96 Chapter 5

ְ v. 14). 32 As the fable indicates, Zedekiah began as a properly

(‫;ל ִב ְל ִּתי ִה ְתנַּשֵׂא‬
humble vassal (v. 6). But when Zedekiah rebelled, this previous depiction
of vassalage as lowliness prepares the reader to interpret rebellion as an act
of pride. His faithlessness to Nebuchadnezzar and his alliance with Egypt
were symptoms of his fatal haughtiness, a point we will develop later (I dis-
cuss 19:10–14 below).
Thus, in the language of our theme verse (21:26[31]), Zedekiah is the high
tree that will be made low. By his rebellion, he has shown himself deserving
of judgment, and so Ezekiel ceases to ask whether Zedekiah will prosper
(‫ ;צלח‬vv. 9, 10, 15) and begins to ask how he could possibly escape (‫ ;מלט‬v. 15).
Because Yahweh will not countenance such arrogant defiance, Zedekiah
faces a series of just consequences (vv. 16–21): his hopes for Egyptian assis-
tance will fail (v. 17), foreign troops will blast him like hot wind (vv. 10, 21), 33
his suzerain will become his judge, and he will wither in Babylon (v. 16). In-
deed, Zedekiah’s rebellion was ultimately against Yahweh, and so Yahweh
was ultimately responsible for his exile. Thus, Ezekiel concludes by retelling
Zedekiah’s judgment as the act of Yahweh the hunter, who ensnares him,
judges him, and scatters all his helpers to the wind (vv. 19–21).

Ezekiel 19:10–14
The allegorical lament in Ezek 19 reinforces and develops the perspec-
tives on Zedekiah uncovered in ch. 17. To defend this claim, we must iden-
tify what parts of this text refer to Zedekiah.
Before doing so, we will touch briefly on the question of the chapter’s
genre. 34 Although the text calls itself a ‫( ִקינָה‬vv. 1, 14) and begins with a 3–2
lament rhythm, the text parodies a genuine lament in several ways. 35 The
once-now scheme in laments usually contrasts the glories of the past with
the humiliation of the present, but here the once-now pattern undermines
the past, showing that the princes used their strength in shameful ways. The

32. The hithpael of ‫ נׂשא‬can have connotations of pride: see Num 16:3; 1 Kgs 1:5; Prov
30:32; Ezek 29:15.
33. This judgment is talionic: just as Zedekiah was faithless to his covenant, so also
Egypt proves faithless to him. On the link between foreign troops and hot wind, see
Lang, Kein Aufstand, 33.
34. See also the closely related discussion of Ezek 17’s genre in appendix 3.
35. For other connections to the lament genre, see Panc C. Beentjes, “What a Lion-
ess Was Your Mother: Reflections on Ezekiel 19,” in On Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender-
Specific and Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, ed. Bob Becking and
Meindert Dijkstra, BibInt 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 22; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 591–93. For
ways the text parodies lament, see Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 593–95. For other parodies of the
lament genre, see Gale A. Yee, “The Anatomy of Biblical Parody: The Dirge Form in
2 Samuel 1 and Isaiah 14,” CBQ 50 (1988): 569–82. For an excellent discussion of parodies
in the OT, see Will J. Kynes, “Beat Your Parodies into Swords, and Your Parodied Books
into Spears: A New Paradigm for Parody in the Hebrew Bible,” BibInt 19 (2011): 276–310.
 Jehoiachin in Ezekiel 97

occasion of the lament is also ironic: rather than lamenting the passing of a
dead king as incongruous with his celebrated life, this lament lampoons liv-
ing kings, treating their ignoble death as a certain reality that is justly due to
them. 36 Finally, Ezekiel surprises the reader by incorporating the didactic
(and perhaps entertaining?) genres of fable and riddle 37 in the midst of what
promised to be a somber lament! Thus, Block concludes that Ezekiel “has
taken the form of a qînâ and infused it with alien content.” 38 This transfor-
mation highlights that the function of this text is quite different from that
of a typical lament. Ezekiel expresses grief over the bitter outcome of the
Davidic monarchy, but the other genres indicate that Ezekiel is trying to
subvert the audience’s view of the ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬
ְ ‫ְׂשיאֵי י‬
ִ ‫נ‬. As will emerge below, Ezek-
iel is particularly concerned to undermine a distorted Zionism that claims
inviolability for the Davidic king notwithstanding their sinful conduct. 39

