Ezekiel 18:1–20

This chapter and the next close a section of the prophecy. That section follows up the opening vision of the glory of God departing from Jerusalem, after His providential use of Nebuchadnezzar. It is a moral judgment. It proves the need of an outward judgment, in which they would know that the One who speaks and acts is Jehovah.

Notice that they were using this proverb in the land of Israel — the land God gave them, a land that was truly "a good land," a land He had brought them into by wonderful miracles… In this good land they could speak of "sour grapes" which their fathers had eaten, setting their children's teeth on edge through no failure of their own! … All the more, because these people are the objects of His love, for whom He has shown Himself mighty, must He silence this talk forever.

At the captivity God acts on the murmuring of His people. He ends any further governmental dealings on the ground of Exodus 34:6-7. From now on He would take them on their own terms. They complained of the hardship of suffering for the failings of their fathers, so He would now give them what they themselves deserved. It is clear that a sinner must suffer for sin. If he challenges the justice of paying the penalty of a parent's evil, he cannot deny that he ought to be punished for his own.

Ezekiel 18 contains an important principle of God's dealings, unfolded at that time. God would judge the individual according to his own conduct… But now, in His land of Israel, He set aside the principle of government laid down in Exodus 34:7. Souls belong to Jehovah one by one, and each would bear the judgment of its own sins. God would pardon the repenting sinner. For He has no pleasure in the sinner's death.

The chapter replaces the Jewish principle of government, that the "children should die for their fathers' sins," with the declaration that "each should die for his own." From other teaching of the Holy Scriptures we may know, and do know, the terrible effect of a man's dying in his sins. But that is not directly the subject here… It is the government of Jehovah which is the subject of the chapter.

It is "the soul that sins" that dies, true; but what is the soul in this Old Testament language? Just the person himself, the man God made "a living soul." … All this fits the whole character of Ezekiel's prophecy. That prophecy looks at the world, and at God's judgment of the nations as nations and of Israel as a nation. God carries out that judgment by special instruments — here by Nebuchadnezzar. Eternal judgment is entirely out of the question. It is not Nebuchadnezzar who inflicts eternal penalty.

The statement of the chapter is very full, and God's earnestness about it is easy to see. It is not a small matter to Him what man, the creature He has made, may make of Him. He is saying here, as in the opening words of another prophet: "Come, let us reason together"… Man's arguments are only those of unbelief, of self-ignorance. Whoever does not know God, we may be sure, does not know himself to begin with.

Israel complained that they were in trouble and cut off because of their fathers' sins. The fathers had eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth were set on edge. Such was the law: the son bore his father's guilt, and the father's guilt fell on the children. This was to stop. The soul of the father belonged to Jehovah, and so did the soul of the son. The soul that sinned would die.

Notice where they were using this proverb: in the land of Israel, the land God gave them, the land that was truly "a good land." He had brought them into it by the most wonderful miracles... In this good land they could talk of the "sour grapes" their fathers had eaten, and of their own teeth set on edge through no fault of their own!

He Himself has assured us that He visits "the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation." But He adds words that are needed to stop it being misread: "of those who hate Me." Israel took up their proverb from just such a misreading, and elsewhere the Lord condemns that proverb in the strongest terms... He not only says it, but swears it: they will have no reason to use such a proverb.

They allow the wickedness of earlier generations — which is not as hard to confess as one's own — and so they admit that their fathers ate the sour grapes, but not themselves. But the commandment says something quite different. Those who love God and keep His commandments have in it a definite promise of mercy, so they could not come under a contradictory law of inheriting their father's sins.

At the captivity God acts on the murmuring of His people. He ends any further government dealings with them on the ground of Exodus 34:6-7. From now on He would take them on their own terms. They complained of the hardship of suffering for their fathers' wrongdoing, so He would now give them what they themselves deserved. Clearly a sinner must suffer for sin. If he questions the justice of paying for a parent's evil, he cannot deny that he should be punished for his own.

The mouth of Israel is closed. Their murmurs were only quibbles. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? ... It is always so. Those who find fault with the Lord's ways, whether in mercy or in judgment, have never seen themselves in His light.

It replaces the Jewish principle of government, that the "children should die for their fathers' sins," with the declaration that "each should die for his own." From other teaching in the Holy Scriptures we know the terrible result of a man dying in his sins. But that is not the subject here. If it were, a son's soul would have been lost under the law for his father's sins, and that is monstrous.

It was in this good land that they could talk about the "sour grapes" their fathers had eaten. And their own children's teeth were set on edge through no fault of their own! These people are the ones He loves. He has shown Himself mighty for them. All the more, then, must He silence this talk forever: "As I live, declares the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel."

