Ezekiel - Lesson 19

Lesson number 19, The Eagle and the Vine, a Fable for the Davidic Dynasty, Ezekiel 17, 1 to 21. In terms of content and structure, this passage resembles 12, chapter 12. It was obviously directed at the Davidic house, so it's the fourth pillar of Israel's false base of security that is at issue here. Judeans viewed themselves safe in the face of any enemy because Yahweh had made an eternal covenant with David, which meant that he and his descendants had eternal title to the throne of Israel, and it meant that as long as that David sat on the throne, we're in good hands. In terms of structure, it also divides into a preamble, verses 1 to 2, compare that with 12, 1 to 1, a figurative presentation, verses 3 to 10, compare that with 12, 3 to 7, a question concerning its meaning, 17, 11 to 12a, compare that with 12, 8 to 9, a divinely authorized interpretation, 17, 12b to 21, compare that with 12, 10 to 15, a ray of hope, 17, 22 to 23, compare that with 12, 16a, and then finally the recognition formula, schluss, it's over, we're done, this prophecy is complete. The biggest difference from chapter 12 is the form of the figurative presentation, whereas chapter 12 had involved a metaphorical, dramatic performance, sign acts. Chapter 17 involves a literary cartoon, identified first as a riddle to be solved, chida, the same word that's used of Samson's famous riddle in Judges 14, 12 to 19, out of the eater something to eat, out of the strong something sweet, that's a riddle, what does that mean? But Ezekiel also identified it as a fable. This is my translation of Hebrew marshal, which is used a figurative or comparative speech that may be as short as a single verse, a proverb, like mother, like daughter in 1644. Marshal is also the Hebrew word for a proverb, like we find in the book of Proverbs, which in Hebrew is called mishalim, the proverbs. But a marshal may be as long as chapter 17, verses 3 to 10 in our text, since our text involves animals and plants acting as if they were human, as in Aesop's fables, I've translated it that way, as fable. Like the rich plumage of the eagle itself, the entire text has the appearance of finely embroidered fabric held together by very colorful threads. But the prophecy unfolds in four distinct phases. First, we have an imaginative, fabulous image, fable, that's verses 1 to 10. Two, an historical interpretation of the fable, verses 11 to 18. Three, a theological interpretation of past events, verses 19 to 21. And then an idealistic theological portrayal of the future, verses 22 to 24. As we track the rhetorical plot, we see that the oracle moves through four different planes, beginning with the imaginative fable, then a historical interpretation, then a theological interpretation, and then finally a fast forward to a portrayal of a future, idealized, forward-looking future. In this lesson, we will deal with the first three phases. In lesson 20, the next, we will take a closer look at the concluding coda, verses 22 to 24, which, because of its messianic significance, deserves special and separate attention. So, let's look at the fable itself, verses 1 to 10. The account begins with the expected prophetic formulas, the following message of Yahweh came to me, human, compose a riddle, make up a fable for the house of Israel, and say, thus says the Lord Yahweh declared. Thereafter, the presentation of the fable divides into two parts. Verses 3 to 8 tell a story. In verses 9 to 10, Ezekiel invited the audience to reflect on its meaning. What does this mean? The story itself breaks down into a series of episodes that will provide the skeleton for our exposition. Following Ezekiel's own rhetorical strategy, I will resist the temptation to solve the riddle prematurely. And we do not need to dwell on the logic or illogic of the story. After all, this is an imaginative fabrication. Like a dramatic presentation, or like a vision, it can be real or unreal. But this story consists of three acts. Act 1, verses 3 to 4, the eagle and the cedar crown. Once upon a time, now the moment I translate it that way, you put it in the realm, in the category of fables. Once upon a time, a certain great eagle with large wings and extended pinions with full and brilliantly colored plumage came to Lebanon. He took the crown of the cedar and plucked off the topmost shoot. He brought it to the land of commerce in the city of traders. He set it. Well, from the opening words, the key figure in this fable is obviously a certain great eagle, or do we say a certain fabulous eagle. Though the word nesher often denotes griffon vulture, Micah 1.16, most instances in the first testament use the