Decoding the Symbols of Ezekiel 19

Scholarship on Ezek 19 has not reached a consensus on the basic inter-
pretive issue of the identity of the lioness and her lions, the vine and its
branches. True to its subgenre as a riddle, Ezekiel has stumped ages of lis-
teners with his enigmatic language. The two main positions are as follows: 40
some interpreters see the first lion as Jehoahaz, the second lion as Zedekiah,
and the strong vine branch also as Zedekiah. 41 This view often goes hand-
in-hand with seeing the mother lioness/vine as Hamutal, the wife of Josiah

36. Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, WBC 28 (Waco, TX: Word, 1994), 288; Beentjes, “Li-
oness,” 22. Corrine Carvalho makes a similar point about the city (“Putting the Mother
Back in the Center: Metaphor and Multivalence in Ezekiel 19,” in Thus Says the Lord:
Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, ed. John J. Ahn and
Stephen L. Cook, LHBOTS 502 [New York: T&T Clark, 2009], 221).
37. Ezekiel signals the fable genre by using lions and vines as his main characters.
See p. 208. The fable genre suggests that, as with ch. 17, this text is a political satire that
demands the decoding of story elements into historical people and events. The intrusion
of “Babylon” and “Egypt” (vv. 4, 9) reinforces this suggestion.
Rather than beginning with ‫אֵיכָה‬/‫ֵיך‬ ְ ‫ א‬as is typical for laments (cf. Lam 1:1), Ezekiel
begins with a question: ָ‫( מָה ִא ְּמך‬Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 594; on the translation “what is your
mother?” as opposed to “what a lioness was your mother!” See ibid., 595–96). However,
the riddle is not “what is your mother?” since Ezekiel answers that question immediately:
she is a lionness. What is riddling about this text is the obscurity of his symbols’ refer-
ents. See my discussion of ‫ ִחידֹות‬on pp. 206–207.
38. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 595–96.
39. So also ibid, 595. On Ezekiel’s view of Zionism, see also p. 108; for a full treat-
ment, see Thomas Renz, “The Use of the Zion Tradition in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Zion,
City of Our God, ed. Richard S. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1999), 77–103.
40. See the more thorough survey in Christopher T. Begg, “The Identity of the
Princes in Ezekiel 19: Some Reflections,” ETL 65 (1989): 358–69.
41. So, e.g., Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 287; Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary, OTL
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 254; Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 167–71; Lang,
98 Chapter 5

who bore both Jehoahaz and Zedekiah. 42 The second view understands the
first lion to be Jehoahaz, the second lion to be either Jehoiachin or Jehoia-
kim, and the branch as Zedekiah. 43 On this view, the mother cannot be Ha-
mutal, but instead is understood as either the Davidic dynasty, Jerusalem, or
Judah. 44 In addition to these two main views (and their variations), several
minority views are also defended. 45
This indeterminacy derives from several features of the text. First, the
poetry is quite obscure at points and hence it is sometimes difficult to dis-
cern how many entities are in view and what is being predicated of each. For
example, is the second lion raping the first lion’s widows (‫נֹותיו‬
ָ ‫ ) ַוּיֵדַ ע א ְַל ְמ‬or
ravaging fortresses (several emendations possible) in v. 7? Or: to what does
each of the pronouns refer throughout vv. 10–14? 46 A second factor con-
tributing to indeterminacy is that when one attempts to align the descrip-
tion of each character with what is known of the final kings of Judah, some
qualities match, but not all. The second lion is particularly challenging in
this respect.
Several genre considerations may help to move beyond this impasse.
First, we must jettison the assumption that all the passage’s details must
neatly interlock with some external referent. As I show in appendix 3, Eze-
kiel’s extended metaphors have a complexity and integrity of their own;
hence, some story elements serve simply for the coherence of the parable
itself and need not be ascribed to some external referent. Indeed, the riddle
genre depends on a certain measure of misdirection, where extra informa-
tion is present and the listener must discern which features to discard and
which to regard as salient. Second, characters in parables can have complex

