Eze 19:1-9 | KD | STEP | Israel, the lioness, brought up young lions in the midst of lions. But when they showed their leonine nature, they were taken captive by the nations and led away, one to Egypt, the other to Babylon ( ). The mother herself, once a vine planted by the water with vigorous branches, is torn from the soil, so that her strong tendrils wither, and is transplanted into a dry land. Fire, emanating from a rod of the branches, has devoured the fruit of the vine, so that not a cane is left to form a ruler’s sceptre ( ). - This lamentation, which bewails the overthrow of the royal house and the banishment of Israel into exile, forms a finale to the preceding prophecies of the overthrow of Judah, and was well adapted to annihilate every hope that things might not come to the worst after all. Eze 19:1. And do thou raise a lamentation for the princes of Israel, Eze 19:2. And say, Why did thy mother, a lioness, lie down among lionesses; bring up her whelps among young lions? Eze 19:3. And she brought up one of her whelps: it became a young lion, and he learned to take prey; he devoured man. Eze 19:4. And nations heard of him; he was caught in their pit, and they brought him with nose-rings into the land of Egypt. Eze 19:5. And when she saw that her hope was exhausted, overthrown, she took one of her whelps, made it a young lion. Eze 19:6. And he walked among lionesses, he became a young lion, and learned to take prey. He devoured man. Eze 19:7. He knew its widows, and laid waste their cities; and the land and its fulness became waste, at the voice of his roaring. Eze 19:8. Then nations round about from the provinces set up against him, and spread over him their net: he was caught in their pit. Eze 19:9. And they put him in the cage with nose-rings, and brought him to the king of Babylon: brought him into a fortress, that his voice might not be heard any more on the mountains of Israel. The princes of Israel, to whom the lamentation applies, are the king (נשׂיא, as in ), two of whom are so clearly pointed out in and , that there is no mistaking Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin. This fact alone is sufficient to protect the plural נשׂיאי against the arbitrary alteration into the singular נשׂיא, proposed by Houbigant and Hitzig, after the reading of the lxx. The lamentation is not addressed to one particular prince, either Zedekiah (Hitzig) or Jehoiachin (Ros., Maurer), but to Israel as a nation; and the mother ( ) is the national community, the theocracy, out of which the kings were born, as is indisputably evident from Eze 19:10. The words from מה to רבצה form one sentence. It yields no good sense to separate מה אמּך from רבצה, whether we adopt the rendering, “what is thy mother?” or take מה with לביּא and render it, “how is thy mother a lioness?” unless, indeed, we supply the arbitrary clause “now, in comparison with what she was before,” or change the interrogative into a preterite: “how has thy mother become a lioness?” The lionesses, among which Israel lay down, are the other kingdoms, the Gentile nations. The words have no connection with , where Judah is depicted as a warlike lion. The figure is a different one here. It is not so much the strength and courage of the lion as its wildness and ferocity that are the points of resemblance in the passage before us. The mother brings up her young ones among young lions, so that they learn to take prey and devour men. גּוּר is the lion’s whelp, catulus ; כּפיר, the young lion, which is old enough to go out in search of prey. ותּעל is a Hiphil , in the tropical sense, to cause to spring up, or grow up, i.e., to bring up. The thought is the following: Why has Israel entered into fellowship with the heathen nations? Why, then, has it put itself upon a level with the heathen nations, and adopted the rapacious and tyrannical nature of the powers of the world? The question “why then?” when taken with what follows, involves the reproof that Israel has struck out a course opposed to its divine calling, and will now have to taste the bitter fruits of this assumption of heathen ways. The heathen nations have taken captive its king, and led him away into heathen lands. ישׁמעוּ אליו, they heard of him (אליו for עליו). The fate of Jehoahaz, to which refers, is related in 2Ki 23:31. - refer to Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, and not to Zedekiah, as Hitzig imagines. For the fact that Jehoiachin went out of his own accord to the king of Babylon (2Ki 24:12), is not at variance with the figure contained in , according to which he was taken (as a lion) in a net. He simply gave himself up to the king of Babylon because he was unable to escape from the besieged city. Moreover, Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin are simply mentioned as examples, because they both fell into the hands of the world-powers, and their fate showed clearly enough “what the end must inevitably be, when Israelitish kings became ambitious of being lions, like the kings of the nations of the world” (Kliefoth). Jehoiakim was not so suitable an example as the others, because he died in Jerusalem. נוחלה, which has been explained in different ways, we agree with Ewald in regarding as the Niphal of יחל = חוּל, in the sense of feeling vexed, being exhausted or deceived, like the Syriac ̀ewaḥel, viribus defecit, desperavit . For even in , נוחל simply means to wait; and this is inapplicable here, as waiting is not equivalent to waiting in vain. The change from חוּל to יחל is established by Jdg 3:25, where חוּל or חיל occurs in the sense of יחל. In Jdg 3:7, the figurative language passes into a literal description of the ungodly course pursued by the king. He knew, i.e., dishonoured, its (Israel’s, the nation’s) widows. The Targum reads וירע here instead of וידע, and renders it accordingly, “he destroyed its palaces;” and Ewald has adopted the same rendering. But רעע, to break, or smash in pieces, e.g., a vessel ( ), is never used for the destruction of buildings; and אלמנות does not mean palaces (ארמנות), but windows. There is nothing in the use of the word in to support the meaning “palaces,” because the palaces are simply called ̀almânōth (widows) there, with a sarcastic side glance at their desolate and widowed condition. Other conjectures are still more inadmissible. The thought is as follows: Jehoiachin went much further than Jehoahaz. He not only devoured men, but laid hands on defenceless widows, and laid the cities waste to such an extent that the land with its inhabitants became perfectly desolate through his rapacity. The description is no doubt equally applicable to his father Jehoiakim, in whose footsteps Jehoiachin walked, since Jehoiakim is described in Jer 22:13. as a grievous despot and tyrant. In the object רשׁתּם also belongs to יתּנוּ: they set up and spread out their net. The plural מצדות is used in a general and indefinite manner: in lofty castles, mountain-fortresses, i.e., in one of them (cf. Jdg 12:7).

