A verse by verse commentary on Ezekiel 31 dealing with the judgment of Egypt and Pharaoh for their great pride like the cedar of Lebanon,but to be laid flat.

1. EZEKIEL 31 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Pharaoh as a Felled Cedar of Lebanon
1 In the eleventh year, in the third month on the
first day, the word of the Lord came to me:
BARNES, "In the third month - More than a month before Jerusalem was taken
(compare Jer_39:2).
CLARKE, "In the eleventh year - On Sunday, June 19, A.M. 3416, according to
Abp. Usher; a month before Jerusalem was taken by the Chaldeans.
GILL, "And it came to pass in the eleventh year,.... Of Zedekiah's reign, and
Jeconiah's captivity:
in the third month, in the first day of the month: the month Sivan, which began
on the twentieth of our May, and answers to part of May, and part of June; this was
about seven weeks after the former prophecy, and about five weeks before the
destruction of Jerusalem; according to Bishop Usher (n), this was on the nineteenth of
June, on the first day of the week, in 3416 A.M. or before Christ 588:
that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying; as follows:
HENRY, "This prophecy bears date the month before Jerusalem was taken, as that in
the close of the foregoing chapter about four months before. When God's people were in
the depth of their distress, it would be some comfort to them, as it would serve likewise
for a check to the pride and malice of their neighbours, that insulted over them, to be
1

2. told from heaven that the cup was going round, even the cup of trembling, that it would
shortly be taken out of the hands of God's people and put into the hands of those that
hated them, Isa_51:22, Isa_51:23. In this prophecy,
JAMISON, "Eze_31:1-18. The overthrow of Egypt illustrated by that of Assyria. Not
that Egypt was, like Assyria, utterly to cease to be, but it was, like Assyria, to lose its
prominence in the empire of the world.
third month — two months later than the prophecy delivered in Eze_30:20.
K&D 1-9, "The might of Pharaoh resembles the greatness and glory of Asshur. - Eze_
31:1. In the eleventh year, in the third (month), on the first of the month, the word of
Jehovah came to me, saying, Eze_31:2. Son of man, say to Pharaoh the king of Egypt,
and to his tumult, Whom art thou like in thy greatness? Eze_31:3. Behold, Asshur was
a cedar-tree upon Lebanon, beautiful in branches, a shadowing thicket, and its top was
high in growth, and among the clouds. Eze_31:4. Water brought him up, the flood
made him high, its streams went round about its plantation, and it sent its channels to
all the trees of the field. Eze_31:5. Therefore its growth became higher than all the trees
of the field, and its branches became great, and its boughs long from many waters in
its shooting out. Eze_31:6. In its branches all the birds of the heaven made their nests,
and under its boughs all the beasts of the field brought forth, and in its shadow sat
great nations of all kinds. Eze_31:7. And he was beautiful in his greatness, in the length
of his shoots; for his root was by many waters. Eze_31:8. Cedars did not obscure him
in the garden of God, cypresses did not resemble his branches, and plane-trees were
not like his boughs; no tree in the garden of God resembled him in his beauty. Eze_31:9.
I had made him beautiful in the multitude of his shoots, and all the trees of Eden which
were in the garden of God envied him. - The word of God is addressed to King Pharaoh
and to ‫נ‬ ‫מ‬ֲ‫ה‬, his tumult, i.e., whoever and whatever occasions noise and tumult in the
land. We must not interpret this, however, as Hitzig has done, as signifying the ruling
classes and estates in contrast with the quiet in the land, for no such use of ‫ן‬ ‫מ‬ ָ‫ה‬ is
anywhere to be found. Nor must we regard the word as applying to the multitude of
people only, but to the people with their possessions, their riches, which gave rise to
luxury and tumult, as in Eze_30:10. The inquiry, whom does Pharaoh with his tumult
resemble in his greatness, is followed in the place of a reply by a description of Asshur as
a glorious cedar (Eze_31:3-9). It is true that Ewald has followed the example of Meibom
(vanarum in Cod. Hebr. interprett. spec. III p. 70) and J. D. Michaelis, and endeavours
to set aside the allusion to Asshur, by taking the word ‫שּׁוּר‬ ַ‫א‬ in an appellative sense, and
understanding ‫שּׁוּר‬ ַ‫א‬ ‫ז‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫א‬ as signifying a particular kind of cedar, namely, the tallest
species of all. But apart altogether from there being no foundation whatever for such an
explanation in the usage of the language, there is nothing in the fact to justify it. For it is
not anywhere affirmed that Pharaoh resembled this cedar; on the contrary, the question,
whom does he resemble? is asked again in Eze_31:18 (Hitzig). Moreover, Michaelis is
wrong in the supposition that “from Eze_31:10 onwards it becomes perfectly obvious
that it is not Assyria but Egypt itself which is meant by the cedar-tree previously
described.” Under the figure of the felling of a cedar there is depicted the overthrow of a
king or monarchy, which has already taken place. Compare Eze_31:12 and Eze_31:16,
2

3. where the past is indicated quite as certainly as the future in Eze_31:18. And as Eze_
31:18 plainly designates the overthrow of Pharaoh and his power as still in the future,
the cedar, whose destruction is not only threatened in Eze_31:10-17, but declared to
have already taken place, can only be Asshur, and not Egypt at all.
The picture of the glory of this cedar recalls in several respects the similar figurative
description in Ezekiel 17. Asshur is called a cedar upon Lebanon, because it was there
that the most stately cedars grew. ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ֹר‬‫ח‬ ‫ל‬ַ‫צ‬ ֵ‫,מ‬ a shade-giving thicket (‫ל‬ַ‫צ‬ ֵ‫מ‬ is a Hiphil
participle of ‫ל‬ַ‫ל‬ָ‫,)צ‬ belongs to ‫ה‬ֵ‫פ‬ְ‫י‬ ‫ָף‬‫נ‬ָ‫ע‬ as a further expansion of ‫ָף‬‫נ‬ָ‫,ע‬ corresponding to
the further expansion of ‫הּ‬ ַ‫ב‬ְ‫גּ‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫מ‬ֹ‫ק‬ by “its top was among the clouds.” If we bear this in
mind, the reasons assigned by Hitzig for altering ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ֹר‬‫ח‬ into an adjective ‫ֹשׁ‬‫ר‬ֲ‫ה‬, and taking
‫ל‬ַ‫צ‬ ֵ‫מ‬ as a substantive formation after the analogy of ‫ב‬ ַ‫ס‬ ֵ‫,מ‬ lose all their force. Analogy
would only require an adjective in the construct state in the event of the three statements
'‫ה‬ֵ‫פ‬ְ‫י‬ ‫,ע‬ '‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ֹר‬‫ה‬ ‫,מ‬ and '‫הּ‬ ַ‫ב‬ְ‫גּ‬ ‫הּ‬ ַ‫ב‬ְ‫גּ‬ ‫ק‬ being co-ordinate with one another. But what is decisive
against the proposed conjecture is the fact that neither the noun ‫ל‬ַ‫צ‬ ֵ‫מ‬ nor the adjective
‫ֹשׁ‬‫ר‬ֲ‫ה‬ is ever met with, and that, in any case, ‫ל‬ַ‫צ‬ ֵ‫מ‬ cannot signify foliage. The rendering of
the Vulgate, “frondibus nemorosus,” is merely guessed at, whilst the Seventy have
omitted the word as unintelligible to them. For ‫ים‬ ִ‫ת‬ֹ‫ב‬ֲ‫ע‬, thicket of clouds, see the comm.
on Eze_19:11; and for ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫מּ‬ַ‫,צ‬ that on Eze_17:3. The cedar grew to so large a size because
it was richly watered (Eze_31:4). A flood poured its streams round about the place
where the cedar was planted, and sent out brooks to all the trees of the field. The difficult
words ָ‫יה‬ ֶ‫ת‬ֹ‫ר‬ֲ‫ַה‬‫נ‬‫ת־‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫'וגו‬ are to be taken literally thus: as for its (the flood's) streams, it (the
flood) was going round about its plantation, i.e., round about the plantation belonging to
the flood or the place situated near it, where the cedar was planted. ‫ת‬ ֵ‫א‬ is not to be taken
as a preposition, but as a sign of the accusative, and ָ‫יה‬ ֶ‫ת‬ֹ‫ר‬ֲ‫ַה‬‫נ‬‫־‬ ֶ‫ת‬ ֶ‫א‬ dna , as an accusative
used for the more precise definition of the manner in which the flood surrounded the
plantation. It is true that there still remains something striking in the masculine ֵ‫,הֹל‬
since ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ ְ‫,תּ‬ although of common gender, is construed throughout as a feminine, even in
this very verse. But the difficulty remains even if we follow Ewald, and take ֵ‫הֹל‬ to be a
defectively written or irregular form of the Hiphil ‫י‬ ִ‫ל‬ ‫;ה‬ a conjecture which is precluded
by the use of ‫י‬ ִ‫ל‬ ‫,ה‬ to cause to run = to cause to flow away, in Eze_32:14. ‫הּ‬ָ‫ע‬ ָ‫טּ‬ ַ‫,מ‬ its (the
flood's) plantation, i.e., the plantation for which the flood existed. ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ ְ‫תּ‬ is used here to
signify the source of starting-point of a flood, as in Deu_8:7, where ‫ת‬ ‫מ‬ֹ‫ה‬ ְ‫תּ‬ are co-
ordinate with ‫ת‬ ‫ָנ‬‫י‬ֲ‫ע‬. - While the place where the cedar was planted was surrounded by
the streams of the flood, only the brooks and channels of this flood reached to the trees
of the field. The cedar therefore surpassed all the trees of the field in height and
luxuriance of growth (Eze_31:5). f‫א‬ ָ‫ה‬ ְ‫גּב‬heb>, an Aramean mode of spelling for ‫ה‬ ָ‫ה‬ ְ‫ָב‬‫גּ‬
heb>; and as‫ת‬ֹ‫פּ‬ַ‫ע‬ ְ‫ר‬heb>, ἁπ. λεγ.., an Aramean formation with ‫ר‬ inserted, for ‫ת‬ֹ‫פ‬ָ‫ע‬ ְ‫,ס‬
branches. For ‫ת‬ֹ‫ר‬‫ֹא‬‫,פּ‬ see the comm. on Eze_17:6. ‫ח‬ ְ‫לּ‬ַ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫בּ‬ cannot mean “since it (the
stream) sent out the water” (Ewald); for although ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ ְ‫תּ‬ in Eze_31:4 is also construed as
a masculine, the suffix cannot be taken as referring to ‫ם‬ ‫ה‬ ְ‫,תּ‬ for this is much too far off.
And the explanation proposed by Rosenmüller, Hävernick, Kliefoth, and others, “as it
3