word to refer to the golden eagle. The prophet's description highlights the magnificence of the bird. He is great. He has large wings and long pinions. His plumage is full. He is brilliantly colored. This last expression, rikma, multi-colored, recalls the finely embroidered garments of Yahweh's queen in Ezekiel 16.10 and 13, same word here. The expression may have been suggested by the iridescent glistening of a golden eagle's feathers in the bright sunshine. Frankly, the description sounds more like an Australian rainbow lorikeet than a boring brown eagle, though. But this bird is not only magnificent, he's energetic. He flies to Lebanon, a place renowned for its cedars, snips off the fresh crown of one of the cedars, carries the shoot off to a foreign land identified enigmatically as a commercial territory, city of merchants. Ezekiel did not tell his hearers why the eagle did this, nor did he suggest that any of these actions were wrong. He's simply telling his story and letting them try to figure it out. Act 2, the eagle and the vine, verses 5 to 6. He took one of the seedlings of the land and planted it in a nursery bed, a slip beside abundant waters. Like a willowed twig, he set it out. It sprouted and became a vine, spreading out low on the ground, with its branches turned toward him and its roots going down under it. So it became a vine. It branched out and split off into boughs. In verses 5 to 6, the role of the eagle changes as the image of the world of merchants gives way to that of a vineyard. The eagle takes a native seedling and plants it as one would a willow twig in a fertile soil and well-watered garden plot. The vine responds exactly as the vinedresser intended. It takes root. It flourishes. It sends its tendrils out along the ground and directs its branches toward the eagle. All seems well. The vinedresser has done everything he could to ensure the well-being of the plant, and the plant is growing and flourishing as planned. Act 3, the second eagle and the vine, verses 7 to 8. Oh, now there was another great eagle who showed up with large wings and thick plumage. But look! This vine turned its roots toward him and stretched out its branches to him that he might water it from the terrace where it was planted. It had been planted on a favorable plot beside abundant waters so that it might produce branches and yield fruit and develop into a magnificent vine. This second eagle appears and complicates the plot. This bird is also a magnificent specimen, though not as impressive as the first. He is great, but he is not the great one. He is large of wings, but not the largest of wings. He has thick plumage, but not the fullest of plumage. And the prophet said nothing about the newcomer's colorful appearance. What is striking, though, about this bird is its passivity. In contrast to the first eagle, this bird takes no actions. He simply shows up. Meanwhile, the prophet drew his audience away from this eagle to the vine. And what did the vine do? When the eagle showed up, look! Surprise! ESV! Behold! The vine turned its roots toward him. Instead of continuing to send its roots down into the soil, it turned them to the second eagle. Similarly, the branches that should have grown low on the ground stretched out toward the eagle that he might water it. By doing this, the vine repudiated the benevolence and security offered by the first eagle. But it also rejected its intended purpose—to produce full branches, bear fruit, and become a magnificent vine. By the end of verse 8, the fable is effectively over. Again, because Ezekiel did not explain the vine's action, he left his audience to reflect on the vine's ingratitude and stupidity, but also on the meaning of the fable. The citation formula in verse 9 signals a new movement in the account and heightens the suspense for the hearers, probably leading them to anticipate an early interpretation. The Lord tells Ezekiel, say, thus has the Lord Yahweh declared. But Ezekiel toyed with his audience. Instead of interpreting the symbolism of the various elements of the story, he focused the people's attention on a single question. What were the prospects for the vine? The fate of the cedar crown we heard about in Act 1 is out of the picture completely. Adopting the Socratic rhetorical style, Ezekiel posed a series of questions for his audience. Will it flourish? Will he not tear out its roots? Will he not strip off its fruit so that it dries up? Will not all its sprouted leaves wither? Undoubtedly, by the time Ezekiel finished telling the story, his hearers' sympathy will have been with the first eagle. We can imagine them responding to the prophet in unison