19<\/strong>. Yet say ye, Why?<\/em> ] Rather: and ye say, wherefore doth not the son bear ?<\/strong> The prophet refers to the current view, and supposes it quoted as an objection to his principle. So long as the idea prevailed that the son was, so to speak, part of the father, it was natural to suppose that he should be included in the father’s punishment; hence the people ask, Why doth the son not bear, lit. bear part of, share in bearing<\/em> (so Eze 18:20<\/em><\/span>), the iniquity of the father? In opposition to this idea the prophet states his principle on both its sides, Eze 18:19-20<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n Secondly, Eze 18:21-32<\/em><\/span>. As men shall not be involved in the sins of their people or their fathers, so the individual soul shall not lie under the ban of its own past.<\/p>\n The sinner who turneth from his evil and doeth righteousness shall live in his righteousness, Eze 18:21-23<\/em><\/span>. And on the other hand, the righteous man who turneth away from his righteousness and doeth evil shall die in his evil, Eze 18:24<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n Why?… – <\/B>Rather, Why doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father?<\/P><\/p>\n Notwithstanding this method of the Divine justice, which renders to every one his own work, and gives to every one the fruit of his own doings, ye, proud, quarrelling, self-justifying debauchees, idolaters, adulterers, murderers, usurers, oppressors, will not see your own sins, for which you are punished, but cry you are innocent, that your fathers sinned and you suffer. <\/P> Doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father?<\/B> The prophet here brings in what he met with among them; still every where they insist on it that they deserved not by any sin of their own what they now suffered, and so would cast the sin and guilt on their fathers, and the rigour and severity on God, and clear themselves to all; which the prophet answers by a recapitulation of what he had more largely spoken, and avows it, that the righteous son of an unrighteous father shall live, and not die. <\/P> Kept all my statutes; <\/B>as Psa 119:44<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 19.<\/B> Here the Jews object to theprophet’s word and in their objection seem to seek a continuance ofthat very thing which they had originally made a matter of complaint.Therefore translate, “Wherefore doth not the son bear theiniquity of his father?” It now would seem a consolation to themto think the son might suffer for his father’s misdeeds; for it wouldsoothe their self-love to regard themselves as innocent sufferers forthe guilt of others and would justify them in their present course oflife, which they did not choose to abandon for a better. In reply,Ezekiel reiterates the truth of each being dealt with according tohis own merits [FAIRBAIRN].But GROTIUS supportsEnglish Version,<\/I> wherein the Jews contradict the prophet, “Why(sayest thou so) doth not the son (often, as in our case, thoughinnocent) bear (that is, suffer for) the iniquity of their father?”Ezekiel replies, It is not as you say, but as I in the name of Godsay: “When the son hath done,” &c. English Version<\/I>is simpler than that of FAIRBAIRN.<\/P><\/p>\n Yet say ye, why<\/strong>?…. Why do you say so? why do you go on to assert that which is not fact, or which is contrary to fact, contrary to what we feel and experience every day, to say that children are not punished for their parents’ sins? these are the words of the murmuring, complaining, and blaspheming Jews, quarrelling with the prophet, and with the Lord himself:<\/p>\n doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father<\/strong>? have not we proof of it every day we live? are not our present case and circumstances a full evidence of it? or the words may be rendered, “why does not the son bear the iniquity of the father?” so the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, and Arabic versions; or, as the Targum,<\/p>\n “why is not the son punished for the sins of the father?”<\/p>\n and so they are an objection, which is foreseen might be made, and is here anticipated, to which an answer is returned; and so the Syriac version introduces it, “but if they said”, c. then adds, “tell them”, as follows:<\/p>\n when<\/strong>, or “because”<\/p>\n the son hath done that which is lawful [and] right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them<\/strong>: this is the reason why he shall not bear his father’s sins, or be punished for them intimating that they had not done these things that made the complaint, or put the, question; but had committed the same sins their fathers had, and so were punished, not for their fathers’ sins, but their own: for otherwise the man that does what is just and right with God, and between man and man,<\/p>\n he shall surely live<\/strong>; [See comments on Eze 18:17]<\/span>.<\/p>\n (19) Why? Doth not the son bear?<\/strong>It would be clearer to read this as a single question, Why doth not the son, &c? <\/em>It is the question proposed by the people in objection to what has been declared. To them it seemed the law of nature, the necessity of the case, the teaching of history, that the son should bear the iniquity of his father. Their ideas had not risen to the conception of mans individual responsibility to God; to them the individual was still but a part of the nation or the family. They ask, therefore, why this universal law should now be reversed. It was not true that any law was reversed, it was only that the superior prevailed over the inferior law; but, as usual in such cases, the Divine word does not reason with the human objection, but in this and the following verse only reiterates most emphatically the law of individual responsibility.