An Uprooted,Withered Cedar: A New Reading of Ezekiel’s Depiction of Jehoiachin’s Exile

Introduction

Ezekiel 17 is a parable discussing the relationships between Judah, Babylonia, and Egypt, through which Ezekiel presents his criticism of Israel’s leadership and predicts its future. The parable describes a great eagle that came to Lebanon and plucked the cedar’s “topmost shoot.” The eagle took it to the land of Canaan and set it in a city of merchants. It then planted a vine and expected it to be loyal to him. However, this vine turned its roots and branches toward another eagle, and the parable predicts the vine’s destruction by the great eagle. In the parable’s conclusion, God declares that he in turn will take something from the cedar’s top. He will plant it on Israel’s lofty mountain, where it will become a noble cedar.

While discussing the unique phrases and images appearing in the parable, scholars have introduced the following exegetical arguments that lead to the conclusion that the eagle’s intentions regarding the cedar were positive: First, יניקותיו ראש‎ (17.4) means a topmost shoot or a tender sprig that was plucked from the cedar. Second, the great eagle took the tender sprig from its original place in Lebanon and replanted it in the city of merchants. Third, the eagle replanted the sprig within a closed compound to protect it. And finally, the tender sprig itself turned into a tree, and in the future, God will take from it another sprig and plant it in Israel’s lofty mountain. Thus, the parable describes actions meant to benefit the cedar. Accordingly, Ezekiel’s perception of Nebuchadnezzar’s approach toward Jehoiachin, represented by the tender sprig, was understood to be positive. He perceived Jehoiachin’s exile as an act of divine grace. He was removed to a “greenhouse” to preserve him during the cold winter of exile and to enable his offspring to take part in Israel’s future restoration. ¹

This paper will offer a new analysis of the parable in Ezekiel 17 according to which the great eagle did not only pluck one of the cedar’s tender sprigs but rather completely uprooted it. It did not replant the uprooted cedar but rather set it in the city to wither, thus fulfilling the eagle’s aim to punish the cedar, and not to benefit it. This understanding of the eagle’s actions is consistent with the parable’s structure, its interpretation, and Neo-Babylonian inscriptions and rock reliefs that influenced Ezekiel. Moreover, a close reading of the prophecy’s conclusion (17.22–24) may indicate that Nebuchadnezzar’s approach toward Jehoiachin is consistent with Ezekiel’s and may explain why unlike Jehoiachin’s descendants, Ezekiel predicts that the exiled king himself will not partake in Israel’s restoration.

צמרת הארז‎ and ראש יניקותיו‎: Two Objects or One?

The parable begins by depicting the great eagle coming to Lebanon where it “seized the treetop of the cedar. It plucked off its topmost shoot” (vv. 3–4). Almost all of Ezekiel’s commentators consider the wordsאת ראש יניקותיו קטף‎ ( 17.4) to parallel the words ויקח את‎ צמרת‎ הארז‎ (17.3) and explain them. Thus, both phrases relate to a single object – the new, tender sprig at the cedar’s upper parts, and they are both an image of Jehoiachin who became king at the age of eighteen and was exiled after reigning for only three months. ²

Biblical parallelism indeed operates at many levels, including morphology, phonology, individual words, clauses, lines, couplets, and larger blocks of material. However, lexical equivalences are not to be confused with semantic equivalences. ³ Even if ראש יניקותיו‎ and צמרת הארז‎ appear here as parallelismus membrorum, this may designate a merism (e.g., “He took from the cedar’s צמרת‎ to its יניקות”‎) and does not necessarily indicate that the two parallel nouns have the same meaning. ⁴

Furthermore, the parable’s interpretation shows that the צמרת‎ and ראש היניקות‎ taken to the city of merchants are not an image of Jehoiachin alone, but also include other parts of Judah’s leadership, its officers, and its nobles ⁵ who were exiled to Babylonia with him (17.12–13). The correlation between the parable and its interpretation, which will be discussed below, thus leads to the conclusion (or at least opens the possibility) that each phrase relates to a different thing.

