THE HUMILIATION AND EXALTATION OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID (Chap 17)
EXEGETICAL NOTES.—The word of prophecy in this chapter is introduced in the way of a riddle and a parable (Ezekiel 17:2). The parable itself is told in Ezekiel 17:1-10. In Ezekiel 17:11-21, we have the interpretation of it and its application to King Zedekiah. In Ezekiel 17:22-24, we have the prophecy of the exaltation of David’s house and its necessary connection with the glory of Messiah’s kingdom. By the alliance of Zedekiah with Egypt, the people hoped to regain the ancient glory of Israel. The prophet shows that these hopes are vain. They thought that God could not fail towards the king without reversing the promises which He had made to the house of David. The prophet announces that Zedekiah will meet with the due reward of his deeds; and yet, in a wonderful manner, God will fulfil His ancient promise to the chosen people, though to human observation all seems to be lost. The kingdom of David will assuredly be exalted in the latter days.
THE PARABLE, REPRESENTING THE EMPTINESS OF ALL THE NATION’S EARTHLY HOPES OF THE FUTURE (Ezekiel 17:1-10)
Ezekiel 17:1-2. “Put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel.” “The parable mâshâl, corresponding exactly to the N.T. παραβολή is called chîdhâh, a riddle, because of the deeper meaning lying beneath the parabolic shell.—(Keil.) As far as it described the future of the house of Israel, it was teaching by analogy, and may, therefore, be regarded in the light of a parable. In its immediate bearing upon the fate of Zedekiah, it may be regarded as a riddle.
Ezekiel 17:3. “A great eagle with great wings.” “The symbolism of this parable has been traced by some to Babylonian influences working upon the prophet’s mind, but without any tenable ground. The figure of the eagle, or bird of prey, applied to a conqueror making a rapid descent upon a country, has as little in it of a specifically Babylonian character as the comparison of the royal family to a cedar or vine. Not only is Nebuchadnezzar compared to an eagle in Jeremiah 48:40; Jeremiah 49:22, as Cyrus is to a bird of prey in Isaiah 46:11; but even Moses has described the paternal watchfulness of God over His own people as bearing them upon eagle’s wings (Exodus 19:4; Deuteronomy 32:11). The cedar of Lebanon and the vine are genuine Israelitish figures. The great eagle is the King Nebuchadnezzar (compare Ezekiel 17:12)”—(Keil.) The “great wings” are a symbol of the vastness of Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion. “Long-winged, full of feathers, which had divers colours.” The long pinions signify his large and well-disciplined armies; the abundant “feathers “the numerous populations over which he reigned, and the “divers colours” the variety of races, languages, etc., which were found in his empire. “Come unto Lebanon.” This is not a symbol of the Israelitish land, but of Jerusalem, with its royal palace so rich in cedar wood. This was the place where the cedar was planted (Ezekiel 17:12). “And took the highest branch of the cedar.” The cedar is the Davidic family, and the “highest branch” of it is King Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:12).
Ezekiel 17:4. “The top of his young twigs.” “The youngest and most tender member of that family. Jehoiachin, to whom reference is here symbolically made, was only eighteen years of age when he assumed the reins of government” (2 Kings 24:8).—(Henderson.) “Carried it into a land of traffick; he set it in a city of merchants.” “Not only was the country of Babylon famous for its transport traffic by means of the Euphrates, but the city itself was famous for its manufacturing and mercantile establishments. From the connection of Babylon with the Persian Gulf, the commerce carried on between that city and India must have been immense.”—(Henderson.) “That which is intended is rather the Chaldean diplomacy, the policy of the interests that were thus pursued, just as we speak of political negotiations and international intrigues. From this policy originated the removal of Jehoiachin to Babylon. Self-interest is the point of comparison between politics and trade. This community of principle also explains how both politics and trade are represented in Scripture under the figure of adultery, the self-seeking, that conceals itself under the appearance of love (Revelation 14:8; Revelation 17:2); the self-seeking policy (Nahum 3:4); the trade (Isaiah 23:15, etc.). It was, as it were, a profitable stroke of business, that Jehoiachin, who was favourable to Egypt, should be removed to Babylon, and a creature of the King of Babylon set up in his stead, whose fidelity he might count upon, because he had the legitimate sovereign in his custody, and could make use of him according to circumstances.—(Hengstenberg.)