Kein Aufstand, 102–3; 174; G. T. M. Prinsloo, “Lions and Vines: The Imagery of Ezekiel 19
in the Light of Ancient Near-Eastern Descriptions and Depictions,” OTE 12 (1999): 353.
42. See Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 254; Seitz, Theology in Conflict, 145.
43. So, e.g., Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, VTSup 56 (Leiden: Brill,
1994), 35; Erling Hammershaimb, “Ezekiel’s View of the Monarchy,” in Some Aspects of Old
Testament Prophecy from Isaiah to Malachi (København: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1966), 54, 58;
Ralph W. Klein, Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message (Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina Press, 1988), 119; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 394.
44. See p. 104.
45. Begg and Block see Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim as the lions and both Jehoiachin and
Zedekiah as represented in different ways in vv. 10–14 (Begg, “Identity of the Princes,”
366–69; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 598–611). Marjo C. A. Korpel offers the far-fetched proposal
that the text is actually a reworked atbash cryptogram that was originally about Ahaziah
and Jehoram (with Jezebel as the mother) (“Kryptogramme in Ezechiel 19 und im ‘Izbet-
Sarta-Ostrakon,” ZAW 121 [2009]: 70–86). And a number of interpreters deny that the
“riddle” is answerable at all, arguing instead that it is intentionally indeterminate (Davis,
Swallowing the Scroll, 159; Ramón Alfredo Dus, Las parábolas del reino de Judá: Lingüística
textual y communicación (Ez 17; 19; 21) [Paraná, Argentina: Pontificia Univ Católica Argen-
tina, 2003], 318; Rudolf Mosis, Das Buch Ezechiel: Teil 1, Kap. 1,1–20,44 [Düsseldorf: Pat-
mos, 1978], 228; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 356–57).
46. I discuss both these issues below.
 Jehoiachin in Ezekiel 99

referents. For example, the traveler in Nathan’s parable (2 Sam 12:4) seems
to be a red herring and refers to no one in particular. 47 Or in the case of Je-
hoash’s parable (2 Kgs 14:9), the wild beast seems to point to the same entity
( Jehoash and his army) as the cedar in that story (note also the apparently
superfluous detail about marriage). 48
These observations prepare the way for our conclusion that the first
lion corresponds to Jehoahaz, the second lion to Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin
(viewed as one offshoot of Josiah’s family tree), and the strong branch (vv. 11–
12, 14) to Zedekiah. The mother lioness/vine probably refers to the people
of Jerusalem (or perhaps the people of Judah more broadly). I will argue
these conclusions by first surveying what the text says about each character
and then aligning those traits with our historical knowledge of each king.
That the first lion corresponds to Jehoahaz is largely undisputed, mainly
because he is the only Davidic king to be exiled to Egypt. 49 However, there
is still an element of misdirection: the first lion’s only action is to tear prey
and devour men (v. 3), but it is unclear what kind of “cannibalistic” oppres-
sion could be in view. 50 Apart from Jehoahaz doing “evil in the sight of
Yahweh, according to all that his fathers had done” (2 Kgs 23:32), we have
no knowledge that he oppressed the people in his brief three-month reign.
( Jer 22:10–12 mentions no moral failings.) Notwithstanding this hesitation
(which may be due simply to our lack of data), the first lion is still read-
ily identifiable as Jehoahaz on the basis of his exile to Egypt. We therefore
agree with Begg that, because the first lion is readily identifiable, the reader
is encouraged to seek a similar, concrete identification for the other char-
acters in the story. 51
Identifying the second lion is the main interpretive dilemma in this
chapter­. Verse 5 indicates that his rise to power is linked to the disappoint-
ment of the mother lion’s hope that the first lion will return. 52 The second
lion is thus temporally after the first. The language of the lioness “setting
him as a young lion” (‫ָתהּו‬
ְ ‫ׂשמ‬
ָ ‫)ּכ ִפיר‬
ְ is vague. If the lioness is to be understood