‏ Ezekiel 19:1-9

Lamentation for the Princes of Israel

Israel, the lioness, brought up young lions in the midst of lions. But when they showed their leonine nature, they were taken captive by the nations and led away, one to Egypt, the other to Babylon (Eze 19:1-9). The mother herself, once a vine planted by the water with vigorous branches, is torn from the soil, so that her strong tendrils wither, and is transplanted into a dry land. Fire, emanating from a rod of the branches, has devoured the fruit of the vine, so that not a cane is left to form a ruler’s sceptre (Eze 19:10-14). - This lamentation, which bewails the overthrow of the royal house and the banishment of Israel into exile, forms a finale to the preceding prophecies of the overthrow of Judah, and was well adapted to annihilate every hope that things might not come to the worst after all.

Eze 19:1-9

Capture and Exile of the Princes

Eze 19:1. And do thou raise a lamentation for the princes of Israel, Eze 19:2. And say, Why did thy mother, a lioness, lie down among lionesses; bring up her whelps among young lions? Eze 19:3. And she brought up one of her whelps: it became a young lion, and he learned to take prey; he devoured man. Eze 19:4. And nations heard of him; he was caught in their pit, and they brought him with nose-rings into the land of Egypt. Eze 19:5. And when she saw that her hope was exhausted, overthrown, she took one of her whelps, made it a young lion. Eze 19:6. And he walked among lionesses, he became a young lion, and learned to take prey. He devoured man. Eze 19:7. He knew its widows, and laid waste their cities; and the land and its fulness became waste, at the voice of his roaring. Eze 19:8. Then nations round about from the provinces set up against him, and spread over him their net: he was caught in their pit. Eze 19:9. And they put him in the cage with nose-rings, and brought him to the king of Babylon: brought him into a fortress, that his voice might not be heard any more on the mountains of Israel.

