by Liaf
I want to teach on Ezekiel 17 regarding the Eternal Throne of David and its transfer. We already did some major teaching on this subject where we inserted this passage as one of the many parts of scripture that deal with the throne, but not where we actually tore apart this particular passage word-by-word. It is assumed that the reader is already familiar with what we teach about the throne (otherwise, if not, then go back to our main page and read the any message that overviews the throne).
With that being said, I am back in a teaching mode where I am calmed down enough to stop griping about our mainline and crooked churches and their fiery evangelists that rather you log off this site and listen to their sugar-coated Jesus message. These same people do not understand this chapter at all. I even mentioned that genealogy was brought into the mix here. Of course, they cannot see what I mean about that at all. Well, acting like the fatherless b#stards they really are, I can see why. You see, genealogy was VERY important to kings, something that a peon does not understand. By genealogy kingdoms stood or fell because a legal and blood heir was required to take the throne.
Make an appointment with any preacher that I depicted and ask what Ezekiel 17 means. They will tell you that the last verses refer to Messiah. But after we study these verses, we will see that Messiah does not have the family tree being talked about here. I have a Bible that places stars for Messianic texts next to them. There are MANY "branch" scriptures that have such stars. But at least the publishers of my bible had the smarts not to put a star there. You see, they do not have to answer for anything because this is not a study bible. If this were a typical run-of-the-mill study bible, they'd have to put something there, right? Being ignorant (and rebellious against the truth) regarding the Davidic Throne, they immediately compare the "tender twig" passage with "similar sounding" passages and quickly conclude it means Christ. What else could they say being so abysmally ignorant otherwise? (I find it interesting that these folks can adamantly state such doctrine as if its in black and white, but CLEAR scripture such as Jacob becoming MANY NATIONS gets reinterpreted to fit their notions). NO, the passage is NOT about Christ. It's about the King's (Zedekiah's) daughter.
This was just the introduction. Now, open your bibles to Ezekiel 17:
1And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel
First off, notice whom this is addressed to: the house of Israel. The prophets, especially Jeremiah, had contact with some of the exiles of the house of Israel (not the Jews), mostly the elders. And this passage is applicable to all times regarding the Davidic Throne (i.e., the transfer of it) thus even the house of Israel today can understand it. The riddle in Hebrew means "a puzzle". I just love it when the Bible interprets itself in later verses. By the way, what does puzzle imply? It means something to be solved, a mystery if you will. It would not come across easily to evangelist types that rather cheer you up with "Jesus is the reason for the season" loopypops and try to explain it straightforward. Let's continue.
3And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; A great eagle with great wings, longwinged, full of feathers, which had divers colours, came unto Lebanon, and took the highest branch of the cedar: 4He cropped off the top of his young twigs, and carried it into a land of traffick; he set it in a city of merchants.
Since the Lord will explain the riddle, at least the part that took place regarding the captivity, we will see that this has to do with the Davidic Throne, the exile, and the continuation of the throne. Therefore, before we go one step further, we must understand that this chapter uses symbolism. An eagle is NOT an eagle. It's symbolic of something or someone. Lebanon is not Lebanon, because the throne at that time was in Jerusalem. Why Lebanon? Because Lebanon had a reputation of its great cedar forests used to build the house of God. Likewise, a cedar tree is NOT a cedar tree, or a twig a real twig. Got that? Good. Let's remember this because we will revisit these verses.
5He took also of the seed of the land, and planted it in a fruitful field; he placed it by great waters, and set it as a willow tree. 6And it grew, and became a spreading vine of low stature, whose branches turned toward him, and the roots thereof were under him: so it became a vine, and brought forth branches, and shot forth sprigs.
The first eagle took from the highest branch of the cedar and "set" it elsewhere. Now, the "seed of the land" was also planted in a fruitful field becoming a vine. The branches of this vine originally turned toward this eagle.
7There was also another great eagle with great wings and many feathers: and, behold, this vine did bend her roots toward him, and shot forth her branches toward him, that he might water it by the furrows of her plantation. 8It was planted in a good soil by great waters, that it might bring forth branches, and that it might bear fruit, that it might be a goodly vine. 9Say thou, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Shall it prosper? shall he not pull up the roots thereof, and cut off the fruit thereof, that it wither? it shall wither in all the leaves of her spring, even without great power or many people to pluck it up by the roots thereof. 10Yea, behold, being planted, shall it prosper? shall it not utterly wither, when the east wind toucheth it? it shall wither in the furrows where it grew.
