Cornelius a Lapide
Table of Contents
Synopsis of the Chapter
He mourns the destruction of Jerusalem and of the sons of Josiah, namely Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, kings of Judah, and describes it under two metaphors. The first is of lion cubs; the second of a vine, verse 10.
Vulgate Text: Ezekiel 19:1-14
1. And you, take up a lamentation over the princes of Israel, 2. and say: Why did your mother, a lioness, lie down among lions, and nourish her cubs in the midst of young lions? 3. And she brought up one of her young lions, and he became a lion: and he learned to catch prey and to devour men. 4. And the nations heard of him, and they took him, not without wounds to themselves: and they led him in chains to the land of Egypt. 5. And when she saw that she was weakened, and her hope had perished: she took another of her young lions and made him a lion. 6. He walked among the lions, and became a lion: and he learned to catch prey and to devour men: 7. he learned to make widows, and to bring their cities to desolation; and the land was laid waste, and its fullness, at the sound of his roaring. 8. And the nations came together against him from every side, from the provinces, and they spread their net over him: he was taken in their wounds. 9. And they put him in a cage, and brought him in chains to the king of Babylon: and they cast him into prison, that his voice should no more be heard upon the mountains of Israel. 10. Your mother was like a vine planted in your blood beside the water: her fruit and her branches grew from many waters. 11. And she had strong rods for the scepters of rulers, and her stature was exalted among the branches: and she saw her own height in the multitude of her shoots. 12. And she was plucked up in wrath and cast to the ground, and the burning wind dried up her fruit: her strong rods withered and dried up: fire consumed her. 13. And now she is transplanted into the desert, into a land without path and thirsting. 14. And fire went out from a rod of her branches, which consumed her fruit: and there was not in her a strong rod, a scepter of rulers. It is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation.
Verse 1: Princes of Israel
1. PRINCES OF ISRAEL -- that is, the kings already named in the synopsis.
Verse 2: Why Did your Mother, a Lioness, Lie Down Among Lions?
2. WHY DID YOUR MOTHER, A LIONESS, LIE DOWN AMONG LIONS? -- He calls the mother the royal family of David, or rather the Synagogue, as Vatablus says; or, as Prado and Maldonatus best explain, Jerusalem. He adds "your," that is, "of you all," because he addresses both each individual king and all the kings already mentioned. Furthermore, Jerusalem is called a lioness on account of the nobility, boldness and fierceness of its inhabitants: the lions are the neighboring kings of the nations, meaning: Formerly Jerusalem dwelt among the kings of the nations without any fear, just as a lioness dwells fearlessly among lions. So Origen, St. Jerome and Theodoret.
Again, the lioness denotes the shamelessness of Jerusalem: for the lioness is a symbol of the harlot, who exercises rapacity and dominion over her lovers. For as the poet says: The cruelty of a lioness and a woman is equal. Hence harlots are called Megaric sphinxes; for sphinxes had a human head but a leonine body. Moreover, before the city of Corinth there was a temple of Venus, and nearby the tomb of Lais, upon which was placed the image of a lioness holding a ram between its forepaws: which indeed indicated her wantonness, for rams are especially lustful. Pierius confirms the same from Aristophanes, Book I of Hieroglyphics, chapter XXI.
SHE NOURISHED (in Hebrew ribbeta, that is, she multiplied) HER CUBS -- namely the young lions, meaning: Jerusalem nourished her princes, the sons of kings, among young lions, that is, among other princes who were sons of kings and princes. He calls Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah young lions, both because they were young men, and because in comparison with David, Solomon, Josiah and other earlier kings they were insignificant, and under them the kingdom began to collapse. So Maldonatus.