The princes of Israel, to whom the lamentation applies, are the king (נשׂיא, as in Eze 12:10), two of whom are so clearly pointed out in Eze 19:4 and Eze 19:9, that there is no mistaking Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin. This fact alone is sufficient to protect the plural נשׂיאי against the arbitrary alteration into the singular נשׂיא, proposed by Houbigant and Hitzig, after the reading of the lxx. The lamentation is not addressed to one particular prince, either Zedekiah (Hitzig) or Jehoiachin (Ros., Maurer), but to Israel as a nation; and the mother (Eze 19:2) is the national community, the theocracy, out of which the kings were born, as is indisputably evident from Eze 19:10. The words from מה to רבצה form one sentence. It yields no good sense to separate מה אמּך from רבצה, whether we adopt the rendering, “what is thy mother?” or take מה with לביּא and render it, “how is thy mother a lioness?” unless, indeed, we supply the arbitrary clause “now, in comparison with what she was before,” or change the interrogative into a preterite: “how has thy mother become a lioness?” The lionesses, among which Israel lay down, are the other kingdoms, the Gentile nations. The words have no connection with Gen 49:9, where Judah is depicted as a warlike lion. The figure is a different one here. It is not so much the strength and courage of the lion as its wildness and ferocity that are the points of resemblance in the passage before us. The mother brings up her young ones among young lions, so that they learn to take prey and devour men. גּוּר is the lion’s whelp, catulus; כּפיר, the young lion, which is old enough to go out in search of prey. ותּעל is a Hiphil, in the tropical sense, to cause to spring up, or grow up, i.e., to bring up. The thought is the following: Why has Israel entered into fellowship with the heathen nations? Why, then, has it put itself upon a level with the heathen nations, and adopted the rapacious and tyrannical nature of the powers of the world? The question “why then?” when taken with what follows, involves the reproof that Israel has struck out a course opposed to its divine calling, and will now have to taste the bitter fruits of this assumption of heathen ways. The heathen nations have taken captive its king, and led him away into heathen lands. ישׁמעוּ אליו, they heard of him (אליו for עליו). The fate of Jehoahaz, to which Eze 19:4 refers, is related in 2Ki 23:31. - Eze 19:5-7 refer to Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, and not to Zedekiah, as Hitzig imagines. For the fact that Jehoiachin went out of his own accord to the king of Babylon (2Ki 24:12), is not at variance with the figure contained in Eze 19:8, according to which he was taken (as a lion) in a net. He simply gave himself up to the king of Babylon because he was unable to escape from the besieged city. Moreover, Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin are simply mentioned as examples, because they both fell into the hands of the world-powers, and their fate showed clearly enough “what the end must inevitably be, when Israelitish kings became ambitious of being lions, like the kings of the nations of the world” (Kliefoth). Jehoiakim was not so suitable an example as the others, because he died in Jerusalem. נוחלה, which has been explained in different ways, we agree with Ewald in regarding as the Niphal of יחל = חוּל, in the sense of feeling vexed, being exhausted or deceived, like the Syriac ̀ewaḥel, viribus defecit, desperavit. For even in Gen 8:12, נוחל simply means to wait; and this is inapplicable here, as waiting is not equivalent to waiting in vain. The change from חוּל to יחל is established by Jdg 3:25, where חוּל or חיל occurs in the sense of יחל. In Jdg 3:7, the figurative language passes into a literal description of the ungodly course pursued by the king. He knew, i.e., dishonoured, its (Israel’s, the nation’s) widows. The Targum reads וירע here instead of וידע, and renders it accordingly, “he destroyed its palaces;” and Ewald has adopted the same rendering. But רעע, to break, or smash in pieces, e.g., a vessel (Psa 2:9), is never used for the destruction of buildings; and אלמנות does not mean palaces (ארמנות), but windows. There is nothing in the use of the word in Isa 13:22 to support the meaning “palaces,” because the palaces are simply called ̀almânōth (widows) there, with a sarcastic side glance at their desolate and widowed condition. Other conjectures are still more inadmissible. The thought is as follows: Jehoiachin went much further than Jehoahaz. He not only devoured men, but laid hands on defenceless widows, and laid the cities waste to such an extent that the land with its inhabitants became perfectly desolate through his rapacity. The description is no doubt equally applicable to his father Jehoiakim, in whose footsteps Jehoiachin walked, since Jehoiakim is described in Jer 22:13. as a grievous despot and tyrant. In Eze 19:8 the object רשׁתּם also belongs to יתּנוּ: they set up and spread out their net. The plural מצדות is used in a general and indefinite manner: in lofty castles, mountain-fortresses, i.e., in one of them (cf. Jdg 12:7).