Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Ezekiel 18:10 - 18:10

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - Ezekiel 18:10 - 18:10


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

The righteousness of the father does not protect the wicked, unrighteous son from death. - Eze 18:10. If, however, he begetteth a violent son, who sheddeth blood, and doeth only one of these things, Eze 18:11. But he himself hath not done all this, - if he even eateth upon the mountains, and defileth his neighbour's wife, Eze 18:12. Oppresseth the suffering and poor, committeth robbery, doth not restore a pledge, lifteth up his eyes to idols, committeth abomination, Eze 18:13. Giveth upon usury, and taketh interest: should he live? He shall not live! He hath done all these abominations; he shall be put to death; his blood shall be upon him. - The subject to וְהֹולִיד, in Eze 18:10, is the righteous man described in the preceding verses. פָּרִיץ, violent, literally, breaking in or through, is rendered more emphatic by the words “shedding blood” (cf. Hos 4:2). We regard אַח in the next clause as simply a dialectically different form of writing and pronouncing, for אַךְ, “only,” and he doeth only one of these, the sins previously mentioned (Eze 18:6.). מֵאַחַד, with a partitive מִן, as in Lev 4:2, where it is used in a similar connection; the form מֵאַחַד is also met with in Deu 15:7. The explanation given by the Targum, “and doeth one of these to his brother,” is neither warranted by the language nor commended by the sense. עָשָׂה is never construed with the accusative of the person to whom anything is done; and the limitation of the words to sins against a brother is unsuitable in this connection. The next clause, לֹא עָשָׂה...וְהוּא, which has also been variously rendered, we regard as an adversative circumstantial clause, and agree with Kliefoth in referring it to the begetter (father): “and he (the father) has not committed any of these sins.” For it yields no intelligible sense to refer this clause also to the son, since כָּל־אֵלֶּה cannot possibly refer to different things from the preceding מֵאֵלֶּה, and a man cannot at the same time both do and not do the same thing. The כִּי which follows signifies “if,” as is frequently the case in the enumeration of particular precepts or cases; compare, for example, Exo 21:1, Exo 21:7,Exo 21:17, etc., where it is construed with the imperfect, because the allusion is to things that may occur. Here, on the contrary, it is followed by the perfect, because the sins enumerated are regarded as committed. The emphatic גַּם (even) forms an antithesis to אַח מֵאַחַד (אַךְ), or rather an epanorthosis of it, inasmuch as כִּי גַּם resumes and carries out still further the description of the conduct of the wicked son, which was interrupted by the circumstantial clause; and that not only in a different form, but with a gradation in the thought. The thought, for instance, is as follows: the violent son of a righteous father, even if he has committed only one of the sins which the father has not committed, shall die. And if he has committed even the gross sins named, viz., idolatry, adultery, violent oppression of the poor, robbery, etc., should he then continue to live? The ו in וָחָי introduces the apodosis, which contains a question, that is simply indicated by the tone, and is immediately denied. The antique form חָי for חָיָּה, 3rd pers. perf., is taken from the Pentateuch (cf. Gen 3:22 and Num 21:8). The formulae מֹות יוּמַת and דָּמָיו בֹּו dna are also derived from the language of the law (cf. Lev 20:9, Lev 20:11, Lev 20:13, etc.).