Epiphanius relates, in Heresy LXXVIII, which is that of the Anticomarianites, that natural philosophers (namely Herodotus, Book III of his History, who is given to fables, whose words Gellius recites, Book XIII, VII) teach that a lioness bears only one cub in her whole life, so that through her the Blessed Virgin is represented, who bore only one Son, namely Christ. "They say," he writes, "that a lioness does not bear offspring except once and one only." He adds the reason: that she carries the fetus in her womb for 26 months; and so the fetus by its leaping, movements and claws "tears apart and cuts into the womb," and consequently "the uterus and womb are expelled together with the offspring." The lion therefore is Christ, the lioness the Virgin Mother. "But the lioness does not conceive a second birth. Therefore Mary knew no further childbirth, nor the holy Virgin any further bodily union." St. Epiphanius drew this from the Egyptians, from whom Horus Apollo, Book II of Hieroglyphics, chapter LXXVIII, says: when they wished to signify a woman who had given birth once, they painted a lioness; for she does not bear in her womb a second time. Aristotle and Pliny, Book VIII, chapter XVI, consider this an Egyptian fabrication. Therefore St. Epiphanius here reports not his own but others' opinion, and aptly applies it to the Blessed Virgin. For that it is false is clear from this passage, where the lioness is said to have many cubs and young lions. The same is proved by reasoning. For if a lioness bore only one cub, the leonine species could not multiply, but would always consist in one head of one cub, when yet we know for certain that there are many lions throughout the world. Second, if the cub were male, or if it were killed before it generated offspring, the leonine species would perish, since its mother the lioness could no longer bear. But it is established that Samson (Judges XIV, 5), David and many others captured and killed lion cubs, even very young ones, before they could generate. Therefore the species of lions should have perished long ago. We know the consequent is false, therefore so is the antecedent. Third, the lion cub would always have to be female, so that through her the species could be propagated: and she would have to be impregnated by her parent lion, and likewise her offspring, and again the offspring's offspring, and so on through all ages; since there would be no other lion that could do this, given that only one was born to the lioness in her whole life, and there is one generation of one only. These and more absurdities prove this opinion to be false. For it is established from Genesis VII, 2 that only one pair of lions, namely one male and one female, was preserved in Noah's ark for the propagation of the species; from which pair we now see so great a number of lions propagated throughout the world. Finally, Aristotle, and from him Pliny, Book VIII, chapter XVI, report: "A lioness at her first birth bears five cubs, and in each successive year one less, and after one becomes barren." The same is written by Homer (whom Gellius cites, Book XIII, chapter IX); Solinus, Oppian, Philostratus, Aelian, Book X; Rhodiginus, Book XXIX, chapter 33, and others, whom Gesner cites in his section on the Lion, page 650.
(1) He calls the kingdom of Judah, which alone remained after the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, by the ancient name common to all the tribes before the time of Rehoboam, namely Israel. Cf. above XVII, 2. Jerome, after noting that he had read many explanations of this passage, but so encumbered with obscurities that they had rather entangled than clarified the reading, and after mentioning one or another of them, continues: "But we, leaving such explanations to the reader's judgment, shall say that with captivity imminent, the Prophet is not so much prophesying future events as narrating past ones. For after the sixth year of Zedekiah (since in what follows, chapter XX, 1, we read: And it came to pass in the seventh year, in the fifth month, etc.), a lamentation is taken up over the princes, namely those who were born from the stock of Josiah."
Note: Illustrious tyrants in Scripture are compared to the lion, such as Pharaoh, Ezekiel XXXII, 2, and Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah XIX, 7; because the lion is magnanimous, ever watchful and fierce, and indeed subjugates and preys upon all animals. Thus Lucullus, the Roman consul, waging war with Mithridates king of Pontus, when he had landed at the Troad and had his camp near the temple of Venus, seemed to hear the goddess saying to him by night: "Why do you sleep, noble lion? Behold, the fawns
are at hand for you." Awakened, when he heard that the enemy fleet was stationed nearby, he attacked it, and slew all who were defeated in battle along with their leader Isidorus. Next he attacked Tigranes, king of Armenia. Tigranes, despising the small number of his soldiers, said: "If they come as ambassadors, they are many; if as soldiers, few." But Lucullus charged them and slaughtered them like a lion, to such a degree that Livy, marveling at that battle, says the Romans never fought when so outnumbered by the enemy; for the victors were a twentieth part of those who were defeated. Hence Antiochus the philosopher writes that the sun had never seen another such battle.