This vine from the "seed of the land" now turns its attention from the first eagle to another great eagle in hopes this eagle would nourish it. Instead, the Lord expressed His displeasure at the situation and warned that the vine will not prosper but rather wither, by the east wind no less. Let's continue on with the interpretation:
11Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 12Say now to the rebellious house, Know ye not what these things mean? tell them, Behold, the king of Babylon is come to Jerusalem, and hath taken the king thereof, and the princes thereof, and led them with him to Babylon; 13And hath taken of the king's seed, and made a covenant with him, and hath taken an oath of him: he hath also taken the mighty of the land: 14That the kingdom might be base, that it might not lift itself up, but that by keeping of his covenant it might stand. 15But he rebelled against him in sending his ambassadors into Egypt, that they might give him horses and much people. Shall he prosper? shall he escape that doeth such things? or shall he break the covenant, and be delivered? 16As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely in the place where the king dwelleth that made him king, whose oath he despised, and whose covenant he brake, even with him in the midst of Babylon he shall die. 17Neither shall Pharaoh with his mighty army and great company make for him in the war, by casting up mounts, and building forts, to cut off many persons: 18Seeing he despised the oath by breaking the covenant, when, lo, he had given his hand, and hath done all these things, he shall not escape. 19Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; As I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his own head. 20And I will spread my net upon him, and he shall be taken in my snare, and I will bring him to Babylon, and will plead with him there for his trespass that he hath trespassed against me. 21And all his fugitives with all his bands shall fall by the sword, and they that remain shall be scattered toward all winds: and ye shall know that I the LORD have spoken it.
I love it when the bible interprets itself. There is no room for questioning then. All the verses up to now will be explained, but the chapter will end with similar symbolism which we will expand on using the keys from this interpretation. The King of Babylon took the King of Judah and the princes. OK. We now know whom the eagle represented. Notice how well decorated the eagle was in the parable. And since he came to Jerusalem, we know that Lebanon is not Lebanon. What did that eagle take in the parable? The top, young twigs from the cedar tree. That was King Jehoiachin and the princes, including members of royal genealogy, thus twigs are in the plural. Now if Jehoiachin and any royal member were high twigs on a cedar tree, then it stands to reason that the lower branches of the tree all the way down to its trunk represent their family and origin. And what was their origin? The house of David. So the cedar tree represents the house of David. If anyone has trouble with this straightforward analogy, then consider Jesus' statement where he said, "I am the vine and you are the branches". Spiritually speaking, Jesus is the source of our relationship and power we have in God, just as King David is the source of king Jehoiachin and other royal members. There may be those who think that the "highest" simply means in grandeur, and not from many generations. That's not proper reasoning. Grant it, some branches from the "same generation" on a real tree can be physically lower. However, the king and ruling class would be BOTH the later generation of a tree's branches as well as the highest one. One cannot be the highest without being BOTH the latest generation and with the most grandeur in other words. Therefore, without question based on biblical assertion, the highest twigs of the cedar genealogically represent the king and those next of kin to him.
After king Jehoiachin and the princes were taken to Babylon, the next thing the eagle did was to take the seed of the land and plant it in a fruitful field where it became a vine of low stature. First of all, the eagle planted this seed, and in the Hebrew it means, "transplanted". In J. H. Allen's book, this part has the double meaning of the seed of the king being planted over in Ireland (i.e., the 'great waters' of the Atlantic). I have no trouble with that, as prophecy oftentimes has double fulfillment, but I want to concentrate on the straightforward biblical interpretation especially for our critics who want to judge our every bit of logic. (They sound good at "disproving" our so-called fable, but when you come down to it, they do not continue to answer what the symbolism really means.) Now, whoever this seed of the land was, became (in Hebrew) that low vine implying that even though it was originally called the "seed of the land", it could have been something other than the vine it became. Well, the Bible makes it clear. This was the king Zedekiah, Jehoiachin's uncle, with whom the King of Babylon made a covenant with so that the kingdom could continue, albeit based. Therefore, the "seed of the land" had its origins in the cedar tree, and indeed, the King of Babylon took Zedekiah as one of the twigs of the highest branch as "seed of the land" to place him as king in charge over the people. Notice this DOES NOT void the Davidic Covenant, as our critics would call Zedekiah the "interloper" king. After all, He was of King David's and King Solomon's lineage, and since Jehoiachin did not have offspring at that time but was taken captive, the next in kin to rule would have been Zedekiah just as surely as if King Jehoiachin would have been killed. This "interloper" theory just shows their ignorance of royal protocol so misunderstood by so-called educated peons. And notice one other thing by the King of Babylon. He believes the same thing as any good evangelist. He deals only with the royal seed involving the sons and not the daughters. After all, his Babylonish Kingdom and the rest of the world do not think much of women, let alone the idea that the royal seed could be perpetuated by a woman (when we think about it, is not the physical lineage of Jesus traced thru Mary as well?) He did not know the ruling in Numbers chapter 36.