4. (the tree) sent them (the branches) out,” is open to this objection, that ‫ח‬ ְ‫לּ‬ַ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫בּ‬ would
then contain a spiritless tautology; since the stretching out of the branches is already
contained in the fact of their becoming numerous and long. the tautology has no
existence if the object is left indefinite, “in its spreading out,” i.e., the spreading not only
of the branches, but also of the roots, to which ַ‫ח‬ֵ‫לּ‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ is sometimes applied (cf. Jer_17:8).
By the many waters which made the cedar great, we must not understand, either solely
or especially, the numerous peoples which rendered Assyria great and mighty, as the
Chaldee and many of the older commentators have done. It must rather be taken as
embracing everything which contributed to the growth and greatness of Assyria. It is
questionable whether the prophet, when describing the flood which watered the cedar
plantation, had the description of the rivers of Paradise in Gen_2:10. floating before his
mind. Ewald and Hävernick think that he had; but Hitzig and Kliefoth take a decidedly
opposite view. There is certainly no distinct indication of any such allusion. We meet
with this for the first time from Eze_31:8 onwards.
In Eze_31:6-9 the greatness and glory of Asshur are still further depicted. Upon and
under the branches of the stately tree, all creatures, birds, beasts, and men, found shelter
and protection for life and increase (Eze_31:6; cf. Eze_17:23 and Dan_4:9). In ‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ‫ּל־גּ‬ָֹ‫כּ‬
‫ים‬ ִ‫בּ‬ ַ‫,ר‬ all kinds of great nations, the fact glimmers through the figure. The tree was so
beautiful (‫יף‬ִ‫ַיּ‬‫ו‬ from ‫ה‬ָ‫ָפ‬‫י‬) in its greatness, that of all the trees in the garden of God not
one was to be compared with it, and all envied it on that account; that is to say, all the
other nations and kingdoms in God's creation were far inferior to Asshur in greatness
and glory. ‫ַן‬‫גּ‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ה‬ ֱ‫א‬ is the garden of Paradise; and consequently ‫ן‬ ֶ‫ד‬ֵ‫ע‬ in Eze_31:9, Eze_
31:16, and Eze_31:18 is also Paradise, as in Eze_28:13. There is no ground for Kliefoth's
objection, that if ‫ן‬ ֶ‫ד‬ֵ‫ע‬ be taken in this sense, the words “which are in the garden of God”
will contain a superfluous pleonasm, a mere tautology. In Gen_2:8 a distinction is also
made between ‫ן‬ ֶ‫ד‬ֵ‫ע‬ and the garden in Eden. It was not all Eden, but the garden planted
by Jehovah in Eden, which formed the real paradisaical creation; so that the words
“which are in the garden of God” give intensity to the idea of the “trees of Eden.”
Moreover, as Hävernick has correctly pointed out, there is a peculiar emphasis in the
separation of ‫ַן‬‫ג‬ ְ‫בּ‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ה‬ ֱ‫א‬ from ‫ים‬ִ‫ז‬ ָ‫ֲר‬‫א‬ in Eze_31:8 : “cedars...even such as were found in
the garden of God.” Not one even of the other and most glorious trees, viz., cypresses
and planes, resembled the cedar Asshur, planted by God by many waters, in its boughs
and branches. It is not stated in so many words in Eze_31:8 and Eze_31:9 that the cedar
Asshur stood in the garden of God; but it by no means follows from this, that by the
garden of God we are to understand simply the world and the earth as the creation of
God, as Kliefoth imagines, and in support of which he argues that “as all the nations and
kingdoms of the world are regarded as trees planted by God, the world itself is quite
consistently called a garden or plantation of God.” The very fact that a distinction is
made between trees of the field (Eze_31:4 and Eze_31:5) and trees of Eden in the garden
of God (Eze_31:8 and Eze_31:9), shows that the trees are not all regarded here as being
in the same sense planted by God. If the garden of God stood for the world, where
should we then have to look for the field (‫ה‬ ֶ‫ד‬ָ‫שּׂ‬ ַ‫?)ה‬ The thought of Eze_31:8 and Eze_
31:9 is not that “not a single tree in all God's broad earth was to be compared to the
cedar Asshur,” but that even of the trees of Paradise, the garden in Eden, there was not
one so beautiful and glorious as the cedar Asshur, planted by God by many waters.
4

5. COFFMAN, "Verse 1
THE EXAMPLE OF ASSYRIA WAS A WARNING TO EGYPT
The source of the features of this allegory is not to be sought in Babylonian
mythology, as supposed by May, nor should we believe that "The Garden of God"
referred to herein is a reference "to a mythological `Garden of Eden.'"[1]
The background of the chapter was the historical situation of those times, namely,
on June 21,587. B.C.,[2] which was only a couple of months before the fall of
Jerusalem,[3] and less than twenty-five years after the dramatic fall of Nineveh to
Babylon in 612 B.C.[4] "The fall of the great Assyrian empire was still fresh in the
memory of those times, and it could not have failed to make a deep impression upon
the minds of Ezekiel's hearers."[5]
No one can fail to be aware of the two different interpretations of this chapter, each
of which has its advocates. (1) Some understand the lofty cedar as a description of
Pharaoh, an understanding involving an emendation of the Hebrew text. (2) Others
understand Assyria as being meant by the lofty cedar. Fortunately, the meaning of
the chapter is exactly the same either way. The disgraceful end of the proud
Pharaoh is prophesied in either interpretation. We shall explore these views further
under Ezekiel 31:3, below:
Our own position favors the view of accepting Assyria as represented by the
beautiful, lofty cedar. We favor this because both our version (ASV) and the KJV
alike translate the text with this clear meaning. Some of the greatest scholars of our
day have warned us that, "For purposes of accurate study, the American Standard
Version of 1901 is the best of all the versions." Furthermore, the New English Bible
retains the same meaning with KJV and American Standard Version; and, as even
some of the advocates of the other view have pointed out,
5

6. The old interpretation is by no means indefensible. As it stands in the Hebrew and
in all the ancient versions, the whole chapter is a description of the greatness, not of
Egypt, but of Assyria. Thus Assyria is compared to the great cedar, and then Egypt
is compared to Assyria. That the fate of Assyria contained a warning against the
pride of Pharaoh is a thought in itself intelligible, and is just the kind of thought
that Ezekiel might very well have expressed.[6]
In addition to this, the ensuing description fits Assyria much better than it fits
Egypt, as we shall note, below.
The divisions of the chapter, easily discernible, are: (1) the description of the mighty
cedar (Ezekiel 31:1-9); (2) its disastrous overthrow (Ezekiel 31:10-14); and (3) the
consequences of it (Ezekiel 31:14-17); and (4) the God-given answer to the question
raised in Ezekiel 31:2 (Ezekiel 31:18).
THE LOFTY CEDAR
Ezekiel 31:1-9
"And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the third month, in the first day of the
month, that the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of man, say unto
Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude: Whom art thou like in thy greatness?
Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a forest-
like shade, and of high stature, and its top was among the thick boughs. The waters
nourished it, the deep made it grow; the rivers thereof ran about its plantation; and
it sent out its channels unto all the trees of the field; and its boughs were multiplied,
and its branches became long by reason of many waters, when it shot them forth.
All the birds of the heavens made their nests in its boughs; and under its branches
did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young: and under its shadows dwelt
all great nations. Thus was it fair in its greatness, in the length of its branches; for
its root was by many waters. The cedars in the garden of God could not hide it; the
fir trees were not like its boughs, and the plane-trees were not as its branches; nor
6

7. was any tree in the garden of God like unto it in its beauty. I made it fair by the
multitude of its branches, so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of
God envied it."
"Whom art thou like in thy greatness ..." (Ezekiel 31:2)? This question declares the
following description to be of a person whom Pharaoh is "like," not a description of
Pharaoh.
"The Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon ..." (Ezekiel 31:3). A cedar in Lebanon
cannot possibly refer to Egypt. Lebanon was a province of Assyria. Nevertheless,
"the emenders" of God's Word emended Assyria out of the passage, making it read:
"Behold, I will liken you to a cedar in Lebanon." (Revised Standard Version). Any
one can see, that if this change was correct, the initial question would have been,
"What art thou like?" not "Whom art thou like?"
Nevertheless, Beasley-Murray explained the emendation thus: "The initial letter of
t'assur (cedar) fell out leaving assur (meaning Assyria). The context clearly shows
that Pharaoh is in mind."[7] This is a beautiful theory, but there is no proof of it.
The Hebrew and all the ancient versions read as does our text in ASV; and we are
unwilling to allow the present generation of scholars to revise the Bible to make it
read like what they thought the author "was trying to say." As long as the ancient
text is understandable as it stands, such emendations are absolutely contraindicated.
"The waters nourished it, the deep made it to grow ..." (Ezekiel 31:4). 'The deep'
here was understood by Bunn as, "the primordial waters beneath the earth, the
deep which figures so largely in Babylonian mythology." Such nonsense should be
rejected with contempt.
The fundamental reason why such allegations as that just cited cannot be allowed
by true believers is that the allowance of such a thing would mean that God Himself,
the true author of Ezekiel, accepted and allowed as truth the monstrous Babylonian
myth concerning a great subterranean ocean. To inject that myth into the prophecy
leaves Ezekiel as the ignorant author of it; it leaves God out of it altogether, and
7

8. raises the question that if Ezekiel was wrong about this, why should he be trusted in
anything else found in the prophecy?
"The `deep' which nourished the growth of Assyria was nothing less than the
tremendous source of waters provided by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers."[8]
And it sent out its channels unto all the trees of the field ..." (v. 4). These were
undoubtedly the elaborate system of canals that pertained to the Euphrates, and
perhaps also to the Tigris. We should notice how the modern crop of perverters of
God's Word, once they start fiddling with the text, branch out in all directions. The
Good News Bible, for example translates this verse,
"There was water to make it grow,
And underground rivers to feed it."
There is not a word in this passage about "underground waters," which cannot
possibly be represented, as in our text, by the word "channels." What is indicated is
that the so-called Good News Bible is giving us Babylonian mythology instead of
God's Word!
Having emended Assyria into cedar, Cooke then proceeded to translate it "pine
tree," better to fit Egypt."[9] This is another excellent example of how one
emendation always leads to others. However, Cooke admitted that, "Nothing could
be less suggestive of the land Egypt than the tall cedar trees and scenery of
Lebanon."[10] It is sad, however, that he missed the point, namely that the
description here is not of Egypt at all, but of Assyria.
The extravagant glory of the great Assyrian empire is fittingly represented here as
being the envy even of those trees that God had planted in the garden of Eden. The
Assyrian empire had existed since the days of Nimrod; and it was doubtless
8