Again, lions, says St. Basil, Homily 9 on the Hexaemeron, walk alone: and he adds the reason, namely so that they may not accept equal honors and encounters with others. Kings do the same: for to display their own excellence they live alone, and take care not to meet with other kings. Moreover, as the eagle among birds, and Leviathan, that is the whale, among fish: so the lion is king among beasts.
On this subject there is a notable fable among Aesop's stories: The lion, he says, the donkey and the fox had formed a partnership, so that whatever they caught by hunting they would divide among themselves. So when they had obtained prey from the hunt, the lion immediately ordered the donkey to divide it. The donkey, being stupid as he was, divided it into three equal portions. The lion, indignant at this division because he was made equal to the others, attacked the donkey and tore him to pieces: then he ordered the fox, who alone remained, to divide the prey. The fox, made wiser by the donkey's disaster, assigned nearly all the prey to the lion, keeping scarcely a tiny portion for herself. The lion, approving the distribution, asked who had taught her such a skill in dividing? The fox replied: The donkey's misfortune. By this fable we are taught that commoners should avoid partnerships with princes or the powerful. For this is a leonine partnership, in which the lion, defrauding the others by force, claims nearly everything for himself. Thus in the Pandects, Aristo relates from Ulpian that the jurist Cassius had ruled that such a partnership cannot be entered into, where one party receives only profit and the other only loss, and that this is a leonine partnership.
Third, lions alone among wild beasts show clemency toward suppliants and spare the prostrate, as Pliny attests, Book VIII, chapter XVI. Kings do the same, whose axiom is this: To spare the conquered, and to subdue the proud.
Fourth, lions, says Pliny, fear the circular turning of wheels, and empty chariots, and the crests and crowing of roosters; but most of all fire: so tyrants fear shadows, regard trifles as suspicious, and consider any gathering or crowd of the people to be hostile.
Fifth, lions, like tyrants, are carried by their very nature from their tender years toward prey. Lynxes do the same, whose entire memory and soul is fixed on hunger and prey. Hear St. Jerome writing to Chrysogonus, Epistle 44: "What nature has implanted in lynxes," he says, "that looking back they do not remember what went before, and the mind loses what the eyes have ceased to see: so have you forgotten our friendship." And he then teaches that lynxes leap upon unwary gazelles and deer while they are browsing on tree branches. "And the prey," he says, "running in vain while carrying its enemy upon it, is torn apart by the savage mouth from above, and they remember to prey as long as an empty belly sharpens the dry throat with hunger: but when the ferocity, fed with blood, has filled the distended bowels, forgetfulness follows with satiety, and they will not know what to seize until hunger recalls their memory. You therefore," he says, "O Chrysogonus, not yet sated with us, why do you join the end to the beginning?" etc. Therefore tyrants surpass lions and lynxes in savagery; for the desire for prey and gluttony of these animals is satisfied with food: but the greed and ambition of tyrants is insatiable, and is ended and concluded only by death and slaughter, not so much of others as of themselves.
Verse 3: And She Brought up One of her Young Lions: he Became a Lion
3. AND SHE BROUGHT UP ONE OF HER YOUNG LIONS: HE BECAME A LION. -- He means Jehoahaz, who was also called Shallum, the fourth son of Josiah, whom, after Josiah died, the people "brought forth," in Hebrew, raised up on high, that is, made their king, perhaps because he was more spirited, more warlike, and more cruel than his brothers. The Chaldean clearly translates: She raised up one of her sons, he became king. For by cubs he understands the sons of kings, by lion the king: and at the same time he indicates that Jehoahaz, as soon as he became king, began to roar and rage like a lion. Hence it follows: "He learned to catch prey," etc. Hence the proverb: "Do not nourish a lion cub," whose author is Aeschylus in Aristophanes' Frogs, by which we are warned not to foster a power that can oppress the state: and if by chance someone such should arise and already prevail, that it is not in the state's interest to fight with him, whom you cannot overcome without great harm to the state. For a tyrant should not be received: but if he has been received, he must be endured.
AND TO DEVOUR MEN. -- The Chaldean paraphrases: to kill, namely the innocent, as Manasseh his great-grandfather had done, and to plunder their goods.