The Meaning of צמרת‎

צמרת‎ is a term unique to Ezekiel (17.3, 22; 31.3, 10, 14). In all its occurrences in Ezekiel 31, which also uses the cedar image, the צמרת‎ is mentioned as part of the description of the tree’s enormous height (גבה קומה‎), and it is said to be “among the clouds.” ⁶ This indicates that the צמרת‎ is the treetop. ⁷ At this point, it is worth emphasizing what the exact meaning of the “taking” of the treetop is. ⁸ Contrary to the prophecy’s conclusion that uses the partitive mem and announces that in the future God will take מצמרת‎ הארז‎ “from the cedar’s treetop,” (17.22) meaning only part of it, the eagle that came to Lebanon took את צמרת‎ הארז‎ “the cedar’s treetop,” (17.3) meaning its entire treetop and not only one of its uppermost sprigs.

The Meaning of ראש היניקות‎

What is the second thing taken ⁹ from the cedar, ראש יניקותיו‎ (17.4)? A possible explanation is that this term describes one of the cedar’s upper and fresh sprigs. However, as the previous verse already related to the removal of the entire treetop, it seems less likely that this verse will relate once again to the plucking of one specific branch. Moreover, all the biblical occurrences of the verb ינק‎ describe the suckling from the mother’s breasts by a baby or a cub. ¹⁰ Therefore, even in different semantic arenas, nouns etymologically deriving from the root ינק‎ would very likely designate some part of the tree whose function is to draw water from the soil, meaning the roots, and not the branches at its top.

Indeed, almost all the biblical occurrences of יונקת‎ or יניקה mean roots and not branches. ¹¹ In Isa. 53.2, ויעל‎ כיונק לפניו‎ וכשרש מארץ ציה‎, יונק parallels שרש‎, root. ¹² Ps. 80.9–12 describe Israel as a vine taken from Egypt and replanted in the land. Verse 10 relates to two aspects of the vine’s growth: its roots spreading in the ground and the fact that it filled the land (ותשרש שרשיה ותמלא ארץ‎). Verses 11–12 move then to describe each of these aspects. Verse 11 relates to the vine’s upper branches that cast shadow on the mountains, whereas verse 12 relates to the vine’s lower parts: its קציר‎ reaches the sea, and its יונקת‎ reaches the river. The mentioning of these two water sources (ים, נהר‎) as the limits of the vine’s expansion clearly relates to the borders of the Promised Land (Deut. 11.24). Nevertheless, the יונקות‎ and קצירות‎ in this verse are described to be in a water source and not casting shadows over it. This indicates that the lower roots are meant here, not the upper branches. ¹³

In Hos. 14.6–7, God compares himself to dew that adds moisture to the ground and promotes the striking of roots (ויך שרשיו‎) and the spreading of יונקות‎ (ילכו ינקותיו‎). Each of these verses describes Israel’s future prosperity by referring to both the upper and lower parts of the tree responding to the dew’s favorable moistening. Verse 6 mentions the lily blossoming in its upper parts along with its roots striking below the ground. Likewise, verse 7 mentions the tree’s beauty and fragrance that relate to its upper parts, indicating that the יונקות‎ are its underground roots. ¹⁴

According to Job 8.16, רטב הוא לפני‎ שמש ועל‎ גנתו‎ ינקתו‎ תצא. The subject of this verse is a matter of debate; ¹⁵ however, it is agreed that whoever he is, he is likened to a flourishing, well-watered tree facing the sun’s heat. ¹⁶ Its freshness derives from the fact that its ינקת‎ spreads over its גנה .גנה‎, garden, is the soil that absorbs water and produces plants (Isa. 1.30; 61.11), and choice gardens are located near rivers (Num. 24.6). This indicates that the יונקות‎ that spread over the garden do not relate to the shoots (which do not spread on the ground and do not absorb water from it) but rather to the roots. ¹⁷ This understanding is also consistent with the following verse that continues to liken the prosperous figure to a tree that על גל שרשיו יסבכו‎, whose roots are firm enough to entwine over a stone heap or a spring (see Song. 4.12; Josh. 15.19; Judg. 1.15). ¹⁸

From Job 14.7–9, it seems that יונקת‎ is not part of the treetop because even if the treetop is cut off (אם יכרת‎), its יונקת‎ will not cease (וינקתו לא תחדל‎). The following verse continues to elaborate this image. A tree whose roots continue to exist in the soil (אם יזקין בארץ שרשו‎) will survive even if its stump and upper parts die (ובעפר ימות גזעו‎), as these roots “at the scent of water” will enable the tree to bud again and renew its upper branches. ¹⁹