9. considered to be as established and permanent as the earth itself; but because of
their inordinate pride, cruelty, and sadistic blood-lust, and contrary to all that
anyone on earth could possibly have anticipated, they had fallen, totally and
completely, to Babylonians in 612 B.C. In verse 18, below, the prophecy would call
upon Pharaoh to accept the meaning of that event to him and to Egypt.
ELLICOTT, "This chapter consists of a single prophecy, uttered a little less than
two months after the previous one, and a little less than two months before the
destruction of the Temple. It is a further prophecy against Egypt, but so couched in
the form of a parable that it all relates to Assyria, except the opening (Ezekiel
31:1-2) and close (Ezekiel 31:18), which bring it to bear upon Egypt. The
effectiveness of this comparison with Assyria becomes plain when it is remembered
that she had conquered and held Egypt in vassalage, and had then herself been
conquered and annihilated only thirty-seven years before the date of this prophecy,
and that by the same Chaldæan power now foretold as about to execute judgment
upon Egypt. Egypt could not hope to resist the conqueror of her conqueror. There is
this great difference between the fate of the two empires: Assyria was to be utterly
supplanted by Babylonia, and its nationality blotted out, but Egypt, as the prophet
had already foretold (Ezekiel 29:14-15), should continue, though as “a base
kingdom,” stripped of its supremacy.
The form of parable whereby a kingdom is represented as a tree has already
appeared in Ezekiel 17, and is also used in Daniel 4. It seems to be a Chaldæan mode
of representation. As is the custom with Ezekiel, he occasionally interrupts the
parable by literal utterances, as in Ezekiel 31:11, and partially in Ezekiel 31:14-16.
PETT, "Introduction
Chapter 31 The Fifth Oracle Against Egypt. The Great Cypress Tree.
This chapter is split into three sections, the parable of the great cypress tree which
likens Pharaoh and his people to a great cypress (Ezekiel 31:2-9), its downfall at the
hand of foreigners (Ezekiel 31:10-14) and its descent into Sheol (Ezekiel 31:15-18).
9

10. The oracle is dated June 587/6 BC, two months after the previous oracle.
For the theme compare Ezekiel 17:1-10; Ezekiel 17:22-24. See also Ezekiel 19:10-14;
Ezekiel 26:19-21; Ezekiel 28:11-19.
Verse 1-2
Pharaoh and His People Are Like a Great Cypress (Ezekiel 31:1-9).
‘And so it was in the eleventh year, in the third month on the first day of the month,
that the word of Yahweh came to me saying, “Son of man, say to Pharaoh King of
Egypt, and to his multiplicity of people, ‘Whom are you like in your greatness?’ ” ’
The new oracle from Yahweh challenges Ezekiel to ask what Pharaoh and his large
population can be compared to in their greatness. Note that their greatness is
emphasised. But that is only so that its destiny then reveals the greatness of Yahweh.
POOLE, "A recital to Pharaoh of the Assyrian’s greatness, and of his fall for pride,
Ezekiel 31:1-17. The like destruction shall be to Pharaoh, Ezekiel 31:18.
In the eleventh year; as Ezekiel 30:20.
in the third month; our June 26th old style, the 16th new style; just one month and
eight days before the taking of the city on the 27th of July old style, but 17th of July
new style. The first day of the month Tamuz.
EBC, "Ezekiel 30:1-19.-The judgment on Egypt spreads terror and dismay among
all the neighbouring nations. It signalises the advent of the great day of Jehovah, the
10

11. day of His final reckoning with the powers of evil everywhere. It is the "time of the
heathen" that has come (Ezekiel 30:3). Egypt being the chief embodiment of secular
power on the basis of pagan religion, the sudden collapse of her might is equivalent
to a judgment on heathenism in general, and the moral effect of it conveys to the
world a demonstration of the omnipotence of the one true God whom she had
ignored and defied. The nations immediately involved in the fall of Egypt are the
allies and mercenaries whom she has called to her aid in the time of her calamity.
Ethiopians, and Lydians, and Libyans, and Arabs, and Cretans, the "helpers of
Egypt," who have furnished contingents to her motley army, fall by the sword along
with her, and their countries share the desolation that overtakes the land of Egypt.
Swift messengers are then seen speeding up the Nile in ships to convey to the
careless Ethiopians the alarming tidings of the overthrow of Egypt (Ezekiel 30:9).
From this point the prophet confines his attention to the fate of Egypt, which he
describes with a fulness of detail that implies a certain acquaintance both with the
topography and the social circumstances of the country. In Ezekiel 30:10
Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldaeans are for the first time mentioned by name as
the human instruments employed by Jehovah to execute His judgments on Egypt.
After the slaughter of the inhabitants the next consequence of the invasion is the
destruction of the canals and reservoirs and the decay of the system of irrigation on
which the productiveness of the country depended. "The rivers" (canals) "are dried
up, and the land is made waste, and the fulness thereof, by the hand of strangers"
(Ezekiel 30:12). And with the material fabric of her prosperity the complicated
system of religious and civil institutions which was entwined with the hoary
civilisation of Egypt vanishes for ever. "The idols are destroyed; the potentates are
made to cease from Memphis, and princes from the land of Egypt, so that they shall
be no more" (Ezekiel 30:13). Faith in the native gods shall be extinguished, and a
trembling fear of Jehovah shall fill the whole land. The passage ends with an
enumeration of various centres of the national life, which formed, as it were, the
sensitive ganglia where the universal calamity was most acutely felt. On these cities,
each of which was identified with the worship of a particular deity, Jehovah
executes the judgments, in which He makes known to the Egyptian His sole divinity
and destroys their confidence in false gods. They also possessed some special
military or political importance, so that with their destruction the sceptres of Egypt
were broken and the pride of her strength was laid low (Ezekiel 30:18).
Ezekiel 30:20-26.-A new oracle dated three months later than the preceding.
Pharaoh is represented as a combatant, already disabled in one arm and sore
pressed by his powerful antagonist, the king of Babylon. Jehovah announces that
11

12. the wounded arm cannot be healed, although Pharaoh has retired from the contest
for that purpose. On the contrary, both his arms shall be broken and the sword
struck from his grasp, while the arms of Nebuchadnezzar are strengthened by
Jehovah, who puts His own sword into his hand. The land of Egypt, thus rendered
defenceless, falls an easy prey to the Chaldaeans, and its people are dispersed among
the nations. The occasion of the prophecy is the repulse of Hophra’s expedition for
the relief of Jerusalem, which is referred to as a past event. The date may either
mark the actual time of the occurrence, {as in Ezekiel 24:1} or the time when it came
to the knowledge of Ezekiel. The prophet at all events accepts this reverse to the
Egyptian arms as an earnest of the speedy realisation of his predictions in the total
submission of the proud empire of the Nile.
Chapter 31 occupies the same position in the prophecies against Egypt as the
allegory of the richly laden ship in those against Tyre (chapter 27). The
incomparable majesty and overshadowing power of Egypt are set forth under the
image of a lordly cedar in Lebanon, whose top reaches to the clouds and whose
branches afford shelter to all the beasts of the earth. The exact force of the allegory
is somewhat obscured by a slight error of the text, which must have crept in at a
very early period. As it stands in the Hebrew and in all the ancient versions the
whole chapter is a description of the greatness not of Egypt but of Assyria. "To
whom art thou like in thy greatness?" asks the prophet (Ezekiel 31:2); and the
answer is, "Assyria was great as thou art. yet Assyria fell and is no more." There is
thus a double comparison: Assyria is compared to a cedar, and then Egypt is tacitly
compared to Assyria. This interpretation may not be altogether indefensible. That
the fate of Assyria contained a warning against the pride of Pharaoh is a thought in
itself intelligible, and such as Ezekiel might very well have expressed. But if he had
wished to express it he would not have done it so awkwardly as this interpretation
supposes. When we follow the connection of ideas we cannot fail to see that Assyria
is not in the prophet’s thoughts at all. The image is consistently pursued without a
break to the end of the chapter, and then we learn that the subject of the description
is "Pharaoh and all his multitude" (Ezekiel 31:18). But if the writer is thinking of
Egypt at the end, he must have been thinking of it from the beginning, and the
mention of Assyria is out of place and misleading. The confusion has been caused by
the substitution of the word "Asshur" (in Ezekiel 31:3) for "T’asshur," the name of
the sherbin tree, itself a species of cedar. We should therefore read, "Behold a
T’asshur, a cedar in Lebanon," etc.; and the answer to the question of Ezekiel 31:2
is that the position of Egypt is as unrivalled among the kingdoms of the world as this
stately tree among the trees of the forest.
12

13. With this alteration the course of thought is perfectly clear, although incongruous
elements are combined in the representation. The towering height of the cedar with
its top in the clouds symbolises the imposing might of Egypt and its ungodly pride
(cf. Ezekiel 31:10, Ezekiel 31:14). The waters of the flood which nourish its roots are
those of the Nile, the source of Egypt’s wealth and greatness. The birds that build
their nests in its branches and the beasts that bring forth their young under its
shadow are the smaller nations that looked to Egypt for protection and support.
Finally, the trees in the garden of God who envy the luxuriant pride of this monarch
of the forest represent the other great empires of the earth who vainly aspired to
emulate the prosperity and magnificence of Egypt (Ezekiel 31:3-9).
In the next strophe (Ezekiel 31:10-14) we see the great trunk lying prone across
mountain and valley, while its branches lie broken in all the water-courses. A
"mighty one of the nations" (Nebuchadnezzar) has gone up against it, and felled it
to the earth. The nations have been scared from under its shadow; and the tree
which "but yesterday might have stood against the world" now lies prostrate and
dishonoured-"none so poor as do it reverence." And the fall of the cedar reveals a
moral principle and conveys a moral lesson to all other proud and stately trees, its
purpose is to remind the other great empires that they too are mortal, and to warn
them against the soaring ambition and lifting up of the heart which had brought
about the humiliation of Egypt: "that none of the trees by the water should exalt
themselves in stature or shoot their tops between the clouds, and that their mighty
ones should not stand proudly in their loftiness (all who are fed by water); for they
are all delivered to death, to the underworld with the children of men, to those that
go down to the pit." In reality there is no more impressive intimation of the vanity
of earthly glory than the decay of those mighty empires and civilisations which once
stood in the van of human progress; nor is there a fitter emblem of their fate than
the sudden crash of some great forest tree before the woodman’s axe.
The development of the prophet’s thought, however, here reaches a point where it
breaks through the allegory, which has been hitherto consistently maintained. All
nature shudders in sympathy with the fallen cedar: the deep mourns and withholds
her screams from the earth; Lebanon is clothed with blackness, and all the trees
languish. Egypt was so much a part of the established order that the world does not
know itself when she has vanished. While this takes place on earth, the cedar itself
13