Verse 4: The Nations Heard of him
4. THE NATIONS HEARD OF HIM (of his ferocity and zeal for war) -- namely the Egyptians. He alludes to the custom of nations; for when they hear that a lion, bear, or similar wild beast is roaming and rampaging in their places and fields, they all come together by agreement to capture it.
AND NOT WITHOUT WOUNDS TO THEMSELVES THEY TOOK HIM. -- This signifies what the Book of Kings passes over in silence: that Jehoahaz, being a warlike young man, fought a bloody battle against the Egyptians, and in it, both wounding and being wounded, was captured. In Hebrew: he was caught in their pit, namely by the stratagem of the Egyptians: just as a lion is captured in a pit, or in its den; or rather in a pit which hunters are accustomed to dig near the den or place where the lion usually lurks, and to cover with branches or foliage, so that the lion, unaware, falls into it and is captured there. Our translator rendered it "in wounds," because the Hebrew word sachat means both a pit and destruction or corruption, meaning: He was captured amid great slaughter and carnage. This is what is said--
in IV Kings XXIII, 33: "And Pharaoh Necho bound him (Jehoahaz) at Riblah."
Verse 5: When She
5. WHEN SHE (namely the lioness, that is, Jerusalem) SAW THAT SHE WAS WEAKENED -- that is, deprived of her son and king Jehoahaz. Thus in I Kings II, 5, Hannah says of Peninnah: "She who had many sons was weakened," that is, deprived of them; for the strength and glory of a mother consists in her sons. Again: "When she saw that her expectation had perished;" the Septuagint reads: her substance, that is, subsistence, namely her strength, which she had conceived from the reign of the fierce Jehoahaz.
SHE TOOK ONE -- that is, another, namely Jehoiachin the son of Jehoiakim, say St. Jerome and Theodoret, or rather Jehoiakim himself, the father of Jehoiachin; for he was the next to succeed Jehoahaz, II Chronicles XXXVI, 5, and reigned for 11 years, whereas Jehoiachin reigned only three months. Jehoiakim therefore, made king by Pharaoh with the consent of the people, walked like a lion among lions; because he made an alliance with Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar and other neighboring kings, and walked among tyrants as a tyrant.
Morally note: Parents who love their children too much and indulge them ruin them, and thus leave their inheritance to others, and not rarely to enemies. The Egyptians indicated this, as Horus Apollo attests, Book II of Hieroglyphics, LXII, by painting an ape with a small one behind it. For when she bears twins, she loves one of them excessively and hates the other. The one she loves, she smothers by constantly carrying it before her: but the one she hates, she keeps behind her and eventually raises. So this mother, loving her sons too much, ruined them, and left her own and their kingdom to the Chaldean enemies.
Verse 7: He Learned to Make Widows
7. HE LEARNED TO MAKE WIDOWS -- by killing their husbands and confiscating their goods to the treasury. In Hebrew it reads: he knew his widows, or her widows, which Vatablus explains as meaning: He exercised his lust with the widows whose husbands he had killed. But a lion does not usually do this. Our translator therefore most aptly expressed the Hebraism. For it is an aposiopesis: he knew, or learned, her widows -- supply: to make. The Chaldean, reading resch for lamed, that is, reading armenotav (his palaces) instead of almenotav (his widows), translates: He knew their fortresses and palaces, that is, he claimed them for himself, ascribed them to himself, held them as his own, acknowledged them as his property.
AND THEIR CITIES -- of the men whom he had killed. This is an enallage of number; for it passes from the singular to the plural. For "the people" is collectively singular, but distributively plural.
THE LAND WAS LAID WASTE, AND ITS FULLNESS. -- That is, the inhabitants who fill the land deserted their cities and fled because of the savagery of Jehoiakim; just as animals flee when they hear the roar of a lion.
Verse 8: And the Nations Came Together Against him
8. AND THE NATIONS CAME TOGETHER AGAINST HIM -- meaning: The Babylonians with their forces, as with a net, captured Jehoiakim and led him away to Babylon.
