John Calvin Commentary Ezekiel 19

Here the Prophet, under the image of a lion, informs us that whatever evils happened to the Israelites could not be imputed to others. We must then understand his intention.

It is not surprising that the Spirit of God insists on a matter not very obscure, since nothing is more obstinate than the pride of men, especially when God chastises them. Although they pretend to humility and modesty, they nevertheless swell with pride and are full of bitterness. Lastly, they can scarcely be brought to confess that God is just and that they deserve chastisement at His hand.

For this reason, therefore, Ezekiel confirms what we previously saw, that the Jews were not afflicted without deserving it. But he uses, as I have said, a simile taken from lions. He calls the nation itself a lioness: for when he treats of the mother of the people, we know that the offspring is considered.

He says, therefore, that the people were full of insolence. The comparison to a lion is sometimes taken in a good sense, as when Moses uses it of the tribe of Judah, as a lion’s whelp shall he lie down (Genesis 49:9), a phrase used in a good sense. But here Ezekiel denotes cruelty, as if he had said that all the Jews were fierce and savage beasts.

For under the name of mother, as I said, he embraces the whole nation. At the beginning he orders his Prophet to take up a mournful wailing: for this is how I interpret the word קינה (kineh), but there is in my judgment an indirect opposition between this lamentation which God dictated to them by his Prophet, and the common complaints which sounded constantly from their tongues.

For when their condition was not only ruinous, but utterly deplorable, they made many groanings and bewailings. But at the same time, no one extended his thoughts beyond the pressure of present evils. They all exclaimed that they were wretched, but no one was anxious to inquire why they were so or from where their miseries arose; indeed, they avoided this contemplation.

The Prophet then indirectly reproves them by stating that this mournful complaint was suggested by God, but it was very different from that ordinary lamentation and howling in which the Jews stopped at blind grief and never inquired why God was so hostile to them.

Take up, therefore, a lamentation, He says, regarding or against the princes of Israel. In this way, God does not excuse the people from blame; He only means that not only the common people were lost, but the very flower of the nation and all who were held in honor.

He says next, that their mother lay down among lions, alluding to the people’s origin from lions, as we said before, when the Prophet calls Judea the descendant of Canaan, and the sister of Sodom and Samaria. When He now says, their mother lay down among lions, He means that they were shamefully mixed with the corruption of the Gentiles, so that they did not differ from them.

But God had chosen them as His peculiar people on the very condition of being separate from all the filth of the Gentiles. There was, therefore, a certain withdrawing of God’s favor when the mother of the people lay down among the lions, that is, when they all promiscuously gave themselves up to the perverse morals and superstitions of the Gentiles.

He says, that she brought up whelps, or young lions, which she produced to these lions; since their origin was impure, being all Abraham’s children, but, as I have said, a degenerate race. He afterwards adds, that the lion’s whelp, or young lion, grew up till it became a lion: then it learnt to seize prey, He says, and to devour men.

He refers to King Jehoahaz, son of Josiah (2 Kings 23:30–32), but He had previously asserted that the whole people had a lion’s disposition, and that the princes, who were more exalted, were like whelps. As only one lion is here brought forward, it ought to be referred to the violence by which that wicked king manifested his real disposition.

But if it is asked from where the lion went forth, the reply is: from among his brethren, for they were all lions’ whelps, or young lions. They could not administer the government either together or singly, but each devoured his brother and was devoted to robbery and rapine.

The king only, because freed from all fear, could surpass the rest in rapine and robbery with impunity. We see, then, that not only was the king condemned here, but he also becomes the type of the whole nation because, since no one could restrain his passions, he could rob and devour mankind with unbridled freedom.

He afterwards adds, that the nations had heard, and were taken in their pit-fall. Here Ezekiel states that Jehoahaz was hurled from the royal throne, and taken captive by the Egyptians, not only because God had beheld his cruelty, but because the Gentiles had observed it; and it was notorious among them all.

In this way He signifies that the cruelty of King Jehoahaz was intolerable: and He mentions him, since all the neighboring nations had heard of his fame, and had conspired to destroy him; and so he was taken in their pit, and confined by chains, and led away into Egypt. He means, as I said, Jehoahaz, whom King Pharaoh-nechoh took captive (2 Kings 23; 2 Chronicles 36).