as he put each question to them. Will it flourish? And they all say, no. Will the eagle not tear the vine out by the roots? Yes. Will he not strip off its fruit and cause all its leaves to dry up? Yes. Will not all its fresh leaves shrivel up? Yes. But then Ezekiel interrupted his line of questioning with a vague parenthetical comment on the vine's vulnerable status. No great arm nor mighty army will be needed to uproot it. And then he resumed his questioning in verse 10 with a renewed call for the audience's attention. Look! And a restatement of the original question. So look, it has been planted, but will it survive? When the east wind touches it, will it not wither up completely? On the terrace on which it sprouted, it will wither. Now, the great eagle had indeed planted the vine in ideal circumstances, but did this guarantee its survival? Whether Ezekiel was losing his audience or had simply been unconvincing in his delivery, he infused fresh life into the presentation by adding a new destructive element, the east wind. In the story of the Exodus, the east wind had functioned as a saving agent of Yahweh, Exodus 10, 13. And this may be what the people were expecting here. But assuming the vantage of the people back at home, the prophet quickly let his audience know that he was talking about the scorching Sirocco winds that blow into Palestine from the desert, leaving all vegetation withered in its wake as we hear in Hosea 13, 15. Even though he flourishes among the rushes, the east wind will come. The wind of Yahweh will come up from the desert. His fountain will fail and his spring dry up. Instead of spreading its roots out low on the ground and going deeper into the fertile and well-watered soil, the vine had redirected its branches toward the second eagle and sent its roots upwards, rendering the plant extremely vulnerable to the wind's withering force. In the face of the hot Sirocco wind, this vine would suffer the same fate as Jonah's gourd in Jonah 4.8. It would die. So much for the fable. And Ezekiel's interaction. In verses 11 to 21, we get the interpretation. Having finished his story and engaged the audience in a short Q&A discussion, the prophet delivered Yahweh's divinely intended interpretation of the fable. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the interpretation that Ezekiel offered is the structural symmetry between the fable itself and the prophet's commentary. And if you put these two side by side, you really are struck with how parallel his telling of the real story is with the actual fable that he had told, the story he had been telling. The explanation of the riddle consists of two parts. The first segment deals with its fulfillment on the historical plane, verses 12b to 18. The second looks at Zedekiah's fall from the divine perspective. But the interpretive process began already in verses 11 to 12a, for here he had engaged the audience, the exilic community, which Ezekiel had earlier called the house of Israel, but he now refers to as the house of rebellion. We hear the expression house of rebellion for the first time in 2.5. Obviously, the prophet's primary rhetorical intention with this fable was not to convince Zedekiah, the king, to change his foreign policy. This oracle may never have reached the king back home. Rather, developments within the exile community seem to have provoked this riddle. Perhaps they had greeted reports of Zedekiah's overtures to the Egyptians as a chance to throw off the Babylonian yoke, which would enable them to return home. However, like his contemporary Jeremiah, Ezekiel's stance was consistently pro-Babylonian. For him, the future of the nation rested not with the remnant huddled in Jerusalem, but with the exiles whom the Babylonians were hosting and seeing through the turbulent times happening in Judah. With this fable, he intended to expose Zedekiah's treacherous policies and his countrymen's support of them as rebellion against Yahweh. So let's look at 11 to 12a, the preamble and the prophet's opening question. 