HE WAS TAKEN IN THEIR WOUNDS (both active and passive, that is, wounding and wounded, as I said at verse 4). -- Cardinal Baronius aptly applies this slaughter of the lions and this parable to the dynasty of the Emperor Leos, which, on account of iconoclasm and the plunder and murders inflicted upon the Religious, was cut off by God; indeed, the strong one dashed against the Strong, the lion against the Lion, the king against God, and was crushed by Him. The first iconoclast Emperor therefore was Leo the Isaurian, who after many plunderings, exiles and slaughterings of the orthodox who venerated the holy images, felt the public vengeance of the Deity. For, the Deity being angry, the whole East trembled, many cities were leveled to the ground, and the statues of the Emperors that were in the city collapsed and were shattered, as if they themselves could not stand where the sacred images had been cast down by the impious Leo himself, who indeed could no longer survive, for a few months later he was carried from this life by an earthquake, in the year of the Lord 741.
Leo was succeeded by his son Constantine Copronymus, who began his reign by spreading heresy deceitfully like a fox, reigned like a lion, and died like a dog. For at first secretly, then, once his power was established, he openly raged against the holy images, temples, monks, and the Blessed Virgin herself, whom he maintained was not the Mother of God; but he was struck by a sore on his legs, which in Greek is called a carbuncle; and contracting thereby a very violent fever, he died miserably, crying out and saying: "While still alive I have been handed over to unquenchable fire," in the year of the Lord 775.
Copronymus was succeeded by his son Leo the Younger, a bad egg from a bad crow, and a young lion from a lion raging against the holy images and their worshippers; and since he was obsessed with precious stones, he too greatly desired the crown of the great church, and taking it, wore it. Soon carbuncles appeared on his head, and seized by a violent fever, he died in the fifth year of his reign, in the year of Christ 780. Therefore, loving carbuncles (precious stones), he likewise suffered carbuncles (sores) from his sacrilege, and crowned with these, was punished with death.
Leo was succeeded by his wife Irene, a pious woman, together with her ten-year-old son Constantine; she brought eirene, that is, peace, to the state and to the Church, and immediately restored to the church its crown, namely the one taken by her husband, most beautifully crafted and adorned with precious gems. Wherefore, under her reign a certain man, digging in the walls of Thrace, found a stone chest, and in it a man lying, on which was inscribed: "Christ will be born of the Virgin Mary. I believe in Him. Under the Emperors Constantine and Irene, O sun, you will see me again." The report spread that it had been the tomb of some prophet before Christ,
and that this oracle had been revealed by God to that same prophet. So Theophanes, and Baronius in their deeds and annals.
Verse 9: And They Cast him Into Prison, that his Voice Should no More be Heard
9. AND THEY CAST HIM INTO PRISON, THAT HIS VOICE SHOULD NO MORE BE HEARD. -- "Him," namely Jehoiakim the father; under him he also includes Jehoiachin the son (to whom St. Jerome and Theodoret refer these words); for Jehoiakim, first rebelling against the Chaldeans, was captured by them; then, promising to be subject to them, he was sent back to his kingdom; and rebelling again, he was not captured but killed. Jehoiachin, however, was captured -- or rather, voluntarily surrendering to the Chaldeans -- was led by them to Babylon, and there remained a captive for his whole life. Hence the Prophet omits Jehoiachin here, because he includes him under his father Jehoiakim. But he passes over Zedekiah, because he was still reigning at this time.
