take its place in the
parable. Possibly the fact that one of the stateliest palaces of Solomon was known as
the "house of the forest of Lebanon" (1 Kings 7:2; 1 Kings 10:17, 1 Kings 10:21)
40

may have made the symbolism specially suggestive. The word for highest branch is
peculiar to Ezekiel (here and in verse 22). The branch so carried off was carried into
"a land of traffick" (Hebrew, LXX; and Vulgate, "a land of Canaan," the word
being generalized in its meaning, as in Ezekiel 16:29), i.e. to Babylon, as pre-
eminently the merchant city of the time. This, of course, refers to Nebuchadnezzar's
deportation of Jeconiah and the more eminent citizens of Jerusalem (2 Kings
24:8-15).
4 he broke off its topmost shoot and carried it
away to a land of merchants, where he planted it
in a city of traders.
CLARKE, "The top of his young twigs - The princes of Judah.
A land of traffic - Chaldea.
A city of merchants - Babylon; for which this city was the most celebrated of all the
cities of the east. Its situation procured it innumerable advantages; its two rivers, the
Tigris and Euphrates, and the Persian Gulf, gave it communication with the richest and
the most distant nations.
GILL, "He cropped off the top of his young twigs,.... By which are meant the
princes of the land, or the several branches of the royal family; the top of which was King
Jeconiah, who was but young and tender, being but eighteen years of age when he began
his reign, and this was within three months after; and who was no more able to
withstand the force of the king of Babylon, than a tender twig so ravenous a bird as an
eagle, 2Ki_24:8; whose superior power and strength is signified by the cropping off of a
tender twig:
and carried it into a land of traffic; not into the land of Canaan, as the Septuagint,
and some other versions, literally render it; but into Babylon, which was become a place
41

Ezekiel 17 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Ezekiel 17 commentary

Similar to Ezekiel 17 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (17)

Ezekiel 17 commentary