The second commandment of the law is what is in question here. That is what gave a seeming excuse for the saying itself. For God had declared that He was "a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." The resentful thought of those caught up in the nation's present troubles seems clear. They felt the third and fourth generations were suffering for faults that were in no way their own. They admit the wickedness of earlier generations, which is not so hard to confess as one's own. So they agree that their fathers ate the sour grapes, but not themselves. But the commandment says something quite different. Those who love God and keep His commandments have in it a definite promise of mercy. So they could not fall under the opposite rule of inheriting their father's sins.

Israel's statute book had already said this plainly: "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deut. 24:16.) Long after this, the children of Israel were twisting the words of the law itself in the same way. In Ezekiel 18 God restates the principle of Deuteronomy, to vindicate the righteousness of His ways.

At the captivity God acts on the murmuring of His people. He ends any further dealings with them on the governing principle of Exodus 34:6-7. From now on He would take them on their own terms. They complained of the hardship of suffering for the failures of their fathers. So He would now give them what they themselves deserved. A sinner must suffer for sin. If he challenges the justice of paying for a parent's evil, he cannot deny that he deserves punishment for his own. All were God's, the souls of fathers and of sons alike; and the sinner must die. There was no relief or escape on any such pretext.

Another important thing to notice here is the misuse of the word "die." As spiritual people we may be quite right to see that men can be dead while they live. We can be dead in sin towards God while still alive. The judgment of death means being cut off from God, while the gift of life brings us, in principle, into blessedness with Him. But dying in its plain sense is never applied to the soul. Good people with good intentions constantly quote Ezekiel 18 for this. But it speaks only of death in this world — present judgment here; not for a father's sins, but for our own.

God tested them on their own ground, with the same result of ruin because of their evil. How much better then to repent than to complain and murmur! Complaint only makes the evil worse and brings certain vengeance on such mounting rebellion against God.

In this good land they could speak of the "sour grapes" their fathers ate, and of children's teeth set on edge through no fault of their own! These people are the objects of His love, and He has shown Himself mighty for them. All the more must He silence this talk forever... You can see His heart in the answer: "Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine."

We must remember that God brought Israel into a special relationship with Himself as Creator... So, if God says to Pharaoh, "Israel is my son, my firstborn," a firstborn son implies there are other sons. And if there is a special promise to Abraham and to his offspring, that promise takes others in as well — indirectly, but just as truly: "In you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed."

Using "soul" for a person is common today. I say, "It is a town of fifteen thousand souls." Who misunderstands me? Israel complained that they were in trouble and cut off for their fathers' sins... As the soul of the father, so the soul of the son was Jehovah's. The soul that sinned would die.

He would now give them what they deserved. It is evident that a sinner must suffer for sin; and if he challenges the justice of paying the penalty of a parent's evil, he cannot deny that he ought to be punished for his own. All were God's, alike the souls of fathers and of sons; and the sinner must die. There was no relief or escape on any such pretext.

God would deal with each person according to his own conduct. It is not a question of what their fathers had been. Their own sins called for God's judgment, and would bring it. Long before, God had threatened to visit "the iniquities of the fathers upon the children" (Ex. 34:7). That principle is now set aside. Each was guilty on his own, and would be judged as such. Still, where they showed repentance, God would pardon, for He had no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23). Keep in mind that what is spoken of here is temporal judgment — physical death, because of sin now. It gives us no teaching about the eternal judgment of sin, which is taught elsewhere.

Death never means the end of existence — never; not even the second death, for the second death is the lake of fire.

When it is a question of sin, as God measures it, death is the just penalty — and the only one, as far as life in this world goes. "The soul who sins shall die." But that severe sentence would carry every soul into eternal punishment. So God, who does not want the sinner to die, brings in the principle of substitution. He carries out judgment to the full on His own Son, making Him, who never knew sin, to be sin for us. Then He preaches peace and life by Jesus Christ.

First, then, the Lord speaks of His way with a righteous man. He does not mean a man who is righteous in an absolute sense, as already said, but a man marked out as righteous: "If a man is righteous and does what is just and right … he has walked in My statutes and kept My ordinances to deal faithfully; he is righteous; he shall surely live, says the Lord Jehovah." So this completely overturned the proverb Israel was using. There is no question about their ancestry; each one was responsible for himself; and this is the basic principle of all that follows.