Morally, see here how brief tyranny is, and how swift and fatal is the end of tyrants. Behold, these four young lions -- Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah -- all together scarcely reigned 22 years. Truly Seneca, Book I On Clemency: "Kings," he says, "grow old: and they hand down their kingdoms to children and grandchildren; but the power of tyrants is execrable and brief." Thales, as Laertius attests in his Life, when asked: "What difficult thing have you seen?" replied: "An old tyrant." And Juvenal, Satire I: Few kings descend to the son-in-law of Ceres without bloodshed and slaughter, and few tyrants die a dry death. And Curtius, Book IV: "No power gained by crime is lasting." And Sallust to Caesar: "For my part, I judge all cruel empires to be more bitter than lasting; nor can anyone be feared by many without fear recoiling upon him from many. To live such a life is to wage an eternal and uncertain war; since you are safe neither from the front, nor from behind, nor from the sides, you always live in fear or danger." And Seneca the Tragedian: "He must needs fear many, whom many fear." And Cicero, Book II On Duties: "No force of power is so great that, weighed down by fear, it can be lasting. No wealth can withstand the hatred of many. Whom they fear, they hate; and whoever anyone hates, he desires to see perish. Fear is a bad guardian of durability; on the contrary, benevolence is faithful for perpetuity." The same author, Philippics I and II, teaches that this is the saying of tyrants, but a foolish one: "Let them hate, provided they fear. For fear is not a long-lasting teacher of duty. It is a thousand times better to die than to be unable to live in one's own city without the protection of arms. One's defense should be the affection and goodwill of citizens, not arms." Finally Aelian, Book VI, chapter XIII: "Most excellently," he says, "it has been ordained by the immortal gods that they do not extend any tyranny to the third generation, but either immediately destroy and uproot the tyrants like tall pines, or strip and despoil their children of their strength." Among the Greeks, within human memory, only these tyrannies are recorded as having lasted to the grandchildren: that of Gelo in Sicily, of the Leucanians in the Bosporus, and of the Cypselids at Corinth."
Moreover, this applies not only to tyrants, but also to legitimate kings and princes. For as Ecclesiasticus, chapter X, 11 says: "All dominion is of short life." And another writer: "The glory and prosperity of the world is no more lasting, nor more constant, than fair weather in winter, calm on a ship, or the stability of the moon." Do you want examples? Hear St. Jerome in the Epitaph of Nepotian, page 15: "Constantius, patron of the Arian heresy, while preparing against the enemy and rushing eagerly into battle, dying in the village of Mopsus, left the empire to his enemy with great grief. Julian, betrayer of his own soul and butcher of the Christian army, felt Christ in Media, whom he had first denied in Gaul; and while he wished to extend Roman borders, he lost what had been gained. Jovian, having merely tasted the imperial goods, died suffocated by the fumes of coals; showing all what human power is. Valentinian, having laid waste his native soil and leaving his country unavenged, was extinguished by a hemorrhage. His brother Valens, defeated in the Gothic war in Thrace, had the same place both for his death and his burial. Gratian, betrayed by his own army and not received by the cities he encountered, became a laughingstock to the enemy; and the bloodstained handprints on your walls, Lyons, bear witness. The young Valentinian, almost a boy, after flight, after exile, after an empire recovered with much blood, was killed not far from the city that witnessed his brother's death, and his lifeless body was dishonored by hanging. What shall I say of Procopius, Maximus, Eugenius, who indeed while they held power were a terror to the nations? All were captured and stood before the faces of their conquerors, and -- what is most miserable for the once most powerful -- they were pierced by the disgrace of slavery before they were pierced by the enemy's sword. Let me come to private dignities, lest I speak of those who exceed two years in office; and to pass over the rest, it suffices for us to record the diverse ends of three recent consuls. Abundantius, destitute, lives in exile at Pityus. The head of Rufinus was carried on a pike through Constantinople, and his severed right hand, to the disgrace of his insatiable greed, begged alms from door to door. Timasius, suddenly cast down from the highest rank of dignity, thinks he has escaped because he lives ingloriously at Asis."