And finally, ינקת‎ also appears in Job 15.30 ינקתו תיבש שלהבת‎ “a flame will wither ינקתו.”‎ In this short verse it is not entirely clear that roots are meant. However, because the flame only withers (יבש‎) the יונקת‎ and does not consume it completely (a consequence usually described using the verbs שרף, בער and אכל‎), we may assume there was no direct contact between them. In cases of fire that completely consumes the plant’s above-ground parts, the יונקות‎, roots, indeed suffer and usually are irrevocably dried and damaged by the flame’s heat, so the plant cannot recover (and this is exactly what Job 15.30 predicts for the wicked). However, unlike the plant’s above-ground parts, as the יונקות‎ are below ground, here they are not exposed and consumed by the fire raging above.

We may conclude that ראש יניקותיו‎ are the cedar’s roots. The term ראש, head, by itself, does not contradict this conclusion, because in several cases it denotes an object’s end, not necessarily its upper end. ²⁰ Thus, ראש יניקותיו‎ may relate to the extremities of the cedar’s roots. Furthermore, in several texts describing the dividing of certain objects, ראש‎ relates either to the dividing point ²¹ or to each of the parts. ²² Thus, ראש יניקותיו‎ may describe the cedar’s base to which all the roots are attached or each of the roots that emerge from that base, that is, the entire root ball. Either way, as in the case of the cedar’s treetop, here as well, the eagle took the cedar’s roots (את ראש יניקותיו‎, v. 4) and not only part of them (compare v. 22, מראש ינקותיו‎), indicating that it did not only pluck several roots but rather uprooted the cedar entirely.

Ezek. 17.3–4 then describe the great eagle taking the cedar’s entire treetop and completely uprooting it from the ground. The idea that an eagle would carry off a towering cedar tree, including its thick trunk and massive roots, is obviously unrealistic. However, the entire parable is unrealistic, as eagles do not plant vines, and vines do not send their twigs toward eagles. The parable’s conclusion itself depicts the complete uprooting of a plant, this time a vine, by the eagle (17.9) indicating that despite its unrealistic character, this matter was perceived by the parable’s author as an intelligible image.

The Parable’s Structure

It seems the parable’s structure may provide further support for our understanding of the eagle’s actions. The eagle brought the cedar to the “land of Canaan,” ²³ and set it (שׂמו‎) in a “city of merchants,” (17.4) meaning in a city with a well-developed trade. These descriptions completely differ from those in the prophecy’s conclusion wherein God explicitly declares that he will plant the cedar in the future (ושתלתי אני…בהר מרום ישראל אשתלנו‎, 17.22–23). It follows that the eagle did not replant the uprooted cedar but only set it somewhere. ²⁴ The place where it is set, the city of merchants, may indicate the cedar’s purpose. The eagle did not intend to benefit the cedar or improve its location. Rather, the eagle’s intention was to trade or use the cedar as raw material, which is usually done when the cedar is completely detached from the ground. ²⁵

Although not mentioned explicitly, it seems the great eagle then returned to Lebanon. He took from there “the seed of the land” and planted it in a fertile field (17.5). This detail is explained in the parable’s interpretation as the replacement of Jehoiachin with Zedekiah (17.13). However, unlike Jehoiachin, Zedekiah was not described as part of the cedar. This would have been very reasonable had it been accepted that only the cedar’s upper branches were taken while the rest of the cedar remained in place. However, according to the understanding proposed here, the entire cedar was uprooted and taken. Therefore, what was left behind was not a cedar but rather a plant of another species – a vine. This manifests Ezekiel’s negative approach toward Zedekiah. ²⁶ Although he is considered both by himself and the Babylonians to be a legitimate part of the royal family, זרע המלוכה (17.3), literally “royal seed,” according to Ezekiel, he is only a vine and not part of the legitimate cedar. ²⁷ At this point, one may also hear the echoes of Ezekiel’s rhetorical questions in 15.2–3: “what is the vine-tree more than any tree? … Can wood be taken from it to make anything?” Ezekiel’s answer to this question is very clear: A vine is good for nothing, and there is no chance it could replace the cedar. ²⁸ Indeed, the eagle itself preferred a low vine to a cedar that tends to grow high. However, even God himself, in the prophecy’s conclusion, who wishes that Israel’s future leadership would be like a high cedar and not like a low vine, is required to bring a new branch from the original cedar (17.22–23). This is because the parable assumes that no cedar remained in Lebanon from which a new branch could be grown.