This deserves careful thought. At the captivity God acts on the murmuring of His people. He ends any further government dealings on the ground of Exodus 34:6-7. From now on He would take them on their own terms. They complained of the hardship of suffering for the failings of their fathers, so He would now give them what they themselves deserved. Clearly a sinner must suffer for sin. And if he questions the justice of paying the penalty for a parent's evil, he cannot deny that he deserves punishment for his own.

God is speaking of the man who is righteous in character. That is what marks him off from the wicked, even though he, "the righteous," makes no claim to absolute righteousness. Yet he escapes the death spoken of here.

The first case is a man who is himself just and does judgment and justice, both toward God and toward his neighbour. He not only refuses impurity and unrighteousness. He also shows loving care to the distressed, refuses selfish advantage, keeps clear of iniquity, and maintains fairness between man and man, while walking in the divine statutes. Such a one shall surely live.

In verses 1-4 we find the false accusation against God and God's answer. Verses 5-9 then give the conditions of life: "The soul that sins, it shall die" (verse 4). But sinful man cannot meet these conditions for life and for being just. "Eternal life" is not in view in these verses. They are not conditions for securing "eternal life," but for escaping physical death in the judgment that was announced.

Ezekiel 18 contains an important principle of God's dealings, made known at that time. God would judge the individual according to his own conduct... The government of Israel on earth is still the subject. Every one shall be judged according to his ways.

In the first place, the Lord speaks of His way with a righteous man — not righteous in an absolute sense, as already said, but marked out as such... This completely overturned the proverb Israel was using. There is no question about their ancestry; each one was responsible for himself; and this is the basic principle of all that follows.

The high hills of the land God had now brought them into, and the trees that showed how fertile it was, became their places of idol worship. There they lifted up offerings that provoked Him, while claiming these were for Him... Their joyful drink-offerings became nothing but drunken parties in honour of their many gods. This worship in the high places had left its mark on the land, in the very names the places carried.

"These men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumbling block of their iniquity before their faces. Should I indeed let myself be consulted by them?"... God's set-apart people had defiled themselves... Whatever they looked like or claimed to be, they had "set up their idols in their heart." It was not a question of outside force or influence. The elders liked these detestable things; they ran after idols with secret greed.

The first case is a man who is himself just, and who does judgment and justice both toward God and toward his neighbour. He refuses impurity and unrighteousness. He also cares for those in distress, refuses selfish advantage, keeps away from iniquity, and maintains fairness between one man and another, while walking in God's statutes. Such a man shall surely live.

Ezekiel 18 sets out an important principle in God's dealings, made clear at that time. God would judge the individual according to his own conduct... But now, in His land of Israel, God set aside the rule of government given in Exodus 34:7. Each soul belonged to the Lord one by one, and each would bear the judgment of its own sins. God would pardon the repenting sinner. For He has no pleasure in the sinner's death.

It is not a question of what their fathers had been. Their own sins demanded and would bring on God's judgment... Still, where repentance was clear, God would pardon, for He had no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Keep in mind that what is spoken of here is temporal judgment — physical death, because of sin now. It teaches us nothing about the eternal judgment of sin. Scripture teaches that elsewhere.

First, the Lord speaks of His way with a righteous man — not a man who is righteous in the absolute sense, as already said, but one marked out as righteous… So this completely overturned the proverb Israel was using. There is no question about their ancestry; each one was responsible for himself; and this is the basic principle of all that follows.

The first case is a man who is himself just and does judgment and justice, both toward God and toward his neighbour. He does not only refuse impurity and unrighteousness. He also cares for people in distress, refuses selfish gain, keeps away from wrongdoing, maintains fairness between man and man, and walks in God's statutes. Such a one shall surely live.

In Scripture this word does not mean excessive interest, as it does now, but interest of any kind. The Israelites were not to charge interest to a fellow Israelite. The assumption is always that the borrower was poor — otherwise he would not need to borrow. They were allowed, however, to lend to strangers at interest.

The need of the poor comes next. God had commanded generosity to them, so taking interest from them is forbidden. The stranger, whom they were allowed to charge, most likely borrowed for trade. But Israel was not meant to be a trading nation, and least of all to prosper on the needs of their own people.

God must have reality in His people. Grace was never meant to weaken the moral ways of God, and it never can… When the soul receives grace and values it, however weakly, that grace produces fruit of righteousness in everyday life between people, just as surely as it sets everything right toward God. There is no more destructive trap than this: people who sin and go on in it plead their privilege.

The Lord had called His people back to the second table of the law — love to their neighbours… So He called them to execute true judgment and to show no favouritism; to have a tender and compassionate heart; to keep from oppressing the helpless, the widow, the fatherless, the stranger and the poor… All this shows the value God attaches to our practical conduct, to a walk in relation to others shaped and ordered by His word.