47. See Jeremy Schipper’s fascinating treatment in Parables and Conflict in the Hebrew
Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 48–51.
48. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 238–39.
49. Begg, “Identity of the Princes,” 358–59.
50. Greenberg voices a common objection that it seems unlikely that Jehoahaz could
have “won a reputation of being a maneater in three months” (Ezekiel 1–20, 356; cf. Davis,
Swallowing the Scroll, 159; Mosis, Ezechiel, 226).
51. Begg, “Identity of the Princes,” 367.
52. Several emendations have been proposed for the form ‫חלָה‬ ֲ ‫( נֹו‬e.g., Julius A. Be-
wer, “Textual and Exegetical Notes on the Book of Ezekiel,” JBL 72 [1953]: 158–59). We
could translate “proved foolish” if we accept BHS’s emendation from ‫ יחל‬to ‫( יאל‬see Eich­
rodt, Ezekiel, 249). However, Allen points out (Ezekiel 1–19, 249) that the lioness just re-
peats her previous action, making this emendation problematic. Block rightly observes
that the “MT yields a tolerable sense if the verb is understood as a passive, ‘she was made
to wait,’ i.e., her wait was frustrated” (Ezekiel 1–24, 596).
100 Chapter 5

as the people, it is doubtful that this detail refers to the people enthroning
a man as king (as we see for Jehoahaz in 2 Kgs 23:30). Instead, this detail
brings narrative coherence to the fable on the basis of the parallel between
v. 3 and v. 5. If it does have historical significance, it may refer simply to the
young lion emerging from among the people.
While some of the language in vv. 6–9 echoes the description of the first
lion, 53 the second lion clearly surpasses the first lion in arrogance and ag-
gression. He not only devours men (v. 6) but rapes widows 54 and lays cities
waste (v. 7), suggesting an intense oppression of the people. He evidences
his pride not only in walking about among other lions (which suggests in-
ternational diplomacy with other kings), but also in his roaring, 55 which
generates disgust in the land and the surrounding nations. This wantonness
leads the nations (ironically!) to deliver the land from the lion, and they do
so with greater force than previously: he is captured, caged, 56 and brought
to the king of Babylon and thence to Babylon itself. To whom can all this
refer? Table 3 shows the challenge of assigning all these attributes to any of
the final kings. The difficulty in finding a simple match motivates us to seek
a different solution. Before we can defend our solution, we must examine
vv. 10–14.
Verse 10 introduces a new image, that of the vine. Like the lioness in
vv. 2–9, the vine corresponds to the “mother” of the princes of Judah. 57 And

53. Verse 6b–d matches v. 3b–d exactly.

54. Against the proposed emendations, see Christopher T. Begg’s defense of the MT,
where he argues that Jehoiakim took over his brother Jehoahaz’s harem after the latter’s
deportation (“The Reading in Ezekiel 19:7a: A Proposal,” ETL 65 [1989]: 378–79). “Rape”
is a strong translation of ‫ידע‬, but “knew” seems too vague and weak in this aggressive con-
text (cf. P. J. Botha, “The Socio-Cultural Background of Ezekiel 19,” OTE 12 [1999]: 250).
Although Ezekiel is probably breaking frame here to speak directly about human activ-
ities, the image of raping widows even makes sense in a leonine context. Block points out
that “Unlike most other felines, lions are sociable animals, living in prides, with a domi-
nant male as king. . . . With a change in leadership in a pride of lions, the new king of the
pride claims all the females of the deposed, deceased, or departed lord, and becomes the
sire of all the young” (Ezekiel 1–24, 602).
55. Walking among other lions: Beentjes, “Lioness,” 28; Caquot, “Le messianisme
d’Ézéchiel,” 8. Roaring: Botha points out that “the roaring of a lion was often used as
a symbol of greedy arrogance and destruction in the Old Testament, and similarly the
silencing of a lion’s roar was used as a symbol of the shaming and dishonouring of arro-
gant powers” (“Socio-Cultural Background,” 257). Botha offers an excellent exposition of
pride and shame in Ezek 19.
56. Delivering the land: Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 605. Greater force: Note ‫ָביב‬ ִ ‫ִּתנּו ָעלָיו ּגֹויִם ס‬
ְ ‫ַוּי‬
ֶ ‫ ר‬and ‫ ְמצֹדֹות‬in vv. 8–9, all of which
in v. 8, which suggests a siege, along with the use of ‫ֶׁשת‬
is not present in v. 4. Caged: Block traces the hapax ‫ סּוגַר‬to the Akk. sigaru (“neck-stock”;
Ezekiel 1–24, 597).
57. Why does Ezekiel switch images? Perhaps he does so because the vine recalls
Ezekiel’s previous uses of this image, both of which are negative: ch. 15 indicts vine wood
as worthless and ch. 17 indicts the vine for fickleness. Karin Schöpflin suggests that
 Jehoiachin in Ezekiel 101