11. Following the prophet's report of a new revelation from Yahweh that involved the Lord's own interpretation of the riddle and the fable delivered in verses 3 to 8, now the prophet relayed the interpretation to his audience, beginning with a rhetorical question. Don't you know the meaning of this riddle? Well, the ambiguities within the tale allow for several different interpretations. The eagle was well known throughout the ancient world as a symbol of strength, Isaiah 40, 31, and royal splendor. The Assyrian Sennacherib called the eagle the foremost of the birds, and Ezrahaddon had boasted, like a flying eagle, I spread my wings to drive back my enemies. But Ezekiel had been speaking of a particular bird. Could this be Yahweh, who had carried Israel on eagles' wings and brought them to himself? Exodus 19.4, Deuteronomy 32.11. Or was this some human monarch? Well, in the ancient Near East, the eagle was a common military and royal symbol, being attested on ensigns, flags, as early as the old Babylonian city of Lagash, and as late as the Persian and Roman periods. But Ezekiel had cast this eagle as a genuinely benevolent figure, so that looks a bit odd. And who was the cedar of Lebanon, verse 3? Was this some royal figure as well? Where is this land of merchants, Eretz Kanaan, where the topmost sprig was planted? The expression certainly sounds like a reference to a Phoenician seaport where timbers from Lebanon would be stored and then sent all over the world. And what is this city of traders? The expression suggests a specific center of commercial activity, but where? He doesn't say. Could it be Babylon? What was the significance of snipping off the sprig? And was this an omen of some person's death? Whom does the vine represent? In Ezekiel 15, 1 to 8, this motif had symbolized apostate Israel. Indeed, the present tale bears a striking resemblance to Psalm 80, which portrays Israel as a choice vine that Yahweh had taken out of Egypt, transplanted in Canaan, in order that she might produce for him fruit of a special quality. Or could the exiles have linked this tale with an earlier prophecy of Jeremiah in which Yahweh had said, I planted you like a choice vine from the purest stalk? How then did you turn degenerate and become a wild vine? Ezekiel 2, 21, Jeremiah 2, 21. And whom does the second eagle represent? Is this another deity competing with Yahweh for the allegiance of his people or another human being? And what is the significance of the vines turning its branches away from its own soil bed and to the eagle? And finally, what's the relationship between the vine and the cedar sprig? We've got two plants here. Well, we cannot tell how Ezekiel's audience would have answered all of these questions. But in the end, whatever they thought, their own understanding would be irrelevant, because Yahweh, who inspired this fable, gave the authoritative meaning. That was the locution, the fable. In his interpretation, we hear the illocution. What does it mean to the person who wrote it? Well, let's deal first with the significance of the fable on the historical plane. Verses 12b to 18. Ezekiel sees the people's attention with a question that suggests that of course they should get the point. They should have got the point. Don't you know what these things mean? In case the people in his audience had been falling asleep or were lost in their own search for answers, he woke them up with a divine interpretation with, look, pay attention, behold. First, the king of Babylon had captured the Judean king and brought him to Babylon. Oh, here's the text. Say, look, the king of Babylon has arrived in Jerusalem and has captured her king and her officials and brought them to himself to Babylon. Ezekiel never named the character symbolized by the figures in the fable until after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. But their own exact identity is beyond doubt. We know exactly who they are. The great eagle is the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar. And of course, Ezekiel lives in Babylon. He will spell the name properly the way it is spelled in Babylon. It's actually Nebuchadrezzar, which is closer to Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar. May Nebuchadnezzar protect. Who had arrived in Jerusalem 10 years earlier in 597 B.C. The name Lebanon is a cipher for the royal palace that Solomon had built, 1 Kings 7, 2 to 12. He calls this the house of the forest of Lebanon. The snipped-off sprig of the cedar is Jehoiachin, whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away after a three-month reign. He is just a tender sprig. He's only been on the throne three months. He takes him to the city of merchants, which has to be Babylon, along with his family and the Judean nobility. We will have more to say about him in the study in the next lesson when we take another look at verses 3 to 4. Second, the king of Babylon installed a new king in Jerusalem in place of the exiled king, verse 13a. He has taken a member of the royal line and made a covenant with him, putting him under oath. He also took away the nobility of the land in order to humble the kingdom to prevent him from exalting himself and to keep his covenant that it might remain in force. Verse 13 represents Nebuchadnezzar's installation of his own puppet king, Mattaniah, whom he renamed Zedekiah, in Jehoiachin's place, to secure the loyalty of the throne and of Judah as a whole, as recounted in 2 Kings 24, 17-20. Here's the historian's report. And the king of Babylon installed Mattaniah, Jehoiachin's uncle, that's Josiah's third son, king in his place, and he changed his name to Zedekiah. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and he reigned 11 years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Hamathal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah, and he did the evil in the sight of Yahweh, just as Jehoiachin had done, infuriating Yahweh to the point in Jerusalem and Judah that he cast him out from his presence. But Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon. That's the biblical version of the story of what really happened. The Babylonian chronicle from this period records the event like this. Year one, in Kislev, the king of Babylon called out his army and marched to Hattu, the west. He set his camp against the city of Judah, and on 2 Adar, March 16, 587, he took the city and captured the king. He appointed a king of his choosing there, took heavy tribute, and returned to Babylon. Ezekiel's description of Zedekiah as from the seed of kingship recognizes that he was a member of the Davidic dynasty. In keeping with ancient Near Eastern custom, Nebuchadnezzar took several important steps to guarantee Zedekiah's loyalty in the future. First, the Babylonian king imposed a loyalty oath upon him.The phrases, to make a covenant, karath bereth, and to place under oath, are formal expressions commonly used in context of suzerainty treaties and loyalty oaths. Suzerain vassal covenants defined the limits of acceptable conduct of a vassal vis-a-vis his superior and appealed to the gods as witnesses to the treaty. By placing himself under oath, the vassal invoked the curse of the gods upon himself should he fail to keep the terms of the treaty. So that's behind this. Third, Nebuchadnezzar removed the nobility from the land to ensure the loyalty of a new puppet king. The deportees have consisted of a small cadre of political figures, the king and princes of verse 12, who were taken to the city of Babylon or nearby where they could be kept under surveillance, and the larger group of craftsmen and smiths who were settled elsewhere to bolster the Babylonian economy. Ezekiel and his countrymen in Tel Aviv belong to the latter group. Verse 14 summarizes Nebuchadnezzar's objectives in his treatment of Zedekiah, to maintain the vassal status of the kingdom of Judah, to keep the king humble, and to guard the treaty oath. However, Zedekiah would disappoint the Babylonian king. Instead of accepting his promotion with grateful loyalty, Zedekiah rebelled against his overlord, sending envoys to, that is, Malachi messengers to Egypt to secure military assistance for the purpose of throwing off the Babylonians. Neither Ezekiel nor 2 Kings give any details about Zedekiah's revolt other than this was part of his doing the evil in the sight of Yahweh, 2 Kings 24.19. But Jeremiah filled in some of the gaps in Jeremiah 27.1-28. Sometime during Zedekiah's fourth year, 594 BC, Yahweh commanded Jeremiah to denounce Zedekiah for hosting envoys from Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Tyre who had met to conspire against Nebuchadnezzar. This was what provoked Nebuchadnezzar to send his army out to Hattu, the west, in Kislev, November-December 594, according to the Babylonian Chronicle. Unfortunately, the text breaks off at this point, but Jeremiah 51-59 has a tantalizing note indicating that sometime during that year, Zedekiah visited Babylon, presumably to explain his treasonous activities before the emperor. Now that he returned home with his title to the throne of Judah still intact suggests either that he succeeded in pretending to be loyal, or that Nebuchadnezzar was satisfied with an apology and a renewal of his vassal oath. The change, though, in Zedekiah's disposition toward Nebuchadnezzar appears to have coincided with the accession of Semiticus II, 595-589 BC, to the throne of Egypt. A papyrus from El-Heber refers to a visit by the pharaoh to Syria-Palestine in his fourth year, ostensibly as a religious pilgrimage to Byblos in Phoenicia. But royal visits usually had political undertones, especially since these states had revolted against Babylon as recently as three years ago. In a letter by Aristides to Philocrates, written in 170 BC, he notes that under Semiticus, Jews had assisted the Egyptians against Ethiopians. It's not clear whether Semiticus II encouraged Zedekiah to revolt again in 588 BC. In