To pass over other secular rulers, the same is most clearly evident among the Popes, of whom many sat in the Pontificate for only three years, others for one, others for a few months, others for a few days. We saw in one and the same year 1590, three Popes successively preside: Sixtus V, Urban VII, Gregory XIV, and shortly after in 1591, Innocent IX, and after thirty days Clement VIII. Indeed, and what seems remarkable, of all the Popes who have governed the Church through 1,618 years up to this time, not one has reached the 25th year of his Pontificate. St. Leo I came quite close, who served 21 years; St. Sylvester, who served the same; and closest of all, Adrian--
Adrian I, who, created Pope in the year of the Lord 772, sat for 24 full years minus 43 days; for he sat for 23 complete years, ten months and 16 days; and died in the year of the Lord 795, as Baronius and others report. Therefore neither he, nor anyone else, precisely reached 25 years. For this reason, when a Pope is inaugurated, the acclamation is made: "Most Blessed Father, you will not see the years of Peter." For that this will be so, the continuous experience of so many centuries sufficiently foretells, indeed proves, divine providence secretly so disposing, whether out of honor for St. Peter, who first established the Pontificate at Rome and sat for 25 years, so that he, as in dignity and merits, so also in years, should surpass all his successors and posterity; or, so that it might admonish the Popes, placed on such a pinnacle and summit of dignity, of humility and modesty, and teach them to regard it as of little account and to aspire to heavenly and eternal honors; or, so that this might be a spur to them for the keen and continual pursuit of heroic deeds and virtues, while they reflect that their Pontificate will be brief, as will their life, and therefore constantly say to themselves: What you intend to do, do quickly; for brief will be this power of yours, brief the opportunity for great deeds; therefore fill your few years with great virtues, and in those few years accomplish such and so great things as will make your name illustrious both on earth and in heaven, and inscribe it for eternity; imitate the Linuses, Cletuses, Clements, Gregorys, and Leos, who, perfected in a short time, fulfilled many ages. Pope Alexander II once proposed this question to Blessed Peter Damian: why do Popes live so few years, and why does no one reach the years of St. Peter, when some have been of flourishing age and robust health? Peter Damian answered, Book I, Epistle 17, that the order of heavenly judgment had so disposed, in order to strike the human race with the fear of death, and to show clearly how contemptible is the glory of temporal life, in the very principate of glory, and as if the sun were suffering an eclipse; especially since one Pope presides over the whole world, whereas there are many kings at the same time, nor do Popes usually die a violent death, as kings do. Our author Lorinus adds, on II Peter, chapter I, 14, that this happens so that men may less eagerly desire the summit of the Papacy, being fairly certain that it will not last long.
Verse 10: Your Mother
10. YOUR MOTHER (that is, of you all, O kings of Judah! See what was said at verse 2) WAS LIKE A VINE PLANTED IN YOUR BLOOD BESIDE THE WATER. -- Jerusalem and the royal dynasty the Prophet a little earlier compared to a lioness and a lion; now he compares it to a noble vine: for royal blood is similar to the red and purple liquid of the grape, from which the vine is called "purple" by Ovid in Metamorphoses VIII. This vine, as if planted beside waters, grew with its branches and shoots, namely with its families, citizens, power, riches and glory: because it was the stock of David, chosen by God, to whom God had promised a stable throne and house, Psalm LXXXVIII, 5. Maldonatus interprets differently: "In your blood," he says, means "in your bloom," so that the flower is called blood on account of its redness. Hence the Septuagint translates: like the flower of a pomegranate. But it seems more likely that the Septuagint, instead of the Hebrew tedommecha, meaning "in your blood," read with similar neighboring Hebrew letters kerimon, meaning "as a pomegranate." Your mother is, namely, producing many branches and much fruit, and, as Eucherius says, just as in a pomegranate many seeds are united within one outer rind: so it contains very many citizens and cities, united under one kingdom and one king. Second, just as those seeds are arranged in their compartments and separated by membranes: so also citizens in their families and guilds. Hence the ancients dedicated the pomegranate to Juno, as patron of kingdoms, and placed it in her hand. And the Hebrew priest had in his vestment pomegranates intermixed with bells, which signify the unity of the Church from many nations coming together into the same sound, that is, into the same law and religion, says Eucherius, and St. Gregory on Canticles IV. Or they signify the variety and harmony of virtues among those same nations, of which it is said in Acts IV: "The multitude of believers was of one heart and one soul." So St. Jerome, and from him Prado.
Verse 11: She Had Strong Rods for the Scepters of Rulers
11. SHE HAD STRONG RODS FOR THE SCEPTERS OF RULERS -- that is, one shoot of this vine, like one very strong rod, grew into many rods, which served as scepters of rulers, so that kings would come from it. For formerly patriarchs and princes, like shepherds with a staff, followed and governed their flock: hence now, instead of rods, kings bear scepters, meaning: Jerusalem produced many strong kings bearing scepters. For the rod is the emblem of kingdom and king. So the Chaldean.
HER STATURE WAS EXALTED AMONG THE BRANCHES -- meaning: Jerusalem, growing into so many and such great citizens and princes, appeared tall and glorious with them and among them.