For when he thought that the Egyptians were distracted by foreign wars, he took the opportunity of collecting an army, and endeavored to seize on certain neighboring cities. But Pharaoh, after he was disengaged from other business, entered Judea, and since Jehoahaz was unable to resist, he was taken.

We now understand the Prophet’s meaning, namely, when this first calamity and destruction happened to the Jews they were justly chastised, because they were young lions; and a lion had sprung from them whose cruelty was already intolerable to the profane Gentiles: this is the sense of the passage. Now if we consider who was the father of Jehoahaz this will be more detestable.

For we know that if ever any king excelled in piety and every virtue, Josiah was among them. From the son being so unlike his father, we perceive his perverse disposition.

There can be no doubt that his father desired to instruct him in the fear and worship of God and to train him in the discharge of the royal office.

But if we consider the whole people, the prodigy will be even more detestable. For we know with what fervor and zeal Josiah strove to form the morals of the people, so that the kingdom should be entirely renewed.

But the people soon declined, so that the Holy Spirit says, their mother was a lioness, and lay down among lions, from which we see their depraved nature.

I cannot proceed further.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God—since we are all so depraved by nature that we are not only most deserving of being cast into the midst of lions but are also unworthy of being counted among your creatures—that you may extend your hand to us and manifest your wonderful power in reforming us; and may your image be so renewed in us that we may daily make more and more progress in true piety and righteousness, until at length all the corruptions of the flesh may be abolished, and we may be partakers of that eternal glory which your only-begotten Son has acquired for us. — Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

We yesterday read over that sentence in which the Prophet says that Judea produced another lion after the former had been captured and led into Egypt. Now this ought to be referred to King Jehoiakim, who was appointed by King Nebuchadnezzar when he had laid waste a part of Egypt, possessed the whole of Judea, and imposed laws by establishing a king, according to the rights of conquest.

But since he also acted treacherously, he was led away into captivity. The Prophet, therefore, means that the nation did not repent through this single chastisement. Nor did it change its disposition, since its mother was a lioness; indeed, not only did it bring forth young lions, but it also taught them to seize their prey until they were fully grown.

He says, therefore, that she saw what she had hoped, and her hope was futile. Some think that the noun “hope” is repeated here by the Prophet—meaning, she saw that her hope was lost; lost hope, I say. But the other reading is better: she saw that she had hoped.

That is, she saw that her hope had not produced any fruit for some time because the royal throne remained deserted. Therefore she took another of her cubs, says he, and made him a lion.

The Prophet again briefly teaches that the whole royal offspring was like young lions. Although, therefore, the lion alone is called king, he is still said to be taken from a number of cubs; and thus it follows that this denotes the depraved and cruel nature of all of them.

Thus we see that the Jews are indirectly reproved for not returning to soundness of mind when God punished them severely and King Jehoahaz was taken. Since, therefore, that punishment did not result in their correction, it follows that their dispositions were depraved.

And the Prophet means this when he says, that she took one of her cubs, and again made it a lion.

Ezekiel confirms what I have already briefly touched on: that this second lion was no less savage and cruel than the former one he had described. Regarding the phrase he walked among lions, it means that his government was tyrannical, because there was then such foul barbarity in those regions that kings were scarcely human in their conduct.

Therefore, since kings were then everywhere like lions, the Prophet says that Jehoiakim was not different from them but was in every sense their ally. He walked, therefore, he says, in the midst of lions, because he imitated their ferocity. He later expresses this more clearly: that he became a lion, and was taught to seize his prey, so as to devour not only animals, but men, thus marking his extreme cruelty. He later adds—

He again confirms what he said about the cruelty of King Jehoiakim, but the phrase is mixed, as he retains only a part of the simile and then speaks plainly about palaces and cities. Although interpreters lean towards a different opinion and translate it as 'and took notice of his widows,' and if the remaining words had been suitable, this reading would have been better; however, I do not see how such different things as destroying cities and noticing widows can be united.

First, those who adopt this interpretation are obliged to accept the notion that Jehoiakim destroyed the men and violated their widows, since he could not possess them freely until they were widows. Everyone will admit that this is far-fetched. But the word 'afflict' suits tolerably well. And truly, the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, where Christ is said to be bruised for our grieves, cannot be better explained (Isaiah 53:3). Some translate that he experienced sorrows, or knew them, or was acquainted with them, in the passive sense.