Table 3. Applicability of the Second Lion’s Predicates to the

Final Kings of Judah
King Predicates That Fit Predicates That Do Not Fit
Jehoiakim Reigned immediately after Jehoahaz Was not exiled to Babylona
Reputation for oppressing the
people
Extensive foreign relations
City was besieged under his rule
Jehoiachin City was besieged under his rule Did not reign immediately
Was exiled to Babylon after Jehoahaz
No reputation for oppressing
the people
No extensive foreign
relations
Zedekiah Reputation for oppressing the Did not reign immediately
people after Jehoahaz
Extensive foreign relations
City was besieged under his rule
Was brought to the king of Babylon
Was exiled to Babylon
a. For the question of Jehoiakim’s death, see p. 12 n. 7.

just as the lioness raised cubs, the vine has its strong branches. The dis-
tinction between the vine and her branches has not always been preserved
in discussions of this text, but this distinction is essential for a proper in-
terpretation. Ezekiel preserves this distinction by deliberate use of mascu-
line and feminine grammatical genders. 58 Although Hebrew poetry often
switches between genders for stylistic reasons, 59 in this context gender is
forefronted: the mother is clearly feminine; her sons are clearly masculine.
Ezekiel also maintains a consistent gender distinction in the grammar of
vv. 2–9. In vv. 10–14, if we understand the masculine gender to refer to the
branches and the feminine gender to refer to the vine, the following outline
can be proposed:

chs. 17 and 19 were originally companion pieces on the basis of their fable-like qualities
(“The Composition of Metaphorical Oracles Within the Book of Ezekiel,” VT 55 [2005]:
117–18), although there are important differences in Ezekiel’s use of the imagery, as I will
show.
58. So also William Hugh Brownlee, “Two Elegies on the Fall of Judah (Ezekiel 19),”
in Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 99.
59. Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques, JSOTSup
26 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 123–28.
102 Chapter 5

v. 10: Setting: your mother is like a vine, on abundant waters, bearing fruit and mak-
ing boughs (all fem. grammatical forms). 60
v. 11a–b: (wayyiqtol ) Temporal sequence begins: she had strong branches fit for
ruler’s scepters (mother: fem.; ‫ מַּטֹות‬and ‫ׁש ִלים‬ ְ ֹ ‫ׁש ְבטֵי מ‬:
ִ masc.).
v. 11c: (wayyiqtol ) Temporal sequence continues: his height (= the height of one of
the branches) is in the midst the clouds (suffix of ‫קֹומָתֹו‬: masc.).
v. 11d: (wayyiqtol ) Temporal sequence continues: he (= the tall strong one of v. 11c):
was seen in his arrogance on account of the abundance of his foliage (masc.
verb form).
v. 12: (wayyiqtol ) Temporal sequence continues, a progressive series of actions (qatal
verbs governed by the wayyiqtol 61 ):
  v. 12a: the mother-vine is uprooted (fem. verb form).
  v. 12b: she is cast down (fem. verb form).
  v. 12c: the east wind dries up her fruit (possessive suffix: fem.).
  v. 12d: the strong branch is cast down and withered (masc. forms).
  v. 12e: fire consumes him (masc. suffix).
v. 13: (‫ ְוע ַָּתה‬+ participle) shift in time frame to the present, showing results of v. 12:
the vine is planted in the desert, in a dry and thirsty land (fem. ptc.).
v. 14a–b: (wayyiqtol) pluperfect, reflecting back on v. 12: 62 fire had gone out from the
branch into the vine’s other boughs (‫ַּטה‬ ֶ ‫ מ‬is masc.; the suffix on ‫ בֶַּדי ָה‬is fem.), 63
fire had eaten her fruit (the suffix on ‫ ִּפ ְריָּה‬is fem.).
v. 14c–d: (‫ ְ)ולֹא־ ָהיָה‬conclusion (back to the present): no strong branch (‫ַּטה‬ ֶ ‫ ;מ‬masc.) is
left in the vine (‫ ;בָּה‬suffix is fem.), no scepter for ruling (‫ׁשבֶט‬ ֵ ; masc.).