any case, during the siege of Jerusalem, the Judeans looked to Semiticus II's successor, Apres, in the Bible known as Hophra, 589-570, they looked to him for aid, Jeremiah 37, 5-7. But they did so in vain. Egypt stood by and watched while the capital of her former ally burned to the ground, 586. The people in Jerusalem thought Egypt would come and help, but they didn't. This brief survey of events leading up to the final siege of Jerusalem demonstrates that Zedekiah had been casting his eyes southward for several years, the offenses of chapter 16, 23-29. So much for, the branch is going to the other eagle, that's the Egyptian pharaoh. Nebuchadnezzar is the first grand eagle, that other eagle is Egypt. At the end of 1715, Ezekiel interpreted his interpretation of the riddle by asking a series of rhetorical questions similar to those cited in verse 9. Again, he raised the issue, what are the prospects for Zedekiah, he doesn't name him, he's simply, it's for the prince, and his pro-Egyptian stance? Will he succeed? Will the person who does these things escape? Can he break the covenant and still escape? Can this vassal really violate his treaty oath with Nebuchadnezzar without bringing upon himself a treaty curses? The prophet didn't waste any time before answering. Appropriately, in a context involving covenants and oaths, Yahweh responded with an oath formula of his own. Yahweh says, as I live, or by my life, chai ani. With this, he strengthened the signatory formula, the declaration of Adonai Yahweh, and then a strong expression of certainty, guaranteed, I'm lo. As I live, the declaration of the Lord Yahweh, guaranteed, in the territory of the king who installed him as king, whose oath he treated with contempt, and whose covenant with him he broke, in the midst of Babylon, he will die. Pharaoh will not join him in the battle with a mighty force, nor a large contingent of troops, when they heap up siege ramps and construct siege walls in order to cut off many lives. He treated the oath with contempt by breaking the covenant. Look, even though he had given his hand, he did all this. He will not escape. Well, with these words, Ezekiel predicted two disasters that would strike the Judean king. First, he would die in Babylon, the land of his overlord. With these words, Ezekiel predicted two disasters that would strike the Judean king. First, he would die in Babylon, the land of his overlord. Laying responsibility for his fate squarely on Zedekiah's own shoulders, he accused him of snubbing his Babylonian benefactor, who had put him on the throne, treating the fealty oath with contempt, and violating the covenant. As we noted earlier, 2 Kings 25.7 describes the fulfillment of this prediction. After watching the Babylonians slaughter his sons, they gouged out his eyes and dragged him into captivity. Nothing more was heard of him after that. Second, the Egyptians would fail to come to Zedekiah's aid. While the text of verse 17a is difficult, it's clear that in a critical moment, the great Egyptian force, Chayil Gadol, and her vast military company, Chaghal Rav, would not show up. This would permit Nebuchadnezzar to construct his siege ramps and his siege walls without interference, and he would pursue his goal of exterminating the faithless and rebellious population of Jerusalem. In verse 18, Ezekiel summarized the issue involving Zedekiah. He treated the oath with contempt by breaking the covenant. Look, even though he had given his hand, he still did all this. He will not escape. The king had shown no respect, either for his benefactor or for his commitments he had given his hand. He had made promises to Nebuchadnezzar only to get him off his back. Lacking utterly in sincerity or integrity, for the Judean to go back on his word once the Babylonian king was out of sight, that was a small thing to him. The final declaration, he will not escape, this answers directly to the rhetorical question raised in verse 15. Will he flourish? No, he will not escape. Will the person who does this escape? Can he break the covenant with impunity and still escape? The answer is no way. We come then to verses 19 to 20, the significance of the fable on the theological plane. So you see what's happening here. We've had the fable, that's the earthy plane. Then you have the interpretation that's no longer the eagle and these other vines, these plants. It is now the kings and the people of Jerusalem, especially the king. And then now we have the theological plane. Things are happening at all levels, up in the heavens, on earth, and even on the very ground. Therefore, thus has the Lord Yahweh declared. We've heard that before. As