But those who say that he saw sorrows, or experienced them, do not consider how it suits the passage; and those who say that he was cognizant of grieves, meaning his own, also distort the Prophet’s words. I do not doubt, therefore, that in this passage it means 'to afflict.' Regarding the noun, I suppose the letter ל (l) is taken for ר (r); and in Isaiah 13:22 this word is used for palaces: Wild beasts shall howl, says the Prophet, באלמנותיו, bal-meno-thiv, that is, 'in her palaces'.

The word cannot mean 'widows' here, and all are agreed to take it as 'palaces.' When the Prophet adds, that he destroyed cities, the subject shows us that in the former clause the palaces were afflicted, and then the cities were destroyed. The Prophet asserts this plainly and without figurative language, though he soon returns to the simile, that the land was reduced to a desert by the voice of roaring.

Again, he compares King Jehoiakim to a lion, from which it follows, as I said, that the Prophet’s language is mixed. Elsewhere, also, the prophets reprove the pride of their king (Jeremiah 22:15; Jeremiah 36:30). For although he was contemptible, yet he exalted himself above other kings; hence he is derided, since he was not content with the condition and moderation of his father—who ate and drank, that is, lived like ordinary human beings—but he desired to raise himself above the human race.

For this reason the Prophet now says, that cities were destroyed by him, and palaces afflicted by him. There is a change of number in the pronouns, because the singular is used for 'palaces,' and the plural for 'cities.' But we know how frequently this change occurs in the Hebrew language. As for the sense, there is no obscurity, for King Jehoiakim was like a fierce and cruel beast, because he destroyed cities and pulled down palaces.

But afterwards he adds, the land was laid waste and made solitary by the voice of his roaring. Here the Prophet elaborates on the atrocity of that king, since by his roaring alone he had reduced the land to a desert. He does not speak of claws or teeth, but says that they were all so frightened at the sound of his roaring that the land became waste and solitary.

He adds, the fullness of the land, an expression by which Scripture usually denotes the adornments of a country. The word includes trees, fruits, and animals, as well as inhabitants. For a land is empty and bare without that 'clothing'; that is, if trees and fruits are taken away, as well as people and animals, the face of the land is deserted and deformed, and its state reveals its emptiness.

It afterwards follows:

Since the word נתן, nethen, is often understood to mean “to utter a voice,” some explain this passage as meaning that the nations came with a great clamor against King Jehoiakim, just as when an attack is made against a wild beast, the assailants mutually excite and encourage each other. They understand it to mean that such a clamor was raised on all sides that they rushed with one accord against King Jehoiakim.

But since the same word also means “to put,” it may, in my opinion, be properly applied to counsel, as they took counsel—that is, determined among themselves to take him captive. The passive sense does not suit this at all. Now, then, we understand the Prophet’s meaning when he says the Gentiles had resolved against him; that is, they had conspired to take him.

No doubt the Chaldeans were assisted by all their neighbors.

First, we know that the Jews were hated by other nations. Then, the audacity and rashness of this king provoked many to send for the Babylonians and eagerly to assist them. And because they scarcely dared to engage in the war by themselves, they conspired against King Jehoiakim under the protection of others.

Thus far concerning other nations, for this cannot be meant of the Chaldeans alone. Although they had other tribes under their sway, that monarchy had devoured the Assyrians, whose people formed a part of the Chaldean army.

Then the Prophet speaks of an encirclement, saying that King Jehoiakim was shut in on all sides. Hence, this must be ascribed to the neighboring nations, who not only favored the Babylonians but also assisted them with troops and wealth, as is sufficiently gathered from other passages.

Finally, he says, they expanded their net; by this metaphor, he means plans, desires, and efforts. For before the neighboring nations openly declared war against the Jews, there is no doubt that they took secret counsel as to the best way of attracting the Chaldeans to their side and of insinuating themselves by various arts, as if they were laying snares. However, by the word net, we may also understand whatever apparatus they used for destroying King Jehoiakim.

In short, he says that he was taken in the pit of the nations; that is, he was oppressed by snares as well as by open violence. He uses the word pitfall, in accordance with the comparison of the king to a lion, but there is nothing absurd in extending the phrase to any hostile violence by which Jehoiakim was oppressed.