Now the rest of the explanation of the parable basically deals with Zedekiah's turning toward the other eagle: the help from Egypt (and remember where Jeremiah's band went during the upheavals) and he would also be punished for it. What I wanted to do was to clarify biblically what the eagles, cedar tree, twigs, etc. represented. The reason this is important is because the last three verse of this chapter use the same type of symbolism by the Lord Himself, but does not explain it. It's safe to assume that the riddle is basically in two parts, and the first part was deciphered as an example, and thus the Lord wants us to figure the last part ourselves. Let's read those last verses:
22Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent: 23In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell. 24And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have spoken and have done it.
The LORD will now ALSO take the highest branch of the cedar. First of all, He will do what the King of Babylon did back in either verse 4 or 5. For sure, the highest branch that the Lord will take from must be EITHER Jehoiachin's or Zedekiah's lineage based on the symbolism we previously pointed out if nothing else is understood. At face value this appears to be someone from Jehoiachin's lineage or close relative. However, except for Jesus' father Joseph, Jesus did NOT physically come from this lineage. So that blows the "messiah" theory all to %ell because we know from Luke's genealogy that Jesus came from Nathan, a much lower branch in the cedar tree, and not from Jehoiachin or Zedekiah. The English further compounds the idea that the Lord is doing what the King of Babylon did in verse 4 because he will set it just as the King of Babylon "set" Jehoiachin in Babylon. However, the Hebrew word for "set" verse 22 is the same one as "plant" in verse 5, not the "set" in verse 4. If we approach this from this perspective, the Lord is doing the same as what the King of Babylon did with the "seed of the land" in verse five! So looking more closely, the highest branch of the cedar tree that the Lord will "set" is really doing the planting of the same lineage that the King of Babylon planted in Israel--- that of Zedekiah, not Jehoiachin. The idea of the King of Babylon setting Jehoiachin in Babylon is the same as if he plopped him there, not planting at all, so the focus of planting is really more on Zedekiah. This makes sense since Satan always tries to imitate what God does. The King of Babylon plants, so does the Lord. The King of Babylon took of Zedekiah's seed, so does the Lord. And notice that the Lord also identified the "seed of the land" as the "highest branch". This is NOT a contradiction since Jehoiachin's next of kin, his uncle Zedekiah, would be closely related to him. However, Zedekiah is also "the seed of the land". This does not contradict either one. However, we will now proceed to further show beyond the "set" and "plant" definitions that the Lord was referencing Zedekiah's lineage, not Jehoiachin's.
Next of all, the Lord will crop off a twig, a tender one. The Hebrew is in the feminine whereas the masculine could have been used. This twig is symbolic of someone from the house of David that is a princess, not a prince! I will do more on the "branch" prophecies of Jesus shortly and demonstrate this is the only place this form is used. At the time of the captivity, Jehoiachin was childless, and yet the Lord at the end of the chapter states he has done it (already)! The bible is not that full of puzzles that the Lord will just let us hanging onto secular history alone regarding this VITAL link. Yes, secular history is OK once the link is established, as such a link is critical in determining the location of the Davidic throne. Once the establishment in its future location is determined by the link, I could understand why the bible could be silent from then onward because the lineage then becomes pure genealogy. What is the link? On two occasions at least, the "king's daughters" were mentioned in the bible as accompanying Jeremiah. Does God's Word state such things just for a scribe's exercise? (Evangelists probably think so--- when's the last time you heard anyone teach on the king's daughters?) Or is there is reason? And the ONLY King's daughters that the bible mentions are those of Zedekiah! Now how about that?
Furthermore, to show that the Lord was talking about Zedekiah's lineage, He will plant it in the "mountain of the height of Israel". Again, the Hebrew word for "plant" means "transplant", the same word used in verse eight "planted in a good soil by great waters" said of Zedekiah. Again, the King of Babylon did planting of Zedekiah, so does the Lord using Zedekiah's lineage. Where will the Lord plant it? In the "mountain of the height of Israel".