60. Bewer argues for an emendation from ‫ כגפן בדמך‬to ‫“ כגפן בדים כי‬like a vine full
of shoots, because planted by water” (“Textual and Exegetical Notes,” 159), an argument
confirmed independently by Mitchell Joseph Dahood, who argues for the rare relative
‫“( כי‬which”) (“Ezekiel 19,10 and Relative Kî,” Bib 56 [1975]: 97–98). I tentatively adopt
Bewer’s translation for lack of a better suggestion.
61. BHRG §21.3.1.
62. A wayyiqtol can convey a pluperfect sense (IBHS §33.2.3), but here this transla-
tion must overcome the shift to the present time frame signaled by ‫ ְוע ַָּתה‬in v. 13. Paral-
lel constructions (where ‫ ְוע ַָּתה‬introduces a clause, followed by a wayyiqtol that is likely
pluperfect in meaning) appear in 2 Sam 7:28 and 1 Kgs 1:18–19 (and perhaps 1 Kgs 22:23),
indicating that this shift is possible. That this is probable here emerges from how v. 14
describes a fiery destruction leading to withering, echoing v. 12. Unless two destructions
are in view, v. 14 is almost certainly pluperfect. Begg and Block do detect separate de-
structions, arguing that Jehoiachin is the branch in vv. 10–12, while Zedekiah is a sepa-
rate branch in v. 14 (Begg, “Identity of the Princes,” 367; Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel 1–24,
610; idem, “Transformation of Royal Ideology in Ezekiel,” in Transforming Visions: Trans-
formations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, ed. William A. Tooman and Michael
A. Lyons, PrinTMS 127 [Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010], 223–24). While possible, there is
little in the text to signal that a new branch has come into view. Rather, the vine’s being
removed to the desert in v. 13 (note the feminine participle ‫)ׁשתּולָה‬
ְ demands that we in-
terpret v. 14 as retrospective, dwelling further on the same destruction described in v. 12.
As Klein observes, this repeated attention to the vine’s destruction is a kind of “overkill,”
emphasizing the finality of its destruction (Ezekiel, 120). Also, the capture of Jehoiachin
in 597 was not a destruction; Jerusalem was only destroyed in 586.
63. The other branches probably refer to other possible heirs to the throne.
 Jehoiachin in Ezekiel 103

This outline demonstrates that there are basically three entities in this
narrative: (1) the vine, with her accompanying fruit, branches, and boughs;
(2) one strong branch, whose arrogance brings about the downfall of the
whole vine (v. 11c–d); 64 and (3) the destructive agents of the east wind and
the fire.
Within this context, Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin together are the best fit
for the second lion, and Zedekiah is the strong branch of vv. 10–14. 65 At
first glance, table 3 indicates that Zedekiah is a very strong candidate for
the second lion. Indeed, we could add further that in v. 8 the language of
being caught in a net and a snare (‫ִתּפָׂש‬ ְ ‫ׁש ָּתם ְּבׁשַ ְח ָּתם נ‬ְ ‫ִפ ְרׂשּו ָעלָיו ִר‬
ְ ‫ ) ַוּי‬and being
brought to the king of Babylon (‫ֶך ָּבבֶל‬ ְ ‫ְבאֻהּו אֶל־ ֶמל‬ ִ ‫ ) ַוי‬strongly recalls Zedeki-
ah’s fate in 17:20 (cf. 12:13). 66
However, this identification is dubious for the following reasons. First,
the chapter’s epithet indicates that this lamentation is for the ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ְׂשיאֵי י‬
ִ ‫נ‬.
Because Ezekiel often uses ‫ָׂשיא‬ ִ ‫ נ‬to designate the kings of Judah, the title
could indicate that all the kings of Judah will come under fire here. The clos-
ing lines of the poem strengthen this possibility: “there remains in it [the
vine] no strong stem, no scepter for ruling” (vv. 14c–d ESV). While not con-
clusive, Ezekiel would more effectively accomplish this purpose if he con-
sidered each line from Josiah in turn, showing their moral bankruptcy and
then their unequivocal judgment. 67 If only Jehoahaz and Zedekiah were in
view, then the conclusion in v. 14 makes little sense.
Second, understanding Jehoiakim/Jehoiachin as the second lion pre-
serves a simple historical order in the imagery. 68 Because Jehoahaz is the
first lion, Jehoiakim would be the audience’s first guess as the second lion,
a guess that need not be discouraged by the Babylonians’ capture of this
lion, because Nebuchadnezzar indeed made an end of Jehoiakim’s dynasty.