The eagle provided for the vine the best conditions and expected it to grow ²⁹ but also be dependent and loyal. The vine grew as expected, but the eagle’s expectation for loyalty was not fulfilled. The vine turned its branches and roots toward another eagle whose splendor was clearly not equal to that of the first eagle. ³⁰ The parable now poses a rhetorical question – “will it prosper?” (v. 9) whose obvious answer is no. The betrayed eagle will surely come to take vengeance. It will uproot the vine from its bed (את שרשיה ינתק…למשאות אותה משרשיה‎) and cut its fruit and leaves so they will wither (ואת פריה יקוסס ויבש כל טרפי צמחה תיבש‎, 17.9–10).

The contrasting descriptions of the cedar and the vine allow us to learn about what happens to them and to understand the actions and plans of the eagle in relation to each one of them, even where the text does not convey them explicitly. The vine was given dedicated treatment intended to bring prosperity, whereas the cedar was set in the city of merchants with no such intentions but rather to be traded as a raw material. The treatment given to the vine was intended to ensure its loyalty that would be manifested through the turning of both its branches and roots toward its patron. This may implicitly indicate that like the vine, the cedar, that was planted before it in Lebanon, was not loyal but rather turned its branches and roots toward another eagle and, for this exact reason, the eagle decided to take it.

Eventually, the expected fate of the treacherous vine may show what actually happened to the cedar because of its treachery. The great eagle easily pulled out its roots, referred to by ראש יונקותיו, and cut off its fruits and leaves, meaning its צמרת, and caused them to wither (17.9). This further affirms the conclusion that the cedar was uprooted and taken to the city of merchants, not to be replanted there but rather to be dried. Its uprooting was not an act of grace intended to protect it but rather reflects the eagle’s selfish motives and intention to punish the cedar for its treachery.

Ezekiel 17 and Mesopotamian Imperial Propaganda

Further support for the understanding that the eagle’s actions toward the cedar (and accordingly, Nebuchadnezzar’s actions toward Jehoiachin) were perceived by Ezekiel as actions meant to punish and humiliate and not to benefit and preserve may be found in the imagery appearing in Mesopotamian imperial propaganda, especially the message conveyed by the Neo-Babylonian empire.

From several Assyrian texts and archaeological sites, we may learn about the pillaging of stone and cedar-wood pillars from temples and palaces and their public presentation, after being set upside down, in the Assyrian capital. To an ancient spectator, it must have been utterly clear that the buildings from which these pillars were taken had collapsed. The pillars were usually formed in the shape of trees. These “trees” that were torn out and set upside-down, with their heads placed in the ground, turned into symbols of the members of the broken and deported royal houses. Their setting conveyed the Assyrian imperial message that the deported royal houses would not be permitted to have roots in Assyrian soil or bloom or bear fruit any longer. ³¹ In terms of Mesopotamian imperial propaganda, the images it used and its influence on biblical authors, these findings may reaffirm our conclusions that trees, or objects resembling trees, were set in the empires’ capitals not to protect and maintain them but rather to convey the complete devastation of the royal houses they represent.

Furthermore, as many have noted, the conquest of Lebanon and the cutting of its cedars is a well-known motif in Mesopotamian literature, having already begun in the Old Babylonian period. However, this imagery received special attention in Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian texts, which emphasize that Lebanon’s conquest demonstrates the king’s heroism and the long reach of his might. ³²