<\/p>\n OBJECTIONS TO THE PRECEDING STATEMENT OF GOD’S PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT ARE NOW MET, Eze 18:19-30<\/span>.<\/p>\n 19<\/strong>. <\/strong> Yet say ye, Why? <\/strong> etc. Rather, And say ye, Why doth not the son bear a part of the iniquity of the father? <\/em> (also Eze 18:20<\/span>.) The people were so imbued with the common notion that the father must control the son’s destiny that they again asked in great surprise how it could really be that the son did not share at all in the father’s guilt and penalty. To this the prophet merely reaffirms Jehovah’s way of dealing with the just and the unjust, as previously laid down and illustrated (Eze 18:5-24<\/span>).<\/p>\n God Answers The Charge of Unfairness.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n It is worthy of note that the people felt that God was being unfair precisely for the opposite reason than many of us would, bringing out how important, attitude transforming and thought provoking his words were seen to be. They considered, without thinking of the consequences with regard to themselves, that a man should suffer because of the evils of his family. They did not consider that that would then leave them with no hope. They did not see themselves as iniquitous. They looked on themselves as satisfactory.<\/p>\n “Yet you say, ‘Why does the son not bear the iniquity of the father?’<\/p>\n They had grown up with the idea of corporate responsibility. They judged others on the basis of it, and what we see as proper and right because of our background in the word of God they saw as unreasonable and unfair. If a man has done great harm, they argued, then his son must share the responsibility for it, whatever his own behaviour. And to a certain extent this is true in society, but God’s point is that it is only to a certain extent. Of course they would then have gone on to argue that because they belonged to the covenant community God should have treated them as special cases because of it. Thus they did not like the idea that they could be called to personal responsibility.<\/p>\n But God was pointing out that in the end everyone is responsible solely for his own actions, at that time a revolutionary thought. We only have to take responsibility for what we could have done something about. He was not denying that if we sit back and do nothing when wrong things are done then we share responsibility for them. Note His emphasis on the need for positive actions. But He was facing men up with the fact that blame finally depended on personal attitude and behaviour. He gave His reply.<\/p>\n -20 “When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all my statutes, and has done them, he will surely live. The person who sins, he will die. The son will not bear the iniquity of the father, nor will the father bear the iniquity of the son, the righteousness of the righteous will be on him (the righteous one), and the wickedness of the wicked will be on him (the wicked one).”<\/p>\n God’s reply was that each will be judged on his own merits, on the basis of what he reveals himself to be by his life. None will be condemned for the behaviour and attitudes of another. He who honours God and obeys His commands will live. He who by his sin and by his life reveals that He despises God and His ways will die.<\/p>\n Once again the words go deeper than mere life and death, containing some idea of quality of life as well as awfulness of judgment. ‘The one who has done right will surely live, — the one who sins will die.’ The sinner will die in himself before he finally faces the judgment, and then the judgment will lie before him, the dreadful end, the judgment of death and dishonour. While the afterlife was as yet an unknown doctrine some trace of it lies behind the words, an instinct not yet put into words, although Daniel would enunciate it in Dan 12:2-3<\/span>.<\/p>\n ‘The son will not bear the iniquity of the father, nor will the father bear the iniquity of the son, the righteousness of the righteous will be on him (the righteous one), and the wickedness of the wicked will be on him (the wicked one).’ The contrast is deliberately stark in order to establish the principle. It ignores the shades of difference that would arise the levels of righteousness and wickedness. It was the principle that mattered. Each is responsible for himself and will receive accordingly.<\/p>\n Elsewhere it would be revealed that the fully righteous would only be so because of the activity of God in their lives, for none were fully righteous in themselves. But here that was not under consideration. What was in question here was the basis and fairness of the judgment of the God who held each responsible for himself, and judged each one face to face only for his own sins.<\/p>\n Eze 18:19<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Yet say ye, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Do ye say, why doth the son not bear the iniquity of his father?Because the son doeth that, <\/em>&c. Therefore he shall surety live. <\/em>Houbigant. <\/p>\n Eze 18:19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, [and] hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.<\/p>\n Ver. 19. Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father?<\/strong> ] Thus these unreasonable refractories will not be said, but continue chatting against God, quasi dicant, certe tu non potes negare, &c.<\/em> a<\/em> Some are ; 2Th 3:2 they have no topics; there is no talking to them; they will not be set down with right reason. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n When the son hath done that is lawful and right.<\/strong> ] What a meek, sweet, and satisfactory answer doth God make to these importunate complainers against him! Here we have their replication and his duplication; as Eze 18:25<\/span> , we have their triplication and his quadruplication. Oh the infinite patience of our good God! <\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> Piscator.