64. Arrogance is suggested not only by the height of the scepters (‫ּגֹבַּה‬, ‫ ;קֹומָה‬v. 11),
but perhaps even by the idea that vine wood could possibly be fit for scepters when Ezek-
iel has already ridiculed vine wood as useless even for a peg (15:3)! On the unfitness of
height for vines, see Brownlee’s intriguing observation that in modern Middle Eastern
viticulture, vines are left to grow on the ground to protect them against the scorching
syrocco (“Two Elegies on the Fall of Judah [Ezekiel 19],” 1:100–101).
65. Caquot is one of the few to suggest this opinion: “La faute est le fait du père, le
châtiment frappe le fils” (“Le messianisme d’Ézéchiel,” 10). However, he does not argue
his point except to say that it is in line with the thrust of Jer 22:24–30, where Jehoiachin
bears the condemnation of his father. For the few others who support a “montage” read-
ing of the second lion, see Begg, “Identity of the Princes,” 364–65.
66. So Mein, Ethics of Exile, 93.
67. In this way, though different in genre, Ezek 19 and Jer 22 have very similar pur-
poses; cf. Begg, who says Ezekiel models his words on Jer 22:10–23:8 (“Identity of the
Princes,” 367–68).
68. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 605. As Begg notes, Ezekiel has been successive in both
chs. 17 and 18 (“Identity of the Princes,” 366).
104 Chapter 5

One needs only to extend the referent of the second lion to include Jehoia-
kim’s son, Jehoiachin. 69 Also, seeing vv. 10–14 as historically consecutive to
vv. 2–9 helps resolve a loose end: v. 9 ends with no word about the lioness.
Could she not raise up another cub? This closure only appears in vv. 12–14,
where the vine (which replaces the lioness image) is cast into a desert land
where she can produce no further offspring that would suit as kings.
Third, as the reuse of the vine image in this chapter demonstrates, Ezek-
iel does not slavishly reuse the same language and imagery in the way he
used it previously. 70 Hence, we should not put too much weight on the re-
use of language between 19:9 and 17:20, as though the capture by net in both
instances must refer to the same thing. Nevertheless, the common language
and imagery should be noted and assessed for its rhetorical force, and here
it seems that Ezekiel uses common language in 19:9 and 17:20 to show that
Jehoiachin suffered the same demise as Zedekiah. 71
As my discussion of genre shows (appendix 3), the relationship of sym-
bols to reality can be complex. My suggestion that the second lion refers si-
multaneously to Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin is not far-fetched, especially be-
cause these two could be viewed as one dynastic offshoot from Josiah. This
proposal capitalizes on the strengths of both the arguments for identifying
the lion as Jehoiachin and the arguments for identifying him as Jehoiakim, 72
while avoiding their weaknesses.
Finally, what does the “mother” symbolize? We can set aside the proposal
that she is Hamutal, the mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah 73 by our argu-