"Aha!" screams the evangelist that strikes the back of Liaf's knees to force him to kneel and repent. "It says right there in Israel! It must mean Jesus!" (I find it interesting that when they are too dumbfounded to answer several arguments they base their faith on merely one that seemingly contradicts them so that they don't have to think things out.) No. That's NOT what it says (as I get back up off of my knees and meet face-to-face with them). Remember. This chapter is symbolic A mountain is not a mountain. What does a mountain represent in the bible? Usually a nation, or a seat of power or authority (as also demonstrated by the word 'eminent'). Close enough. This is merely saying that wherever Israel (as the lost tribes) dwell, that's where God will (trans)plant the throne! This is in agreement in Jeremiah 33 where God says David shall never lack a man to reign over the house of Israel not Judah, the Jews! As a matter of fact, the lineage has to be that of Zedekiah because the blood lineage of Jehoiachin was cursed, and NONE from his seed would rule any more in Judah the bible says! In addition, this indicated a BREACH in the Palestinian PHAREZ line (the high line) and the daughter of the King could carry the inheritance of her father (David) by marrying into the low lineage of Zarah (also of Judah) and thus elevated the low lineage. That's what the Lord meant by saying, "brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish" In addition, we have parallel scripture in Ezekiel 21:25-27 regarding the "profane" prince of Israel. Historically, that was addressing Zedekiah who in this passage was also identified as the "high" line (i.e., the same as the highest branch of the cedar). Notice the "fowl of every wing" dwelling in its safety. Again, these are not birds, but representation of people of diverse character. One of the "marks" of Israel is a society accepting a racially diverse mixture of people (that blows that theory to %ell by the critics that we are 'racist'). On one other lost tribes site, the tribe of Ephraim is described as the "Gentile children of Israel". So there you have it. The "family tree" of King David shows it all, and by carefully picking apart this chapter and looking at the Hebrew meanings of the words, the whole idea was that the Lord was going to do a good thing with the same lineage of Zedekiah as opposed to the outcome of the "planting" of Zedekiah done by the King of Babylon.
And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots... (Isaiah 11:1)
So many people reinterpret the "rod" as the same as "twig". Just because the two words are the same, they quickly assume this is the same as the "tender twig" that was in the feminine as we already pointed out. Well, this "rod" is not feminine! Look it up yourself! (the rest of you with your minds in the gutter better repent :-) )The "stem" is a stump, or a base if you will. This is the same as the Branch coming from the "root" or base of the family tree. This is Jesus because of the character description of this rod and Branch. Certainly this rod and Branch neither passes for the "highest branch" nor the "seed of the land". This makes perfect sense since in Luke's genealogy our Lord came from David's son Nathan, the brother of Solomon. So, all the Kings of Judah thru Solomon were really Jesus' cousins and not fathers.
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. (Jeremiah 23:5)
This says nothing. As a matter of fact, without Isaiah 11:1, we could not be sure where this branch would sprout from (which by the way, is the meaning of the Hebrew word). A tree has many branches. This one is righteous. So, this is Jesus as only the Lord is truly righteous. And by the way, this is not in the feminine. But in and of itself does nothing either way to Ezekiel 17.
In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. (Jeremiah 33:15)
This verse is similar, and the Hebrew word is the same as that in chapter 23. Again, it does nothing to disprove what we said about Ezekiel 17 and replace the meaning of Ezekiel 17 with that of Christ.
Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH. For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree. (Zechariah 3:8-10)
What a wonderful promise! But again, it only refers to Jesus as the Branch and states what He will do. This Branch is getting awfully obscure! Certainly not a Branch genealogically obvious like the rest of the Kings of Judah knew of themselves! And here's one last one:
And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD: Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both. (Zechariah 6:12-13)
Again, only a mention of a Branch. The ONLY names in all these prophecies I heard were Jesse and David, and Isaiah 11:1 pinpoints this obscure Branch's origin as demonstrated by Luke's genealogy. Wonderful promises. This passage explains why Jesus was born in the land of Israel (not planted there) and will one day build the temple. Notice the Priest-King role of this Branch. But..... does NOTHING to Ezekiel 17 again.
What about if we look up "twig" or twigs"? Only with other translations you may be able to do that. This is what I like about the KJV. There was marvelous inspiration, probably partly unknown to the translators, why certain English words were used in only certain places. You see, there is no mention of a "twig" in the entire bible, and "twigs" is only used in Ezekiel 17, as if this were supposed to stand alone for some reason. And what do we teach? Jeremiah took the King's daughters, and one married to a King in Spain, the other in Ireland, and the Irish lineage was the one to rule over where the tribe of Ephraim settled, thus "David never lacked a man to reign over the house of Israel." Meanwhile, what I interpreted takes NOTHING away from our Lord's BRANCH prophecies. They can stand by themselves without having to mindlessly assume that the "tender twig" was Jesus. Let's not put Jesus into a shoe that does not fit him, and let's not despise God's promise of an eternal Davidic throne (like the evangelists do) by taking the passages that clearly teach about its perpetuation and applying them to Jesus in order to circumvent them.