Thus, in the Wadi Brisa inscriptions, Nebuchadnezzar bragged several times that he had cut down, with his pure hands, the cedars of Lebanon. ³³ This imperial rhetoric is also manifested in the rock reliefs that accompanied the inscriptions. In the relief situated on the western slope, Nebuchadnezzar is shown stabbing a rampant lion with a sword. In the relief situated on the eastern slope, Nebuchadnezzar is shown standing in front of a tree. This relief is very badly preserved, but the horizontal arrangement of the tree’s branches clearly indicates that this is a cedar. However, this cedar has no leaves. The physical proximity of the two reliefs indicates they both were meant to express the same message. The stabbed lion and the cedar with no leaves are both defeated and dead. ³⁴ The empire’s control was conveyed through the king’s overcoming of animals and trees that symbolize the subjugated peoples. In this manner, text and image form an ensemble of pictorial and written imperial propaganda from which we may learn that ancient Near Eastern kings went to Lebanon to cut its cedars, not to gently pick a few tender sprigs. The cedars taken from Lebanon were brought to the cities of Babylonia – not to be replanted but rather to be used as beams in these cities’ temples and palaces. ³⁵

As mentioned above, the parable in Ezek. 17 relates to the international relationships between the Neo-Babylonian Empire and its vassal, Judah. It seems the echoes of this imperial propaganda, which was situated at a major crossroad in the empire’s frontier and was addressed from the very outset to the dwellers of the Levant, reached Ezekiel, who depicts the eagle’s actions regarding Lebanon’s cedar in the same manner Nebuchadnezzar depicted himself dealing with these trees. ³⁶

The Correlation between the Parable and Its Interpretation

As many have shown, the parable (vv. 1–10) and its interpretation (vv. 11–21) are perfectly compatible with each other. ³⁷ This compatibility is crucial in driving home the message, especially given that the parable has no meaning on a realistic level and has no rationale of its own, except for its concluding moral. Therefore, an understanding in which the eagle’s actions and motives in the parable correspond to Nebuchadnezzar’s actions and motives in reality should be preferred over an understanding that differentiates between them.

Indeed, the proposed understanding of the parable fits very well with the historical events mentioned in vv. 11–21. Jehoiachin and the rest of Judah’s leadership, who were likened to a cedar, were exiled because of Judah’s rebelliousness (2 Kgs 23–24). This exile was not meant to benefit them but rather to punish them, and the king of Babylonia did not plan to be kind or assist them. Jehoiachin was kept alive for Babylonian utilitarian political reasons – as a reserve to replace Judah’s leadership, if and when the Babylonians wanted to do so. ³⁸

The Future of the Uprooted Cedar

Thus far, the parable has related to the eagle’s actions and intentions toward the cedar. Accordingly, it conveyed Nebuchadnezzar’s intentions regarding Jehoiachin, or at least the way Ezekiel perceived Nebuchadnezzar’s approach concerning the exiled king. According to the reading proposed here, Nebuchadnezzar evaluated Jehoiachin negatively and considered him an unfaithful king. His exile was meant to punish him for his rebelliousness and was not an act of grace intended to protect and preserve him. But what was Ezekiel’s view in this case? Nebuchadnezzar’s negative attitude does not necessarily reflect Ezekiel’s approach, as the prophet could have considered Jehoiachin himself and his exile positively, nevertheless. It seems the prophecy’s conclusion (17.22–24), which relates to God’s actions in the future (and not Nebuchadnezzar’s) reveals the prophet’s evaluation of Jehoiachin’s exile.

Many exegetes consider these verses as secondary interpolations of Ezekiel’s disciples. ³⁹ However, without assuming a methodologically holistic approach to the study of the book of Ezekiel in general, it seems there are several compelling arguments for the unity of Ezek. 17.1–24. The prophet was not restricted to offer only doom prophecies, and there are no contradictions between vv. 22–24 and the preceding verses that necessitate their assignment to a different author. Moreover, the coda binds together all the chief elements of the oracle, and returning to the cedar’s image in these verses is quite necessary. Ezekiel’s addressees, who at this point understood that the cedar was an image of Jehoiachin and the rest of Judah’s leadership, were probably very interested in knowing what the future held for him and for them as well. Therefore, vv. 22–24 seem to be the prophecy’s climax and not a secondary addition. ⁴⁰ In any case, because vv. 22–24 apply the same themes and motives which appear in vv. 1–21, they may contribute to their exegesis and to our understanding of the images they use.