69. This extension is more natural than other proposals from those who understand
Jehoiakim to be the second lion. Block suggests that the oft-forgotten exile of 604–603
BC is in view (see Dan 1:1; Ezekiel 1–24, 606), but this could not constitute the silencing of
Jehoiakim’s roaring since he continues his rebellious policies for several years thereafter.
Begg offers a vague note that Jehoiakim going to Babylon and being gathered to his fa-
thers need not contradict each other (“Identity of the Princes,” 369), but this contradicts
the normal usage of “being gathered to his fathers,” which implies burial in the land (Lip-
schits, “‘Jehoiakim Slept With His Fathers,’” 9–10). The Talmud constructs the following
harmonization: “Nebuchadnezzar returned and shackled Yehoyakim with the intention
of taking him captive to Babylon. However, before this could be done, Yehoyakim died
within Eretz Yisrael ” (Moshe Eisemann, Yechezkel: A New Translation with a Commentary
Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources, ATS [Brooklyn: Mesorah,
1988], 278). But there is no evidence for this reconstruction. For further details on this
point, see p. 12 n. 7.
70. As Brevard S. Childs remarks, “the same images continue to be used throughout
the book often with a different meaning, but nevertheless calling up echoes of the other
passages. . . . The imagery of the vine is played upon in chs. 15, 17, and 19, each time with
a different set of nuances” (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture [Philadelphia: For-
tress, 1979], 364).
71. Schöpflin, “Metaphorical Oracles,” 116.
72. Lion as Jehioachin: e.g., Klein, Ezekiel, 119. Lion as Jehoiakim: e.g., Block, Ezekiel
1–24, 605–6.
73. See p. 98 n. 42.
 Jehoiachin in Ezekiel 105

ment that Jehoiakim is present, whom she did not bear. Given how little we
know of her, it is also unlikely that she would garner such attention from
the prophet. 74 The other proposals for the identity of the mother are that
she represents the people (either Jerusalem or Judah 75) or that she stands
for the Davidic dynasty as a whole. 76 It is difficult to negotiate between the
two, since both options meet the most basic criterion of being the origin
of the Davidic kings. However, several considerations point in favor of see-
ing the mother as the people, specifically the people of Jerusalem. First,
the Davidic dynasty is a more abstract entity, and it is difficult to conceive
of it “being made to wait” (v. 5) or setting up kings to rule. Second, female
characters often stand for peoples or cities in Ezekiel (e.g., chs. 16, 23), and
the image of major cities as mothers is a well-known trope in the OT (e.g.,
2 Sam 20:19; Isa 49:14–18) and the ancient Near East. 77 Finally, the motif
of the people suffering for the sin of their leaders is a noticeable theme in
Ezekiel (e.g., 11:1–13), and the people of Jerusalem being destroyed on ac-
count of Zedekiah’s folly makes good sense as an interpretation of vv. 12 and
14. Identifying the mother as the people of Jerusalem heightens Ezekiel’s
lament, for the rulers brought punishment not only on themselves, but all
whom they represented.

Zedekiah in Ezekiel 19
Having determined that the strong branch in vv. 10–14 corresponds to
Zedekiah, how do these verses add to Ezekiel’s overall depiction of this
king? To answer this question adequately, we must recognize two allusions.
First, many observe that Ezekiel enhances his mock lament with a parody
of Jacob’s blessing of Judah in Gen 49:8–12. 78 We will return to the lion
imagery in our discussion of 19:5–9 (pp. 114–116), but here note how
19:10–14 continues the allusion to Gen 49 by juxtaposing lions with scepters

74. Caquot, “Le messianisme d’Ézéchiel,” 7.

75. Jerusalem: Block, “Royal Ideology,” 215. Judah: Beentjes, “Lioness,” 25–29; G. A.
Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, ICC (New York:
Scribners­, 1937), 205; Hammershaimb, “Ezekiel’s View of the Monarchy,” 57.
76. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 287; Martin Metzger, “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum,”
in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Dwight R.
Daniels, Uwe Gleßmer, and Martin Rösel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991),
221; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 394.
77. Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “Ezekiel,” in NIB (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 1221–25;
Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife, SBLDS 130
(Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 20–23; John J. Schmitt, “The Motherhood of God and Zion as
Mother,” RB 92 (1985): 568.
78. For a listing of the linguistic parallels, see Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 603–4, 608. Others
who recognize the connection include Begg, “Identity of the Princes,” 366; Botha,
“Socio-­cultural Background,” 256; W. L. Moran, “Gen 49:10 and Its Use in Ezek 21:32,”
Bib 39 (1958): 423; Seitz, Theology in Conflict, 138, 140.