14. has gone down to Sheol, where the other shades of vanished dynasties are comforted
because this mightiest of them all has become like to the rest. This is the answer to
the question that introduced the allegory. To whom art thou like? None is fit to be
compared to thee; yet "thou shalt be brought down with the trees of Eden to the
lower parts of the earth, thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised, with them
that are slain of the sword." It is needless to enlarge on this idea, which is out of
keeping here, and is more adequately treated in the next chapter.
Chapter 32 consists of two lamentations to be chanted over the fall of Egypt by the
prophet and the daughters of the nations (Ezekiel 32:16, Ezekiel 32:18). The first
(Ezekiel 32:1-16) describes the destruction of Pharaoh, and the effect which is
produced on earth; while the second (Ezekiel 32:17-32) follows his shade into the
abode of the dead, and expatiates on the welcome that awaits him there. Both
express the spirit of exultation over a fallen foe, which was one of the uses to which
elegiac poetry was turned amongst the Hebrews. The first passage, however, can
hardly be considered a dirge in any proper sense of the word. It is essential to a true
elegy that the subject of it should be conceived as dead, and that whether serious or
ironical it should celebrate a glory that has passed away. In this case the elegiac note
(of the elegiac "measure" there is hardly a trace) is just struck in the opening line:
"O young lion of the nations!" (How) "art thou undone!" But this is not sustained:
the passage immediately falls into the style of direct prediction and threatening, and
is indeed closely parallel to the opening prophecy of the series (chapter 29). The
fundamental image is the same: that of a great Nile monster spouting from his
nostrils and fouling the waters with his feet (Ezekiel 32:2). His capture by many
nations and his lingering death on the open field are described with the realistic and
ghastly details naturally suggested by the figure (Ezekiel 32:3-6). The image is then
abruptly changed in order to set forth the effect of so great a calamity on the world
of nature and of mankind. Pharaoh is compared to a brilliant luminary, whose
sudden extinction is followed by a darkening of all the lights of heaven and by
consternation amongst the nations and kings of earth (Ezekiel 32:7-10). It is thought
by some that the violence of the transition is to be explained by the idea of the
heavenly constellation of the dragon, answering to the dragon of the Nile, to which
Egypt has just been likened. Finally all metaphors are abandoned, and the
desolation of Egypt is announced in literal terms as accomplished by the sword of
the king of Babylon and the "most terrible of the nations" (Ezekiel 32:11-16).
But all the foregoing oracles are surpassed in grandeur of conception by the
14

15. remarkable Vision of Hades which concludes the series-"one of the most weird
passages in literature" (Davidson). In form it is a dirge supposed to be sung at the
burial of Pharaoh and his host by the prophet along with the daughters of famous
nations (Ezekiel 32:18). But the theme, as has been already observed, is the entrance
of the deceased warriors into the under-world, and their reception by the shades
that have gone down thither before them. In order to understand it we must bear in
mind some features of the conception of the underworld, which it is difficult for the
modern mind to realise distinctly. First. of all, Sheol, or the "pit," the realm of the
dead, is pictured to the imagination as an adumbration of the grave or sepulchre, in
which the body finds its last resting-place; or rather it is the aggregate of all the
burying-grounds scattered over the earth’s surface. There the shades are grouped
according to their clans and nationalities, just as on earth the members of the same
family would usually be interred in one burying-place. The grave of the chief or
king, the representative of the nation, is surrounded by those of his vassals and
subjects, earthly distinctions being thus far preserved. The condition of the dead
appears to be one of rest or sleep; yet they retain some consciousness of their state,
and are visited at least by transient gleams of human emotion, as when in this
chapter the heroes rouse themselves to address the Pharaoh when he comes among
them. The most material point is that the state of the soul in Hades reflects the fate
of the body after death. Those who have received the honour of decent burial on
earth enjoy a corresponding honour among the shades below. They have, as it were,
a definite status and individuality in their eternal abode, whilst the spirits of the
unburied slain are laid in the lowest recesses of the pit, in the limbo of the
uncircumcised. On this distinction the whole significance of the passage before us
seems to depend. The dead are divided into two great classes: on the one hand the
"mighty ones," who lie in state with their weapons of war around them; and on the
other hand the multitude of "the uncircumcised, slain by the sword"-i.e., those who
have perished on the field of battle and been buried promiscuously without due
funeral rites. There is, however, no moral distinction between the two classes. The
heroes are not in a state of blessedness; nor is the condition of the uncircumcised
one of acute suffering. The whole of existence in Sheol is essentially of one
character; it is on the whole a pitiable existence, destitute of joy and of all that
makes up the fulness of life on earth. Only there is "within that deep a lower deep,"
and it is reserved for those who in the manner of their death have experienced the
penalty of great wickedness. The moral truth of Ezekiel’s representation lies here.
The real judgment of Egypt was enacted in the historical scene of its final
overthrow; and it is the consciousness of this tremendous visitation of divine justice,
perpetuated amongst the shades to all eternity, that gives ethical significance to the
lot assigned to the nation in the other world. At the same time it should not be
overlooked that the passage is in the highest degree poetical, and cannot be taken as
15

16. an exact statement of what was known or believed about the state after death in Old
Testament times. It deals only with the fate of armies and nationalities and great
warriors who filled the earth with their renown. These, having vanished from
history, preserve through all, time in the underworld the memory of Jehovah’s
mighty acts of judgment; but it is impossible to determine whether this sublime
vision implies a real belief in the persistence of national identities in the region of the
dead.
These, then, are the principal ideas on which the ode is based, and the course of
thought is as follows. Ezekiel 32:18 briefly announces the occasion for which the
dirge is composed; it is to celebrate the passage of Pharaoh and his host to the lower
world, and consign him to his appointed place there. Then follows a scene which has
a certain resemblance to a well-known representation in the fourteenth chapter of
Isaiah (Isaiah 14:9-11). The heroes who occupy the place of honour among the dead
are supposed to rouse themselves at the approach of this great multitude, and
hailing them from the midst of Sheol, direct them to their proper place amongst the
dishonoured slain. "The mighty ones speak to him: ‘Be thou in the recesses of the
pit: whom dost thou excel in beauty? Go down and be laid to rest with the
uncircumcised, in the midst of them that are slain with the sword."’ Thither
Pharaoh has been preceded by other great conquerors who once set their terror in
the earth, but now bear their shame amongst those that go down to the pit. For
there is Asshur and all his company; there too are Elam and Meshech and Tubal,
each occupying its own allotment amongst nations that have perished by the sword
(Ezekiel 32:22-26). Not theirs is the enviable lot of the heroes of old time who went
down to Sheol in their panoply of war, and rest with their swords under their heads
and their shields covering their bones. And so Egypt, which has perished like these
other nations, must be banished with them to the bottom of the pit (Ezekiel
32:27-28). The enumeration of the nations of the uncircumcised is then resumed;
Israel’s immediate neighbours are amongst them-Edom and the dynasties of the
north (the Syrians), and the Phoenicians, inferior states which played no great part
as conquerors, but nevertheless perished in battle and bear their humiliation along
with the others (Ezekiel 32:29-30). These are to be Pharaoh’s companions in his last
resting-place, and at the sight of them he will lay aside his presumptuous thoughts
and comfort himself over the loss of his mighty army (Ezekiel 32:31 f.).
It is necessary to say a few words in conclusion about the historical evidence for the
fulfilment of these prophecies on Egypt. The supplementary oracle of Ezekiel
16

17. 29:17-21 shows us that the threatened invasion by Nebuchadnezzar had not taken
place sixteen years after the fall of Jerusalem. Did it ever take place at all? Ezekiel
was at that time confident that his words were on the point of being fulfilled, and
indeed he seems to stake his credit with his hearers on their verification. Can we
suppose that he was entirely mistaken? Is it likely that the remarkably definite
predictions uttered both by him and Jeremiah [Jeremiah 43:8-13;, Jeremiah
44:12-14;, Jeremiah 44:27-30;, Jeremiah 46:13-26] failed of even the partial
fulfilment which that on Tyre received? A number of critics have strongly
maintained that we are shut up by the historical evidence to this conclusion, They
rely chiefly on the silence of Herodotus, and on the unsatisfactory character of the
statement of Josephus. The latter writer is indeed sufficiently explicit in his
affirmations. He tells us that five years after the capture of Jerusalem
Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt, put to death the reigning king, appointed another
in his stead, and carried the Jewish refugees in Egypt captive to Babylon. But it is
pointed out that the date is impossible, being inconsistent with Ezekiel’s own
testimony, that the account of the death of Hophra is contradicted by what we know
of the matter from other sources (Herodotus and Diodorus), and that the whole
passage bears the appearance of a translation into history of the prophecies of
Jeremiah which it professes to substantiate. That is vigorous criticism, but the
vigour is perhaps not altogether unwarrantable, especially as Josephus does not
mention any authority. Other allusions by secular writers hardly count for much,
and the state of the question is such that historians would probably have been
content to confess their ignorance if the credit of a prophet had not been mixed up
with it.
Within the last seventeen years, however, a new turn has been given to the
discussion through the discovery of monumental evidence which was thought to
have an important bearing on the point in dispute. In the same volume of an
Egyptological magazine Wiedemann directed the attention of scholars to two
inscriptions, one in the Louvre and the other in the British Museum, both of which
he considered to furnish proof of an occupation of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar. The
first was an Egyptian inscription of the reign of Hophra. It was written by an
official of the highest rank, named "Nes-hor," to whom was entrusted the
responsible task of defending Egypt on its southern or Ethiopian frontier.
According to Wiedemann’s translation, it relates among other things an irruption of
Asiatic bands (Syrians, people of the north, Asiatics), which penetrated as far as the
first cataract, and did some damage to the temple of Chnum in Elephantine. There
they were checked by Nes-hor, and afterwards they were crushed or repelled by
17