AND SHE SAW -- that is, seeing herself she was pleased and became proud. Our translator read the active form vaiar; but others now read it passively as vaiera, that is, "and she was seen."
Verse 12: She Was Plucked up in Wrath
12. SHE WAS PLUCKED UP IN WRATH -- namely, the vine of Jerusalem was cut down in God's wrath, and was uprooted like a vine under Zedekiah.
THE BURNING WIND (that is, the assault of the Chaldean enemies) DRIED UP HER FRUIT (that is, exhausted the sons and wealth of Jerusalem): THE RODS OF HER STRENGTH WITHERED -- that is, her kingdom and power dried up; or, as Maldonatus explains, "rods of strength," that is, strong ones, "and solid for the scepters of rulers," as he said in the preceding verse, that is, the sons of Zedekiah, who were to succeed to their father's kingdom and wield the scepters, were either captured or killed, IV Kings XXV, 7. "Fire," that is, God's vengeance and punishment, and specifically
(1) This metaphor is very similar to this passage in the Iliad (A, verse 234), where Achilles speaks thus of his scepter: "Yea, by this scepter, which will never again put forth leaves and branches, since it first left its trunk on the mountains." That is: Indeed, by this scepter, which will never produce leaves and branches, since it once left its trunk on the mountains.
the fire and conflagration of the Chaldeans, "consumed her." Vatablus interprets differently: The vine, he says, is Zedekiah; the fruit, his sons; the fire, affliction. Hence in Hebrew it reads "consumed him," namely Zedekiah, because he died in prison without a successor to the kingdom.
Verse 13: Now She is Transplanted Into the Desert, Into a Land Without Path and...
13. NOW SHE IS TRANSPLANTED INTO THE DESERT, INTO A LAND WITHOUT PATH AND THIRSTING -- that is, the citizens of Jerusalem were transported to Babylon, where, as in an arid desert, they were in need of all things. So St. Jerome. Or, as he adds: Judea itself, having been laid waste, was as it were changed into a desert, with its inhabitants slain or captured, and its cities overthrown. Hence there follows:
Verse 14: And Fire Went Out from a Rod of her Branches, Which Consumed her Fruit
14. AND FIRE WENT OUT FROM A ROD OF HER BRANCHES, WHICH CONSUMED HER FRUIT -- meaning: Ishmael, of the royal seed, envying Gedaliah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had appointed governor of Judea, for his authority, killed him together with many who adhered to him, and this is what he adds: "It devoured her fruit." Hence the remaining Jews, fearing the wrath of the Chaldeans, fled with Johanan into Egypt. So St. Jerome and Theodoret. Note: Prophetically these past tenses signify future events. "She was plucked up, she was transplanted" means she will be plucked up, she will be transplanted; "it went out" means it will go out. For the Prophet said these things in the sixth year of Zedekiah, as is clear from chapter VIII, 1, when Jerusalem was still standing. The Chaldean interprets differently, meaning: "The fire," that is, the punishment that consumed Jerusalem, proceeded "from her," that is, from the impiety of her princes and citizens. Rabbi David also interprets differently, as if to say: Zedekiah went out from the royal seed of Jerusalem, who, like a fire, destroyed all her wealth, and was himself the cause of the destruction. Hence it follows: "There was not left in her a strong rod, a scepter of rulers," meaning: He left no heir to succeed to the scepter and kingdom.
IT IS A LAMENTATION -- that is, now lamentation is made for Jehoiakim and the captivity of the citizens; but greater will be the lamentation at the destruction of the city and the kingdom.
Second, Maldonatus and Vatablus, following the Chaldean and the Hebrews, explain it thus: This lamentation, which I set forth at the beginning, is a lamentable prophecy; but the actual event will be even greater; for when these things, which I here predict with mourning, actually come to pass, the greatest of all lamentations and weeping will ensue.
Third, the Septuagint translates: It is for a parable of lamentations, and shall be for a lamentation, meaning: When posterity wishes to express the greatest calamity, they will use this as an example and proverb: May what happened to Jerusalem not befall me. So Theodoret.
Fourth, take it simply as meaning: Jerusalem is lamented and will be lamented, that is: This lamentation for Jerusalem will last a long time, and will be perpetual and continuous.