I live, surely it is my oath that he has treated with contempt, and my covenant that he has broken. So I will bring it down on his own head. I will spread my net over him, and he will be captured in my snare. I will bring him to Babylon, and there I will enter into judgment with him for his treachery that he committed against me. All his choice soldiers among all his battalions will fall by the sword. As for the remainder, they will be scattered in every direction. Then you will know that I am Yahweh, I have spoken. Well, so far Ezekiel had been dealing only with the politics on the ground, particularly the relationship between Zedekiah and Nebuchadnezzar, with the Egyptians thrown in to complicate the plot. In verses 19 to 21, the focus shifted from the plane of earthly political events to the divine sphere, as Ezekiel explored the theological implications of the fable and of Zedekiah's political decisions. The opening, therefore, links the description that follows of the consequences of Zedekiah's breach of Nebuchadnezzar's covenant with him referred to in verse 18. But as in verse 16, the prophet signaled the climax and force of this part of the interpretation in verse 19 with a series of prophetic formulas. The citation formula, thus as Adonai Yahweh declared, the oath formula, by my life, and the asseveration formula, guaranteed, surely, in law. Now we learn that Zedekiah's guilt involved more than treachery against a human overlord. The offended party was Yahweh himself. It was his oath the Judean king had despised and his covenant that he had broken. Because God was the offended party, he was obligated to administer the punishment suitable for the crime himself. Second Chronicles 36, 12 to 17, clarifies the meaning and significance of this verse. Here's the Chronicles account. He committed the evil in the sight of Yahweh his God. He did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet who spoke from the mouth of Yahweh. He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar who had made him swear by God. He stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to Yahweh the God of Israel. Similarly, all the officers of the priests and the people were exceedingly unfaithful and they followed all the abominations of the nations and they polluted the house of Yahweh that he had made holy in Jerusalem. Yahweh the God of their ancestors persisted in sending warnings by his messengers the prophets because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place. But they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words and scoffing at his prophets until the fury of Yahweh arose against the people until there was no remedy. Therefore, he brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans. Well, by this interpretation, when Nebuchadnezzar had imposed his vassal covenant upon Zedekiah, he had forced him to swear by God, that is, Yahweh the God of Israel. As if Yahweh needed any legal authorization, this offered him, Yahweh, the grounds for intervening against the king for his rebellion against the Babylonian. It actually meant rebellion against him, Yahweh. To violate a political covenant is to challenge the divine guarantor. The description of Yahweh's actions in verses 20 to 21 cast him in the role of a hunter, out to capture prey. Ezekiel envisioned three phases of the divine hunter's action, the capture of the wild animal, his deportation to Babylon, his formal judgment for his crimes. The first two are familiar from 1213. Indeed, the echo effect is intentional and obvious. But the third is new, the formal judgment for his crimes. Nebuchadnezzar had pronounced the earthly sentence on Zedekiah at Riblah, but Yahweh would consider the case and pass judgment upon him in Babylon. Although Yahweh did not specify the nature of the sentence on the king, the crime was clear. In verse 20, Ezekiel had accused him of treachery against Yahweh. However, he would witness his choice troops fall in battle before Nebuchadnezzar's armies and the remainder being dispersed in every direction. The king who had labored so hard to rid himself of the vassal oath would finally succumb to its curses. When that occurred, the exiles would recognize the person of Yahweh and the triumph of his word. Well, theological and practical implications for this fascinating text. Now that the prophet had announced the solution to this divinely inspired riddle, we may stand back and reflect upon the theological significance of this account. What do we learn from this passage? At the personal level, we learn how intense was Yahweh's and Ezekiel's contempt for Zedekiah. At the beginning, of course, I mention this, but