18. Hophra himself. Now the most natural explanation of this incident, in connection
with the circumstances of the time, would seem to be that Nebuchadnezzar, finding
himself fully occupied for the present with the siege of Tyre, incited roving bands of
Arabs and Syrians to plunder Egypt, and that they succeeded so far as to penetrate
to the extreme south of the country. But a more recent examination of the text, by
Maspero and Brugsch, reduces the incident to much smaller dimensions. They find
that it refers to a mutiny of Egyptian mercenaries (Syrians, Ionians, and Bedouins)
stationed on the southern frontier. The governor, Nes-hor, congratulates himself on
a successful stratagem by which he got the rebels into a position where they were cut
down by the king’s troops. In any case it is evident that it falls very far short of a
confirmation of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Not only is there no mention of
Nebuchadnezzar or a regular Babylonian army, but the invaders or mutineers are
actually said to have been annihilated by Hophra. It may be said, no doubt, that an
Egyptian governor was likely to be silent about an event which cast discredit on his
country’s arms, and would be tempted to magnify some temporary success into a
decisive victory. But still the inscription must be taken for what it is worth, and the
story it tells is certainly not the story of a Chaldean supremacy in the valley of the
Nile. The only thing that suggests a connection between the two is the general
probability that a campaign against Egypt must have been contemplated by
Nebuchadnezzar about that time.
The second and more important document is a cuneiform fragment of the annals of
Nebuchadnezzar. It is unfortunately in a very mutilated condition, and all that the
Assyriologists have made out is that in the thirty-seventh year of his reign
Nebuchadnezzar fought a battle with the king of Egypt. As the words of the
inscription are those of Nebuchadnezzar himself, we may presume that the battle
ended in a victory for him, and a few disconnected words in the latter part are
thought to refer to the tribute or booty which he acquired. The thirty-seventh year
of Nebuchadnezzar is the year 568 B.C., about two years after the date of Ezekiel’s
last utterance against Egypt. The Egyptian king at this time was Amasis, whose
name (only the last syllable of which is legible) is supposed to be that mentioned in
the inscription. What the ulterior consequences of this victory were on Egyptian
history, or how long the Babylonian domination lasted, we cannot at present say.
These are questions on which we may reasonably look for further light from the
researches of Assyriology. In the meantime it appears to be established beyond
reasonable doubt that Nebuchadnezzar did attack Egypt, and the probable issue of
his expedition was in accordance with Ezekiel’s last prediction: "Behold, I give to
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, the land of Egypt; and he shall spoil her spoil,
18

19. and plunder her plunder, and it shall be the wages for his army". [Ezekiel 29:19]
There can of course be no question of a fulfilment of the earlier prophecies in their
literal terms. History knows nothing of a total captivity of the population of Egypt,
or a blank of forty years in her annals when her land was untrodden by the foot of
man or of beast. These are details belonging to the dramatic form in which the
prophet clothed the spiritual lesson which it was necessary to impress on his
countrymen-the inherent weakness of the Egyptian empire as a power based on
material resources and rearing itself in opposition to the great ends of God’s
kingdom. And it may well have been that for the illustration of that truth the
humiliation that Egypt endured at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar was as effective as
her total destruction would have been.
BI 1-18, "The Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon.
The cedar in Lebanon
I. The soul that will not grow down must be cut down. Trees that are to stand the storm
must send their roots deep into the earth. A man that is to face successfully the storms of
life must have a downward growth of humility and faith. “He that humbleth himself shall
be exalted."
II. The true teacher of man is greater than a monarch whose position only gives him
power. Pharaoh must go to school to Ezekiel. A man is more than a king. (A London
Minister.)
2 “Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and
to his hordes:
“‘Who can be compared with you in majesty?
GILL, "Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt,.... To Pharaohhophra,
the then reigning king; not to him personally by word of mouth, for the prophet was now
in Chaldea; but by delivering out a prophecy concerning him, and which he might have
an opportunity of sending to him:
19

20. and to his multitude; the multitude of his subjects, of which he boasted, and in whom
he trusted:
whom art thou like in thy greatness? look over all the records of time, and into all
the empires, kingdoms, and states that have been; draw a comparison between thyself
and the greatest potentate that ever was; fancy thyself to be equal to him; this will not
secure thee from ruin and destruction; for as they have been humbled, and are fallen, so
wilt thou be: pitch for instance on the Assyrian monarch, whose empire has been the
most ancient, extensive, and flourishing, and yet now crushed; and as thou art like him
in greatness, at least thou thinkest so, so thou art in pride, and wilt be in thine end; to
assure of which is the drift of the following account of the king of Assyria.
HENRY, "The prophet is directed to put Pharaoh upon searching the records for a
case parallel to his own (Eze_31:2): Speak to Pharaoh and to his multitude, to the
multitude of his attendants, that contributed so much to his magnificence, and the
multitude of his armies, that contributed so much to his strength. These he was proud
of, these he put a confidence in; and they were as proud of him and trusted as much in
him. Now ask him, Whom art thou like in thy greatness? We are apt to judge of
ourselves by comparison. Those that think highly of themselves fancy themselves as
great and as good as such and such, that have been mightily celebrated. The flatterers of
princes tell them whom they equal in pomp and grandeur. “Well,” says God, “let him
pitch upon the most famous potentate that ever was, and it shall be allowed that he is
like him in greatness and no way inferior to him; but, let him pitch upon whom he will,
he will find that his day came to fall; he will see there was an end of all his perfection,
and must therefore expect the end of his own in like manner.” Note, The falls of others,
both into sin and ruin, are intended as admonitions to us not to be secure or high-
minded, nor to think we stand out of danger.
JAMISON, "Whom art thou like — The answer is, Thou art like the haughty king
of Assyria; as he was overthrown by the Chaldeans, so shalt thou be by the same.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 31:2 Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his
multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness?
Ver. 2. Speak unto Pharaoh.] Unto Pharaohhophra. [Ezekiel 29:2] Say unto him
(though it will be to small purpose), "Hear, and give ear, be not proud, for the Lord
hath spoken it." [Jeremiah 13:15]
Whom art thou like in thy greatness?] q.d., Thou thinkest thyself the only one, and
20

21. that there is none such; but what sayest thou to the Assyrian, whom yet the
Babylonian hath now laid low enough?
POOLE, " Pharaoh; Apries or Hophra.
To his multitude; his numerous subjects, with the power and riches they glory in.
Whom art thou like in thy greatness? bethink thyself, what king of all before thee
art thou equal with, or else greater? On what surer and more immovable foundation
doth thy greatness stand, that thou dreamest of a perpetual quiet and flourishing
state, in the midst of all thy sins and wickednesses?
PULPIT, "The parable is addressed, not to Pharaoh only, but to his multitude i.e; as
in Ezekiel 30:4, for his auxiliary forces. It opens with one of the customary formulae
of an Eastern apologue (Mark 4:30), intended to sharpen the curiosity and win the
attention of the prophet's hearers or readers. It is significant that the question is
repeated at the close of the parable, as if the prophet had left the interpretation to
his readers, as our Lord does in saying, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."
3
Consider Assyria, once a cedar in Lebanon,
with beautiful branches overshadowing the
forest;
it towered on high,
its top above the thick foliage.
21

22. BARNES, "Fifth prophecy against Egypt: a warning to Pharaoh from the fate of the
Assyrians. The Assyrian empire, after having been supreme in Asia for four centuries,
had been overthrown by the united forces of the Babylonians and Medes, in the year of
the battle of Carchemish (605 b.c.), which had broken the power of Egypt. This gives
force to the warning to Egypt from Assyria’s fall.
CLARKE, "Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar - Why is the Assyrian introduced
here, when the whole chapter concerns Egypt? Bp. Lowth has shown that ‫ארז‬ ‫אשור‬
ashshur erez should be translated the tall cedar, the very stately cedar; hence there is
reference to his lofty top; and all the following description belongs to Egypt, not to
Assyria. But see on Eze_31:11 (note).
GILL, "Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon,.... Here grew the tallest,
most stately, broad and flourishing ones. This sense is, that he was as one of them;
comparable to one, for his exaltation and dignity; for the largeness of his dominion, the
flourishing circumstances of it, and its long duration; that empire having lasted from the
times of Nimrod unto a few years of the present time; for this is to be understood, either
of the monarchy itself, or of Esarhaddon; or rather of Chynilidanus, or Saracus, the last
king of it. The Septuagint, and Arabic versions render it the "cypariss" in Lebanon; but
not that, but the cedar, grew there, and which best suits the comparison:
with fair branches; meaning not children, nor nobles, nor subjects; but provinces,
many and large, which were subject to this monarch:
and with a shadowing shroud; power, dominion, authority, a mighty army sufficient
to protect all that were under his government, and subject to it:
and of an high stature: exalted above all the kings and kingdoms of the earth:
and his top was among the thick boughs; his kingly power, headship, and
dominion, was over a multitude of petty princes and states, comparable to the thick
boughs and branches of a tree: or, "among the clouds"; as the Septuagint and Arabic
versions render it; above the heights of which the Assyrian monarch attempted to
ascend, Isa_14:14.
HENRY 3-9, " He is directed to show him an instance of one whom he resembles in
greatness, and that was the Assyrian (Eze_31:3), whose monarchy had continued from
Nimrod. Sennacherib was one of the mighty princes of that monarchy; but it sunk down
22