Ezekiel 17:5. “The seed of the land. This expression signifies what we mean by “a son of the soil,” as distinguished from a foreigner. The Chaldeans appointed Zedekiah, who was of the old native royal family (2 Kings 24:17). “He placed it by great waters.” Heb. “Many waters.” The idea is that of a fertile situation. Though, politically, Zedekiah was in a dependent position, yet he had abundant opportunity for exercising his gifts and power as a ruler. “Set it as a willow tree.” This tree is low, and grows near streams (Isaiah 44:4). “This means, that he treated it as a willow tree, inasmuch as he took it to many waters, set it in a well-watered soil, i.e. in a suitable place.”—(Keil).
Ezekiel 17:6. “A spreading vine of low stature, whose branches turned towards him, and the roots thereof were under him.” “This figure of the vine is not here in contradiction with that of the willow. The two figures present different aspects. The new king is a vine, not a cedar, as the earlier independent family of David. ‘Spreading,’ so that it grew luxuriantly indeed, but in breadth, not in height, which is still more definitely shown by the addition ‘of low stature.’ Its (Zedekiah’s) roots should be under him—should not be withdrawn from dependence on the king of Babylon.”—(Hengstenberg). “The subjection of Zedekiah to Nebuchadnezzar is significantly expressed by his being turned towards him; while he continued faithful as his vassal, though he never rose to any elevation, yet the affairs of the kingdom went on peaceably, and the subjects increased rather than diminished.”—(Henderson.)
Ezekiel 17:7. “Another great eagle with great wings and many feathers.” This second eagle lacks the long pinions and divers colours of the first. It represents the King of Egypt, who, though he ruled over a widely-spread and powerful kingdom, was yet inferior to the King of Babylon in imperial grandeur and disciplined armies. “This vine did bend her roots toward him, and shot forth her branches toward him, that he might water it by the furrows of her plantation.” This vine had water enough already, so that there was no occasion for her to stretch out her branches towards the other eagle. Hereby the conduct of Zedekiah is condemned, who, wearied with subjection to the King of Babylon, applied to the King of Egypt for help, hoping that by this means he might establish the independence of his throne.
Ezekiel 17:8. “It was planted in a good soil by great waters, that it might bring forth branches, and that it might bear fruit, that it might be a goodly vine.” “If Zedekiah had remained quiet under Nebuchadnezzar, as a hanging vine, his government might have continued and prospered.”—(Keil.)
Ezekiel 17:9. “Thus saith the Lord God, shall it prosper?” “The subject is the King of Babylon. The roots signify the national existence, the fruit the produce of the land, or the collective gain. The vine becomes dry in all its sprouting leaves. These signify all that by which a prosperous national life is displayed. ‘Not by a great arm or many people will it be taken away with its roots.’ According to Jeremiah 34., Nebuchadnezzar led a numerous army to Jerusalem, but there was no need of so great preparations. If a nation have God for its enemy, one can chase a thousand of them, and two can put ten thousand to flight (Deuteronomy 32:30). The Egyptians were quite passive (comp. Ezekiel 17:17). The taking away with the roots signified the total abolition of the national existence.”—(Hengstenberg.)
Ezekiel 17:10. “Shall it not utterly wither when the east wind toucheth it?” “The east wind proving noxious to vegetation in Palestine, is here fitly employed as a symbol of the Chaldean army, which came from that quarter. It was only necessary to bring that army into contact with the Jewish state in order to effect its ruin.”—(Henderson.) The east wind is the searching wind of God’s anger (Jonah 4:8)
HOMILETICS
TEACHING BY PARABLES
1. The form of the discourse here, just as in the case of our Lord, who has developed the parable into one of His ordinary modes of teaching, is to be explained chiefly from the object in view,—partly as it was designed for a circle of hearers, or rather of readers, which, although mixed up in all sorts of ways with higher interests, is yet to be thought of as living mainly in the world of sense, and especially as bound fast in the misery of the exile, and sympathising in the false and faithless policy prevailing at the time in Jerusalem; partly as it might recommend itself to the prophet in the political circumstances by which he was surrounded. The mashal before us in Ezekiel goes, therefore, far beyond mere popular illustration. Still less is it to be explained away from the æsthetic stand point, as merely another rhetorical garb for the thought.
2. As in the parable the emblematic form preponderates over the thought, so also here. What the prophet is to say to Israel is said by the whole of that mighty array of figurative expression, for which the animal and vegetable worlds furnish the figures. But the eagle does what eagles otherwise never do; and what is planted as a willow grows into a vine; and the vine “is represented as falling in love with the other eagle.”—(J. D. Mich.) The contradictory character of such a representation, and the fact that in the difficulties to be solved (Ezekiel 17:9-10 etc.) the comparison comes to a stand, and the closing Messianic portion in which the whole culminates, convert the parable into a “riddle.” A trace of irony and the moral tendency, such as belong to the fable, are not wanting.—(Lange.)