let me remind you how it was expressed. First, we saw in the opening of the book itself that both Ezekiel and the final editor of the book refused to date his ministry events according to the year of the reigning king. In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles. Now, on the fifth day of the month, it was the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin. That is so insulting to Zedekiah, the new king. Compare this with a literary and historical convention elsewhere. In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, came up against the fortified cities. That's what you expect. But in the eighteenth year, year of King Josiah, this Passover was kept to the Lord in Jerusalem. Or in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, the king sent Shaphan, the son. So the city was besieged till the eleventh year of King Zedekiah, second Kings 25 too. That's the way it was normally done, the year of the king. Well, instead of following this convention of dating events according to the accession of the king, 598 BC, Ezekiel's date notices are all grounded on the date of the exile of Jehoiachin and Ezekiel himself. Second, notice the negative picture Ezekiel painted about the man, Zedekiah. He had absolutely nothing good to say about him. The third of the righteous king Josiah's sons, all of Josiah's kids were bad apples. Nobody has anything good to say about them anywhere. Third, he would characterize him as the seed of kingship in 1210 to 11. He spoke of him as a prince, but he never calls him a king. He's of the royal family, obviously, but he doesn't deserve the title. Fourth, Ezekiel refused even to let the name Zedekiah drop from his lips or be written down by his fingers. In this respect, his relationship is like that of the prosecuting attorney and the accused in the trial that we mentioned in the film Denial of the Holocaust denying character. The attorney for the prosecutor never even looked the accused in the eye because he didn't deserve his attention. That's what we have here. A second lesson, people's responses to crises must accord with their causes, not merely with the symptoms. As we saw so dramatically presented in chapter 16, the Judean crisis was precipitated by the perfidy, the disloyalty, the infidelity, the apostasy of the people against Yahweh. Their attempt to procure aid from Egypt while ignoring their moral and spiritual decline represented the ultimate folly that only hastened Yahweh's judgment. We may perceive Zedekiah's goals of liberation from the Babylonian overlord as noble, but as are these sorts of dreams everywhere, but this doesn't sanctify the enterprise if the strategy evades the real issue, the rot in the human heart. Third, those who claim to be the people of God must take him seriously in all aspects of life. Covenants and oaths are binding at any time. However, when one invokes the name of Yahweh as a witness and guarantor of a promise, one may not expect him to wink when it is violated. To take just one example, I've officiated at many weddings, including, most remarkably, at the wedding of my father-in-law after my wife's mother had passed away. Typically, I have insisted that early in the ceremony we say something like, we are gathered this afternoon in the presence of God and these witnesses to hear the vows that these two people are making. While most people say this quite glibly, in my premarital counseling, I have always emphasized the significance of these words. They invoke God as a witness to the vows, calling on him to bless this marriage, but also authorizing him to bring upon us the appropriate consequences when we fail, should that happen, God forbid. To say these vows in the presence of God transfers the significance of the ceremony beyond an earthly or legal or merely civil human convention to the divine sphere. This fact underlies Malachi 2, 13 to 14. And there's another thing you do, he says. You cover Yahweh's altar with tears, with weeping, groaning, because he no longer respects your offerings or receives them gladly from your hands. Yet you ask, for what reason? Because Yahweh has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have acted treacherously against her, though she was your marriage partner and your wife by covenant. This principle also underlies 1 Peter 3, 7. Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. That's an interesting addition. God is not obligated to hear the prayers of men who are unfaithful to their wives. And also, actually, vice versa. Our commitments are serious matters, not just civil matters. They are spiritual. These reflect our commitment, or lack of it, to God himself.