23. soon after him, and the monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar was built upon its ruins, or rather
grafted upon its stock. Let us now see what a flourishing prince the king of Assyria was.
He is here compared to a stately cedar, Eze_31:3. The glory of the house of David is
illustrated by the same similitude, Eze_17:3. The olive-tree, the fig-tree, and the vine,
which were all fruit-trees, had refused to be promoted over the trees because they would
not leave their fruitfulness (Jdg_9:8, etc.), and therefore the choice falls upon the cedar,
that is stately and strong, and casts a great shadow, but bears no fruit. 1. The Assyrian
monarch was a tall cedar, such as the cedars in Lebanon generally were, of a high
stature, and his top among the thick boughs; he was attended by other princes that were
tributaries to him, and was surrounded by a life-guard of brave men. He surpassed all
the princes in his neighbourhood; they were all shrubs to him (Eze_31:5): His height
was exalted above all the trees of the field; they were many of them very high, but he
overtopped them all, Eze_31:8. The cedars, even those in the garden of Eden, which we
may suppose were the best of the kind, would not hide him, but his top branches outshot
theirs. 2. He was a spreading cedar; his branches did not only run up in height, but run
out in breadth, denoting that this mighty prince was not only exalted to great dignity and
honour, and had a name above the names of the great men of the earth, but that he
obtained great dominion and power; his territories were large, and he extended his
conquests far and his influences much further. This cedar, like a vine, sent forth his
branches to the sea, to the river, Psa_80:11. His boughs were multiplied; his branches
became long (Eze_31:5); so that he had a shadowing shroud, Eze_31:3. This
contributed very much to his beauty, that he grew proportionably large as well as high.
He was fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches (Eze_31:7), very comely as
well as very stately, fair by the multitude of his branches, Eze_31:9. His large dominions
were well managed, like a spreading tree that is kept in shape and good order by the skill
of the gardener, so as to be very beautiful to the eye. His government was as amiable in
the eyes of wise men as it was admirable in the eyes of all men. The fir-trees were not like
his boughs, so straight, so green, so regular; nor were the branches of the chestnut-trees
like his branches, so thick, so spreading. In short, no tree in the garden of God, in Eden,
in Babylon (for that stood where paradise was planted), where there was every tree that
was pleasant to the sight (Gen_2:9), was like to this cedar in beauty; that is, in all the
surrounding nations there was no prince so much admired, so much courted, and whom
every body was so much in love with, as the king of Assyria. Many of them did
virtuously, but he excelled them all, outshone them all. All the trees of Eden envied him,
Eze_31:9. When they found they could not compare with him they were angry and
grieved that he so far outdid them, and secretly grudged him the praise due to him.
Note, It is the unhappiness of those who in any thing excel others that thereby they make
themselves the objects of envy; and who can stand before envy? 3. He was serviceable,
as far as a standing growing cedar could be, and that was only by his shadow (Eze_31:6):
All the fowls of heaven, some of all sorts, made their nests in his boughs, where they
were sheltered from the injuries of the weather. The beasts of the field put themselves
under the protection of his branches. There they were levant - rising up, and couchant -
lying down; there they brought forth their young; for they had there a natural covert
from the heat and from the storm. The meaning of all is, Under his shadow dwelt all
great nations; they all fled to him for safety, and were willing to swear allegiance to him
if he would undertake to protect them, as travellers in a shower come under thick trees
for shelter. Note, Those who have power ought to use it for the protection and comfort of
those whom they have power over; for to that end they are entrusted with power. Even
the bramble, if he be anointed king, invites the trees to come and trust in his shadow,
23

24. Jdg_9:15. But the utmost security that any creature, even the king of Assyria himself,
can give, is but like the shadow of a tree, which is but a scanty and slender protection,
and leaves a man many ways exposed. Let us therefore flee to God for protection, and he
will take us under the shadow of his wings, where we shall be warmer and safer than
under the shadow of the strongest and stateliest cedar, Psa_17:8; Psa_91:4. 4. He
seemed to be settled and established in his greatness and power. For, (1.) It was God that
made him fair, Eze_31:9. For by him kings reign. He was comely with the comeliness
that God put upon him. Note, God's hand must be eyed and owned in the advancement
of the great men of the earth, and therefore we must not envy them; yet that will not
secure the continuance of their prosperity, for he that gave them their beauty, if they be
deprived of it, knows how to turn it into deformity. (2.) He seemed to have a good
bottom. This cedar was not like the heath in the desert, made to inhabit the parched
places (Jer_17:6); it was not a root in a dry ground, Isa_53:2. No; he had abundance of
wealth to support his power and grandeur (Eze_31:4): The waters made him great; he
had vast treasures, large stores and magazines, which were as the deep that set him up
on high, constant revenues coming in by taxes, customs, and crown-rents, which were as
rivers running round about his plants; these enabled him to strengthen and secure his
interests every where, for he sent out his little rivers, or conduits, to all the trees of the
field, to water them; and when they had maintenance from the king's palace (Ezr_4:14),
and their country was nourished by the king's country (Act_12:20), they would be
serviceable and faithful to him. Those that have wealth flowing upon them in great rivers
find themselves obliged to send it out again in little rivers; for, as goods are increased,
those are increased that eat them, and the more men have the more occasion they have
for it; yea, and still the more they have occasion for. The branches of this cedar became
long, because of the multitude of waters which fed them (Eze_31:5 and Eze_31:7); his
root was by great waters, which seemed to secure it that its leaf should never wither
(Psa_1:3), that it should not see when heat came, Jer_17:8. Note, Worldly people may
seem to have an established prosperity, yet it only seems so, Job_5:3; Psa_37:35.
JAMISON, "He illustrates the pride and the consequent overthrow of the Assyrian,
that Egypt may the better know what she must expect.
cedar in Lebanon — often eighty feet high, and the diameter of the space covered by
its boughs still greater: the symmetry perfect. Compare the similar image (Eze_17:3;
Dan_4:20-22).
with a shadowing shroud — with an overshadowing thicket.
top ... among ... thick boughs — rather [Hengstenberg], “among the clouds.” But
English Version agrees better with the Hebrew. The top, or topmost shoot, represents
the king; the thick boughs, the large resources of the empire.
COKE, "Ezekiel 31:3. Behold, the Assyrian, &c.— This parable, says Bishop
Lowth, owes much to Meibomius, who translates ‫אשׁור‬ Ashur, tall, straight, an
epithet of the cedar; and not Assyrian, which can have no meaning at all in this
passage. The word ‫אשׁור‬ Ashur, is here joined with cedar, as a definitive attribute to
denote the highest and most beautiful kind of cedar. See his 9th Prelection. The
24

25. manner in which the prophet has embellished his description, is full of propriety
and elegance; and the colouring is such as fills the mind with the greatest pleasure.
The LXX read the latter clause of this verse, His top was among the clouds. The
whole is an allegorical description of the greatness and splendour of the Egyptian
empire.
ELLICOTT, " (3) A cedar in Lebanon.—Lebanon is mentioned only because it was
the place where the most famous cedars grew in their greatest perfection. Assyria
did, indeed, at one time possess Lebanon, but this was never its home or seat of
empire. The word “shroud” in the description refers to the thickness of the shade of
the branches.
Among the thick boughs.—Rather, among the clouds. (See Note on Ezekiel
19:11 .Comp. also Ezekiel 31:10; Ezekiel 31:14.)
PETT, "Verse 3
“Behold a cypress (‘assur’, probably a variant of te’assur, and not therefore Assyria
which would be out of place here), a cedar in Lebanon, with fair branches and with
a woody shade and of great height, and his top was among the interwoven branches
(LXX clouds).”
Pharaoh is likened to a large Cypress which could be compared with a cedar in
Lebanon. It had powerful branches, gave good shade, and its top was among the
topmost branches of the forest. Te’ assur for cypress is found in Isaiah 41:19; Isaiah
60:13. It was noted for its protection and shade and provided excellent timber.
Some cedars of Lebanon grew twenty five metres (80 feet) or more high, were
beautifully symmetrical, and contained thickly interwoven branches.
However, some would translate assur here as ‘Assyrian’ and see Pharaoh and Egypt
25

26. as being compared with what had happened to the Assyrians in their pride. In the
end the ideas are the same.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 31:3 Behold, the Assyrian [was] a cedar in Lebanon with fair
branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was
among the thick boughs.
Ver. 3. Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar.] See Ezekiel 17:3; Ezekiel 17:22-23, Daniel
4:10-11. {See Trapp on "Ezekiel 17:3"} {See Trapp on "Ezekiel 17:22"} {See Trapp
on "Ezekiel 17:23"} {See Trapp on "Daniel 4:10"} {See Trapp on "Daniel 4:11"}
The cedar is a very tall, fair, shady, leafy, and lively tree. Such was Esarhaddon,
King of Assyria, once a most potent monarch, now not the master of a mole hill.
Now, therefore (by an argument from the greater to the less), if he so fell through
his pride, shalt not thou much more?
POOLE, " The Assyrian kingdom and its kings were the greatest the world ever
knew before thee, they had longest time of growth, through 1340 or 1360 years,
from Belus who was Nimrod, or Belus Assyrius, to Sardanapalus, from 1719 or
1717, or 1718, to 3059, of the world. And they had as fair advantages, as reaching a
foresight, and as unwearied diligence to advance the kingdom; yet I bought it down.
A cedar; like a cedar; kings and kingdoms oft compared to trees, both in profane
and sacred emblems; or like the most goodly cedar for strength and beauty. In
Lebanon; a great mountainous tract from east to west, one hundred and twenty five
miles in length, encloseth Canaan on the north.
With fair branches, which are the beauty, greatness, strength of the tree; so had this
mighty kingdom fair provinces, as branches springing from it.
With a shadowing shroud: what we render shadowing in the Hebrew may signify
either silent and quiet, or framing and modelling, intimating that this kingdom, like
a shady tree, gave shelter to the weak, as if framed artificially to this, and it was a
26

27. silent quiet repose its subjects had; as weak creatures find shelter in a mighty wood,
so these.
Of an high stature: this kingdom grew to great height, while its branches were so
beneficial.
Among the thick boughs, or clouds; for so the word will without violence bear,
clouds being called so from their thickness; however, the head among the thick
boughs speaks the magnificence and greatness of this king, compassed about with
tributary kings and princes and mighty men.
WHEDON, " 3. The Assyrian — The Hebrew text and all versions read as A.V.; in
which case Egypt would be compared to Assyria, a country as great as itself yet now
crushed by Nebuchadnezzar. One species of cedar was, however, called Tasshur,
and if this is referred to here we could translate, “Behold, there was a cedar on
Lebanon.”
Shroud — This refers to the thick foliage. The word is usually rendered forest.
Thick boughs — Rather, as R.V., margin, “clouds;” also in Ezekiel 31:10; Ezekiel
31:14.
PULPIT, "Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon. The Hebrew text, as
rendered in all versions and interpreted by most commentators, gives us, in the form
of the parable of the cedar, the history of the Assyrian empire in its glory and its
fall. That had passed away in spite of its greatness, and so should Egypt. The
question in Ezekiel 31:18 takes the place of "Thou art the man!" in Nathan's
interpretation of his parable (2 Samuel 12:7), or the mutato nominee de te fabula,
narratur of the Roman satirist. Some recent commentaters, however, either like
Ewald, taking the Hebrew word for, Assyrian" as describing a particular kind of
cedar or fir tree, or, like Comill and amend, adopting a conjectural emendation of
the text which actually gives that meaning (Tasshur for Asshur), refer the whole
27