<\/p>\n NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Eze 18:19-20<\/p>\n 19Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. 20The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.<\/p>\n Eze 18:19 This shows the diatribe nature of the chapter. Ezekiel is answering the unspoken (or veiled) questions whispered against YHWH’s justice.<\/p>\n NASBhas observed<\/p>\n NKJVdone<\/p>\n NRSVhas been careful to observe<\/p>\n TEVkept. . .carefully<\/p>\n NJBkept<\/p>\n The VERB (BDB 1036, KB 1581, Qal PERFECT) means to keep, to watch, or to preserve. It implies a careful diligence in observing God’s laws (i.e., Lev 22:31; Deu 4:40; Deu 6:2; Deu 26:17). One’s love for YHWH was expressed in obedience and love for God, other covenant brothers, and aliens. One could not claim to love God if he did not practice it toward other humans. Righteousness in its OT sense implied a care and concern for others, especially the underprivileged, that goes beyond a strict legal standard. Justice was extended by covenant compassion (see Norman H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, pp. 159-173). This is what Jesus teaches in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7.<\/p>\n Eze 18:19-20<\/p>\n Eze 18:19-20<\/p>\n “Yet say ye, Wherefore doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”<\/p>\n Here it is stated both positively and negatively that God’s government and God’s justice are eternally equitable and fair. Again, if the example here has any reference to Josiah, there is a special significance that, “he hath kept all my statutes.” This sheds light upon the false notion that only the moral considerations, not the ceremonial commandments, were involved in determining who was, or was not, righteous. Josiah, it will be recalled, brought Israel once more to their duty of observing the passover!<\/p>\n Why: Exo 20:5, Deu 5:9, 2Ki 23:26, 2Ki 24:3, 2Ki 24:4, Jer 15:4, Lam 5:7 <\/p>\n When: Eze 20:18-20, Eze 20:24, Eze 20:30, Zec 1:3-6 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Lev 10:17 – to bear Lev 26:39 – and also Deu 6:18 – shalt do 2Ki 9:26 – I will requite Job 21:19 – for his Eze 18:3 – General Eze 18:17 – he shall not Eze 18:21 – and do Luk 11:48 – ye bear<\/p>\n Eze 18:19. The first part of this verse is a protest from the people because of the old notion that a son should bear the blame for his fathers evil deeds. The last part is Gods reply, and it is a restatement, of what has been already declared.<\/p>\n Eze 18:19-20. Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? God here puts into the prophets mouth what he knew the Jews would object (at least in their minds) to the foregoing declarations, namely, that they would deny what the prophet had said on this head, and would appeal to facts and experience that the son did bear the iniquity of the father; so that the sense of the first clause of the verse is, Why do you affirm this? does not experience show that the son bears the iniquity of the father? Is it not plain and undeniable, notwithstanding your fine discourse to the contrary? To be sure, we feel the truth of it in our own cases. To this cavil God makes answer in the following words, affirming that this was no otherwise so than when the son followed the example of his fathers iniquity; for that, when the son did that which was lawful and right, and kept Gods statutes, or lived a life of true piety and virtue, he should surely live, that is, should not be punished, or cut off, on account of the iniquity of his father. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him That is, the righteous shall receive the reward of his righteousness. And the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him That is, the reward of his wickedness. As certainly as it shall be well with the righteous, because he shall eat the fruit of his doings, so certainly shall woful punishment be executed upon the wicked who persist in their wickedness: see Isa 3:10-11.<\/p>\n The first objection: God’s conduct 18:19-23<\/span><\/p>\n God proceeded to adopt a dialogical teaching style in which He both asked and answered questions about individual responsibility. This style is quite similar to the Greek diatribe, which Paul used frequently in his writings (e.g., in Romans).<\/p>\n The Israelites were claiming that a righteous son (themselves) would die for his father’s (their ancestors’) wickedness. But this was not true. Individuals who practiced righteousness would experience God’s covenant promise of blessing on their lives even though their fathers practiced wickedness. People die for their own sins, not for the sins of their fathers or the sins of their sons. Likewise people who behave righteously experience the consequences of their personal conduct just as people who behave unrighteously do. Jeremiah, for example, did not die in the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n It is true that we are sinners not only because we practice sin personally (Rom 3:23; Rom 6:23) but also because we were born with a sinful human nature that we inherited from our parents (Psa 51:5; Eph 2:3; Gal 5:17) and because God imputed the sin of Adam to us (Rom 5:12-21). However here the point is that people do not die for the sins of their parents, grandparents, children, or grandchildren but for their own sins.<\/p>\n Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, [and] hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 19. Yet say ye, Why? ] Rather: and ye say, wherefore doth not the son bear … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezekiel 18:19”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20879","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20879"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20879\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"