According to 17.22, God will take מצמרת הארז…מראש ינקותיו‎ “from the cedar’s treetop…from its roots.” Only part of the original cedar, a shoot with leaves and roots, will be taken back to the land, whereas the rest of it will remain to dry in the city of merchants. ⁴¹ This indicates that Ezekiel predicts that Jehoiachin himself will stay in Babylonia and will not return to his throne. Someone else from Jehoiachin’s line will lead Israel in the future. This conclusion is reaffirmed by the declaration that God will take a “tender,” literally, soft shoot, meaning new and fresh, and not an old branch that had already thickened and hardened. ⁴² This cannot relate to Jehoiachin, who was described as part of a grown and mature cedar from the outset. Moreover, according to the parable’s premise, when the prophecy was proclaimed, the cedar had already been laid dry in the merchants’ city. A cedar in this condition has no new roots or branches. This indicates that Ezekiel considered neither Jehoiachin nor anyone else from Judah’s past leadership as worthy of leading Israel in the future.

Can a cedar that was completely uprooted and withered grow new branches and roots? The obvious answer to this question seems to be no. An uprooted, withered tree cannot bloom once again. Likewise, dry bones, scattered in a valley, cannot come back to life. In both cases, only a divine intervention can allow the impossible to occur. This intervention, and the enormous height of the future cedar, will make all the other trees recognize that it is God alone who can raise up or lower trees and make even withered trees bloom again.

The fact that God’s future action relates to a lowered and withered cedar reaffirms our conclusion that the parable describes a cedar that had been completely uprooted, lowered to the ground, and placed in the city to dry. If it were only a sprig that was replanted in a new place to protect it, the declaration “I, the Lord, have lowered the high tree and made high the lowly tree, have withered the green tree and made the withered tree bloom” (17:24) would have no meaning. A branch that was replanted is tall and straight and not low and blooms and is not withered, even prior to God’s intervention.

We may conclude that Ezekiel’s approach to Jehoiachin’s exile was not significantly different from that of Nebuchadnezzar. He did not consider it an act meant to benefit him personally or preserve him in anticipation of future restoration. While his message relates to Israel’s future restoration, Ezekiel completely excludes Jehoiachin and does not anticipate his return to the throne.

Conclusions and Further Remarks

This new reading of the parable in Ezek. 17 may invite a reconsideration of Ezekiel’s approach to Jehoiachin. Many of Ezekiel’s exegetes mention that Ezekiel dates his prophecies by the years of Jehoiachin’s exile and maintain that Ezekiel had a positive attitude toward the exiled king with whom he shared a similar fate. Some argue that this attitude mainly relates to Jehoiachin’s line and not necessarily to him personally, whereas others argue that Ezekiel had a positive attitude toward Jehoiachin himself, perhaps as part of a general, positive attitude toward the community of exiles in Babylonia. Some even maintain that Ezekiel anticipated Jehoiachin’s personal restoration and return from Babylonia to the throne. ⁴³

The analysis of Ezek. 17 proposed here suggests a different evaluation of Ezekiel’s approach to the exiled king that may also contribute to our understanding of Ezekiel’s perception of the exile’s role in Israel’s history. Ezekiel indeed anticipates that one of Jehoiachin’s descendants would lead restored Israel in the future and depicts this leader as a new shoot from the cedar that resembled Jehoiachin’s line (17.22–24). This anticipation may have several explanations, ⁴⁴ but it does not necessarily indicate that Ezekiel evaluated Jehoiachin himself positively. Several prophecies in the book indicate that Ezekiel did not consider Jehoiachin any better than the kings who reigned before or after him. Ezek. 22.6, 25 depict all Judah’s last kings without exception as blood-shedding lions. Likewise, Ezek. 34 evaluates all Israel’s past leaders, including Jehoiachin, negatively. He considers them responsible for the destruction and exile and predicts their dismissal from their position, never to lead Israel again. Like the future cedar, this prophecy designates the future leader as “David” (34.23–24), meaning an unidentified descendant of his dynasty, who will not be Jehoiachin himself. ⁴⁵

Jehoiachin’s presence in Babylon was probably known to the exiles, and it is not inconceivable that some hung their hopes for restoration on him. ⁴⁶ Perhaps they even regarded his exile (and maybe their own) as an act of divine grace meant to save him. Ezekiel’s position in this case was radically different and contained a message to the exiled king and his people alike: Exile is the punishment for sinners and not a means of saving the righteous. Just like the exiles, Jehoiachin was exiled because he had sinned and rebelled, but unlike them, Jehoiachin would not return from exile and would not lead Israel again.