28. parable primarily to Egypt, and dwell on the fact that the words of Ezekiel 31:10,
Ezekiel 31:18 are addressed to the living representative of a great monarchy, and
not to a power that has already passed away into the Hades of departed glory. The
former view seems to me the more tenable of the two, and I therefore adopt it
throughout the chapter. It may be admitted, however, that the inner meaning of the
parable at times breaks through the outward imagery, as was indeed to be expected,
the prophet seeking to apply his apologue even before he had completed it. The
"cedar in Lebanon" has already met us as the symbol of s kingdom, in Ezekiel 17:2.
The shadowing shroud may be noted as a specially vivid picture of the peculiar
foliage of the cedar rendered with singular felicity. His top was among the thick
boughs; better, clouds, as in the margin of the Revised Version. So Keil, Smend, and
others (comp. Ezekiel 17:10, Ezekiel 17:14).
4
The waters nourished it,
deep springs made it grow tall;
their streams flowed
all around its base
and sent their channels
to all the trees of the field.
BARNES, "Eze_31:4
His plants - Rather, her plantation. The water represents the riches and might which
28

29. flowed into Assyria.
CLARKE, "The waters made him great - Alluding to the fertility of Egypt by the
overflowing of the Nile. But waters often mean peoples. By means of the different
nations under the Egyptians, that government became very opulent. These nations are
represented as fowls and beasts, taking shelter under the protection of this great political
Egyptian tree, Eze_31:6.
GILL, "The waters made him great,.... The waters of the river Tigris, near to which
stood the city of Nineveh, the metropolis of the Assyrian monarchy; the traffic brought
by which river made it rich and great, and the whole empire, and the king of it:
the deep set him up on high, with her rivers running round about his plants;
the vast trade by sea, the profits and commodities of which were conveyed through
various rivers, which ran about the provinces of the empire, which were as plants in a
field; and by which they were enriched, and the whole empire, and the king of it, were
raised to a prodigious pitch of wealth and power:
and sent out little rivers to all the trees of the field; so that the common people,
comparable to the trees of the field for their number and usefulness, all received profit
and advantage hereby: or else by waters and the deep may be meant the multitude of
people, as in Rev_17:15, which increased his kingdom, filled his provinces, supplied his
colonies, and enlarged his power and riches. The Targum is,
"by the people he was multiplied; by his auxiliaries he became strong; he subjected kings
under his government; and his governors he appointed over all the provinces of the
earth.''
JAMISON, "waters ... little rivers — the Tigris with its branches and “rivulets,” or
“conduits” for irrigation, the source of Assyria’s fertility. “The deep” is the ever flowing
water, never dry. Metaphorically, for Assyria’s resources, as the “conduits” are her
colonies.
COKE, "Ezekiel 31:4. Little rivers— An allusion to the small artificial channels
through which water was usually distributed in eastern gardens. See Bishop Lowth
on Isaiah 1:30.
ELLICOTT, " (4) His plants.—Should rather be, his plantation.
Sent out her little rivers.—The thought is that the various surrounding and
29

30. subordinate nations were nourished from the great stream of prosperity which
swelled the power and wealth of Assyria.
PETT, "Verse 4
“The waters nourished him, the deep made him grow, her rivers ran round her
plantations and she sent out her streams to all the trees of the field.”
The tree was well watered by many streams, by the Nile and its tributaries and
channels, so that all the trees and growing things around benefited from their
nourishment, resulting in an abundant population. They were in a good place
provided by God.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 31:4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with
her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the
trees of the field.
Ver. 4. The waters made him great.] He had a confluence of all prosperities.
Watered he was, non aquis sed abyssis; est autem abyssus, inexhausta felicitas et
rerum affluentia. He overabounded with all outward happiness. In wealth, victories,
and triumphs, he gave place to no man.
POOLE, "As cedars grow great by the watercourses, so did this kingdom by
multitudes of people and convenience of trade; or by the plenty of the country, if no
trade, for it was first planted in the fruitful fields among the sweet rivers,
Euphrates, Tigris, Lycus, Diava, and others. The deep set him up on high; the sea
sent out her waters, which gave being to the rivers that watered him and improved
him; whereas, Egypt, thy rivers rise out of a lake, which, though great, is not to be
compared with the deep. His plants; the provinces of this mighty kingdom, that are
like plants about a great tree. Little rivers; beneficence, justice, protection,
encouragements, that subjects need, and good princes disperse among them; so the
30

31. deep filled this king, and he sent out his streams to all his subjects in his kingdom.
PULPIT, "The waters made him great. The scenery is hardly that of Lebanon, but
finds its counterpart in that of the Nile, perhaps also of the Tigris, with the waters of
the river diverted into streams and channels by a careful system of irrigation. The
cedar grew close to the river itself; the other trees of the field were watered only by
the smaller channels, and so were inferior to it in the fullness of their growth. (For
the general imagery, comp. Ezekiel 17:5; Psalms 1:3; Jeremiah 17:8; Numbers 24:6.)
5
So it towered higher
than all the trees of the field;
its boughs increased
and its branches grew long,
spreading because of abundant waters.
BARNES, "Eze_31:5
When be shot forth - Or, when the deep water sent forth its streams.
GILL, "Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field,.... His
majesty, grandeur, and glory, were advanced above all princes, nobles, and people; all
ranks and degrees of men, let them be compared to trees taller or lower:
and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long; the provinces
of his empire became more numerous, and were spread far and near, and reached to
31

32. distant countries:
because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth; either the vast number
of people, which were daily increasing, and were sent out to people distant colonies,
newly subdued or planted; or because of the great traffic which was carried on in
different parts, and the advantages arising from it. The Targum is,
"therefore he was lifted up in his strength above all the kings of the earth, and his army
was multiplied, and his auxiliaries prevailed over many people, through his victories''
JAMISON, "when he shot forth — because of the abundant moisture which
nourished him in shooting forth. But see Margin.
PETT, "Verses 5-7
“Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the forest, and his boughs
were multiplied, and his branches became long by reason of many waters when he
shot them forth. All the birds of the air made their nests in his boughs, and under
his branches all the beasts of the field brought forth their young, and under his
shadow dwelt all great nations. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his
branches. For his root was by many waters.”
The prosperity, greatness and power of Pharaoh and of Egypt in the past is
exemplified by the great Cypress. It was great above all others in the area, many
found shelter with them, others looked to them for protection, and thus they grew
even stronger and more fruitful. And much of their prosperity depended on the
blessings of plentiful water from the great Nile.
POOLE, " His height was exalted; his power, glory, and his pride too ran up on
high: a just administration of laws for the benefit of the public, and a kind usage of
the subject, while it was here, made the king great and his kingdom famous.
Above all the trees of the field; above all his neighbour kings, among whom
oppressed weaklings still came to this kingdom, while just, for shelter. His boughs
were multiplied; many became his subjects by voluntary choice, and his native
32

33. subjects increased in numbers and wealth.
His branches became long; the provinces reached far and wide by the conquest of
his arms, or attractives of his kindness brought to unite with him.
The multitude of waters; the many streams of royal justice and beneficence sent
forth from the throne of this kingdom; so his throne was advanced and established.
6
All the birds of the sky
nested in its boughs,
all the animals of the wild
gave birth under its branches;
all the great nations
lived in its shade.
GILL, "All the fowls of the heavens made their nests in his boughs,.... People
from all parts of the world, under the whole heavens, flocked to his dominions, and
settled themselves in one province or another; promising themselves protection,
prosperity, and peace under his government:
33

34. and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their
young; even people of a more savage disposition, being either conquered by him, and
placed in his provinces; or coming thither of their own accord, took up their residence
there, built houses, planted vineyards, married wives, begat children, and settled their
families there:
and under his shadow dwelt all great nations; under his protection, care, and
government, many large kingdoms and states were; yea, all were either subject to him, or
sought to be his friends and allies: this explains the above figurative expressions. The
Targum is,
"by his army he subdued all the strong towers; and under his governors he subjected all
the provinces of the earth; and in the shadow of his kingdom dwelt all the numerous
people.''
JAMISON, "fowls ... made ... nests in ... boughs — so Eze_17:23; Dan_4:12. The
gospel kingdom shall gather all under its covert, for their good and for the glory of God,
which the world kingdoms did for evil and for self-aggrandizement (Mat_13:32).
POOLE, " All the fowls; not every individual, but all sorts and kinds of men and
people, nobles, merchants, husbandmen, likened to fowls.
Made their nests; did settle their habitations and families, expecting what they
found, safety and rest, and hoping what did ensue, an increase of their children and
posterity, as birds do in a quiet and safe nest.
In his boughs; in his kingdom, in the cities or towns of it.
Under his branches; the very same thing expressed by a new hieroglyphic. Beasts
here are people, the field is the countries round about, their bringing forth their
young includes their making their dens, that is, men’s building, begetting children,
and breeding them under his branches, under his government and protection.
Under his shadow dwelt all great nations: this gives some light to the riddle. No
nation, that was great at that time in the world, but either owned the dominion, or
sought the alliance and friendship, of this king and kingdom.
34

35. 7
It was majestic in beauty,
with its spreading boughs,
for its roots went down
to abundant waters.
GILL, "Thus was he fair in his greatness,.... Amiable, lovely, delightful to look
upon in the greatness of his majesty, in his royal glory and dignity:
in the length of his branches; in the extent of his empire, and the provinces of it:
for his root was by great waters; his kingdom was well established, firmly rooted
among a multitude of people; from whom he had a large revenue to support his throne
and government, and the dignity of it; by tribute, taxes, customs, and presents; and
through the large trade and traffic of his subjects in different parts, from whence he
received great profit and advantage. The Targum is,
"and he became victorious by his auxiliaries, by the multitude of his mighty ones, so that
his terror was upon many people.''
POOLE, " Fair; beautiful, lovely, and desirable. In his greatness; not exerted in
tyranny and oppression, but exercised in the royal art of imitating the greatest and
best being who is King over all, for he doth good to all.
In the length of his branches; how far soever remote, yet the justice and goodness of
the government appeared the beauty of those provinces, as well as of the whole
35

36. kingdom.
His root, whence he sprung, which supported and supplied the kingdom, was right,
the laws, punishments, rewards, and encouragements neither founded in cruelty,
nor maintained by violence.
By great waters; not by blood, which is no proper kindly nourishment for such
cedars, but by waters, which are kindly and proper, and these great enough for his
own growth and to nourish others too.
8
The cedars in the garden of God
could not rival it,
nor could the junipers
equal its boughs,
nor could the plane trees
compare with its branches—
no tree in the garden of God
could match its beauty.
36

37. CLARKE, "The cedars in the garden of God - Egypt was one of the most
eminent and affluent of all the neighboring nations.
GILL, "The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him,.... That is, could
not rise so high as this cedar, and overtop him, and obscure his glory; even those that
were most excellent, which grew in Eden, near to which Babylon stood, and where a
mighty king dwelt. The sense is, that the greatest kings and potentates in the whole
world, which is like a garden planted by the Lord, were not equal to the king of Assyria,
and much less exceeded him in grandeur, wealth, and power:
the fir trees were not like his boughs: lesser kings and princes, comparable to fir
trees for the beauty, regularity, order, and flourishing condition of their kingdoms; yet
these were but petty states, and not to be compared even with the provinces of the king
of Assyria:
and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; lesser states still: which,
though well set, and well spread, and full of people, yet not answerable to some countries
that were in the provinces that belonged to the Assyrian empire:
not any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty; no king,
prince, or potentate whatever in the whole world, was to be compared to him for royal
majesty and greatness. The Targum is,
"mighty kings could not prevail against him, because of the strength of his power, which
he had from the Lord; rulers could not stand before his army, and mighty men could not
prevail against his auxiliaries, because of the strength of power he had from the Lord;
there is none like to him in his strength.''
JAMISON, "cedars ... could not hide him — could not outtop him. No other king
eclipsed him.
were not like — were not comparable to.
garden of God — As in the case of Tyre (Eze_28:13), the imagery, that is applied to
the Assyrian king, is taken from Eden; peculiarly appropriate, as Eden was watered by
rivers that afterwards watered Assyria (Gen_2:10-14). This cedar seemed to revive in
itself all the glories of paradise, so that no tree there outtopped it.
COKE, "Ezekiel 31:8. The cedars in the garden of God— Some render this, The
cedars in the garden of God were not higher than he. The expression seems only to
mean the highest trees. Instead of, I have made him fair, Ezekiel 31:9 we may read, I
had, &c.
37

38. ELLICOTT, "(8) The garden of God.—See Ezekiel 31:9; Ezekiel 31:16; Ezekiel
31:18; also Ezekiel 28:13. This is not a representation of Assyria as being in the
garden of God, as in the case of Tyre in Ezekiel 28:13, but only a further expression
of its greatness by a comparison of the tree representing it with the trees of
Paradise. Yet this comparison may have been suggested by the fact that the
traditionary site of Eden was within the bounds of the Assyrian Empire. Fir trees
are generally understood to be cypresses, and chestnut to be plane-trees.
PETT, "Verse 8-9
“The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him, the fir trees were not like his
boughs, and the plane trees were not as his branches. Nor was any tree in the
garden of God like him in his beauty. I made him fair by the multitude of his
branches, so that all the trees of Eden that were in the garden of God envied him.”
This may be hyperbole based on ideas about the trees in Eden, to stress his supreme
greatness, or it may be that Lebanon was popularly known as ‘the garden of the
gods’ because of its splendid trees (and thus ‘the garden of Eden’ to Israel), and was
therefore seen as the measure by which all trees should be measured. Either way
Pharaoh and Egypt are seen as exalted above them all because of their great
strength, fruitfulness and power, and it was by the hand of Yahweh (‘I made him
fair’). As over everything else Yahweh was over this. But being so had given them a
great responsibility and in this they had failed.
There may here be a comparison with Tyre. That too had claimed great beauty and
to be connected to the garden of the gods (chapter 28). That too had many offshoots.
But if so here God is declaring that even great Tyre could not compare with Egypt,
none in Tyre could compare with the Egyptians.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 31:8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir
trees were not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor
38

39. any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.
Ver. 8. The cedars in the garden of God.] No kingdom in the world was comparable
to the Assyrian for thirteen hundred years together.
POOLE, " The cedars; kings, the greatest and most magnificent.
In the garden of God; either in the most fruitful gardens, or in Judah and Israel; not
David, not Solomon, Jehoshaphat, or Hezekiah, could top and shade him.
The fir trees; a meaner sort of trees, emblem of lesser kings and kingdoms; these
were but like his boughs, though they grow to great height and bulk. The chesnut
trees; the same in another allusion. Kings, like chesnut trees, great when by
themselves, yet, compared with this Assyrian, were but as branches of his boughs;
all which see in Isaiah’s words, Ezekiel 10:7,8. There was some truth, though more
pride, in this speech of the Assyrian, which the prophet reports.
Nor any tree in the garden of God; all summed up, none like him in all the kingdoms
of the world.
9
I made it beautiful
with abundant branches,
the envy of all the trees of Eden
39

40. in the garden of God.
GILL, "I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches,.... Or provinces,
the extensiveness of his dominions: all his power and strength, riches and wealth,
grandeur and glory, and the vast dominions he was possessed of, were all from the Lord;
as whatever kings have are, though they are too apt to ascribe it to themselves; but all
are from him, by whom kings reign:
so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him; all
the kings of the earth, though they dared not openly speak against him, or oppose him;
yet they inwardly grieved at and secretly grudged his grandeur and majesty, superior to
theirs, and wished themselves in his stead; and could gladly have done anything, were it
in their power, to eclipse his glory, and bring him lower. This is the case of all that are in
any eminence, or are conspicuous to others, or in any exalted station above others, be it
what it will; whether they have superior gifts and endowments of mind; or greater
riches, and larger possessions; or are in high places of honour, trust, and profit. The
Targum is,
"I have made him beautiful by the multitude of his mighty ones; and all the kings of the
east trembled before him, because of the strength of his power, which he had from the
Lord.''
JAMISON, "I ... made him — It was all due to My free grace.
TRAPP, "Ezekiel 31:9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so
that all the trees of Eden, that [were] in the garden of God, envied him.
Ver. 9. So that all the trees of Eden … envied him.] Summa petit livor. The tallest
trees are weakest in the tops, and envy always aimeth at the highest.
POOLE, " I have made him fair; all this greatness, wealth, and glory I have given
him.
By the multitude of his branches; the numbers of his provinces, and multitude of his
40

41. subjects, high and low, great and small.
Envied him; either did when they saw his greatness, or would have envied if they
had seen it; or if there may be a seeming justifiableness in wondering at another’s
glory, and wishing it our own, here it might be found.
10 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord
says: Because the great cedar towered over the
thick foliage, and because it was proud of its
height,
GILL, "Therefore thus saith the Lord God,.... Having described the greatness of
the Assyrian monarch; now follows the account of his fall, and the cause of it, pride:
because thou hast lifted up thyself in height; this is either an address to Pharaoh
king of Egypt, who, though he did not rise up so high as the Assyrian monarch in glory
and grandeur; yet he lifted up himself, and thought himself superior to any; which
reason he must be brought down: or the words are directed to the Assyrian monarch, by
a change of person frequent in Scripture; who, though he was raised by the Lord to the
height of honour and dignity he was, yet ascribed it to himself:
and he hath shot up his top among the thick boughs; the multitude of provinces
over which he became head and governor; See Gill on Eze_31:3,
and his heart is lifted up in his height; with pride, insolence, and contempt of God
and men; of which see the instances in Isa_10:8.
HENRY, "We have seen the king of Egypt resembling the king of Assyria in pomp,
and power, and prosperity, how like he was to him in his greatness; now here we see,
I. How he does likewise resemble him in his pride, Eze_31:10. For, as face answers to
face in a glass, so does one corrupt carnal heart to another; and the same temptations of
a prosperous state by which some are overcome are fatal to many others too. “Thou, O
king of Egypt! hast lifted up thyself in height, hast been proud of thy wealth and power,
41

42. Eze_29:3. And just so he (that is, the king of Assyria); when he had shot up his top
among the thick boughs his heart was immediately lifted up in his height, and he grew
insolent and imperious, set God himself at defiance, and trampled upon his people;”
witness the messages and letter which the great king, the king of Assyria, sent to
Hezekiah, Isa_36:4. How haughtily does he speak of himself and his own achievements!
how scornfully of that great and good man! There were other sins in which the Egyptians
and the Assyrians did concur, particularly that of oppressing God's people, which is
charged upon them both together (Isa_52:4); but here that sin is traced up to its cause,
and that was pride; for it is the contempt of the proud that they are filled with. Note,
When men's outward condition rises their minds commonly rise with it; and it is very
rare to find a humble spirit in the midst of great advancements.
JAMISON, "thou ... he — The change of persons is because the language refers
partly to the cedar, partly to the person signified by the cedar.
K&D 10-14, "The Felling of this Cedar, or the Overthrow of Asshur on Account of Its
Pride
Eze_31:10. Therefore thus said the Lord Jehovah, Because thou didst exalt thyself in
height, and he stretched his top to the midst of the clouds, and his heart exalted itself in
its height, Eze_31:11. I will give him into the hand of the prince of the nations; he shall
deal with him: for his wickedness I rejected him. Eze_31:12. And strangers cut him
down, violent ones of the nations, and cast him away: upon the mountains and in all
the valleys his shoots fell, and his boughs were broken in pieces into all the deep places
of the earth; and all the nations of the earth withdrew from his shadow, and let him lie.
Eze_31:13. Upon his fallen trunk all the birds of the heaven settle, and all the beasts of
the field are over his branches: Eze_31:14. That no trees by the water may exalt
themselves on account of their height, or stretch their top to the midst of the clouds, and
no water-drinkers stand upon themselves in their exaltation: for they are all given up
to death into hell, in the midst of the children of men, to those that go into the grave. -
In the description of the cause of the overthrow of Asshur which commences with ‫ן‬ַ‫ַע‬‫י‬
‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬, the figurative language changes in the third clause into the literal fact, the towering
of the cedar being interpreted as signifying the lifting up of the heart in his height, - that
is to say, in his pride. In the first clause the tree itself is addressed; but in the clauses
which follow, it is spoken of in the third person. The direct address in the first clause is
to be explained from the vivid manner in which the fact presented itself. The divine
sentence in Eze_31:10 and Eze_31:11 is not directed against Pharaoh, but against the
Assyrian, who is depicted as a stately cedar; whilst the address in Eze_31:10, and the
imperfect (future) in Eze_31:11, are both to be accounted for from the fact that the fall of
Asshur is related in the form in which it was denounced on the part of Jehovah upon
that imperial kingdom. The perfect ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ ָ‫א‬ is therefore a preterite here: the Lord said...for
His part: because Asshur has exalted itself in the pride of its greatness, I give it up. The
form ‫ֵהוּ‬‫נ‬ ְ‫ת‬ ֶ‫א‬ ְ‫ו‬ is not to be changed into ‫ֵהוּ‬‫נ‬ ְ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ָא‬‫ו‬, but is defended against critical caprice by
the imperfect ‫ה‬ֶ‫ֲשׂ‬‫ע‬ַ‫י‬ which follows. That the penal sentence of God is not to be regarded
as being first uttered in the time then present, but belongs to the past, - and therefore
the words merely communicate what God had already spoken, - is clearly shown by the
42