Verses 5-9 give the conditions of life… But sinful man cannot fulfil the conditions to have life and to be just. And "eternal life" is not in view in these verses. These are not conditions to secure "eternal life," but to escape physical death in the judgment God had announced.

People quote Ezekiel 18 for this all the time, and good people use it with good intentions. But it speaks only of death in this world — judgment here and now; not for a father's sins, but for our own.

He could make known His patience, and say, "When the wicked man turns from his wickedness, and does what is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive" (Ezek. 18:27). But who ever did what was lawful, as measured by a law, to break one commandment of which was to be "guilty of all"? … "There is none righteous, no, not one" was the law's verdict.

First, the Lord speaks of His way with a righteous man. He is not absolutely righteous, as already said, but distinctively so: "If a man is righteous and does what is just and right … he walks in My statutes and keeps My rules by acting faithfully; he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord God." This completely overturned the proverb Israel was using. There is no question about their ancestry; each one was responsible for himself; and this is the basic principle of all that follows.

The first case is a man who is himself just and does what is just and right, in relation to God and to his neighbour. He not only refuses impurity and unrighteousness. He also shows loving care for those in distress, refuses selfish advantage, keeps clear of iniquity, and maintains fairness between one man and another. Along with all this, he walks in the divine statutes: such a man shall surely live.

Someone will object, and rightly. God speaks of a penalty of death through Ezekiel in "the soul who sins shall die." That can hardly be a penalty resting on all, when God Himself positively exempts the righteous from it. "The soul who sins shall die" simply stands in contrast with the righteous man, who shall not die but live. And God is not speaking of absolute righteousness. He means those who in heart are His own — the people the Old Testament so often calls "the righteous."

In all that is now before us, we are on the plane of God's outward, visible government, so prominent and fitting in the prophecy of Ezekiel. So the death threatened to the wicked is not simply that under which we all are. Nor is it, as people commonly suppose, eternal death as the doom of every unrepentant soul. It is a removal from earth, under the government of God — a government which even for the present makes for blessing to the upright with Him. The apostle also tells us that godliness "holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come."

Ezekiel 18, constantly quoted for this, and used by good people with good intentions, speaks only of death in this world — present judgment here; not for a father's sins, but for our own.

This is what the law is like. Its demands are strict. Its measure is perfect. Its standard never changes. It inflicts death on the one who breaks it, without any promise of mercy. In itself the law is holy, just, and good. But it can show man's sinfulness without giving him life or righteousness … Who, then, can claim life on the ground of the law? Who can say, I am clean, I am pure, I have never broken Your commands at any time? Blessed be God, there was One who could say, "I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do."

But what if his son should be a burglar, a shedder of blood, or the like — should he live? … "Shall he then live? He shall not live: he has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself." Such is the second.

First, as to the son of the righteous: if this righteous man "has fathered a son who is violent, a shedder of blood … shall he live because of his father's righteousness?" This was an important question for the Jew, and especially for the Jew of the captivity. The nation was under God's dealings and cut off from their land and temple. So they learned more and more to fall back on the merits of Abraham. The Rabbis pressed those merits so far as to involve in some sense the acceptance of all his natural offspring. The question is turned back on them. Here was a father who had not eaten sour grapes; did that stop his children's teeth being set on edge? God was dealing with them for their own sins. They forfeited all the privileges they had through Abraham if in their own character they were not the true offspring of Abraham.

But they raise the objection, "Why? Does not the son bear the iniquity of his father?" Despite many commentators, the second commandment of the law is clearly in question here. It was that which gave a seeming excuse for the proverb itself… They grant the wickedness of former generations, which is not so hard to confess as one's own. They admit that their fathers did eat the sour grapes, but not themselves. But the commandment speaks quite otherwise than this. Those who love God and keep His commandments have in it the definite assurance that He will show them mercy. So they could not come under the contradictory law of inheriting their father's sins.

It is evident that a sinner must suffer for sin. If he challenges the justice of paying the penalty of a parent's evil, he cannot deny that he deserves punishment for his own. All were God's, the souls of fathers and of sons alike, and the sinner must die. There was no relief or escape on any such pretext.

This chapter replaces the Jewish principle of government, that the "children should die for their fathers' sins," with the declaration that "each should die for his own." We may know, and do know, from other teaching of Holy Scripture, the terrible effect of a man dying in his sins. But that is not directly the subject here. If it were, a son's soul would have been lost, by the law, for his father's sins, which is monstrous. It is the government of Jehovah that is the subject of the chapter.

This should always be the result for someone who has had such an object lesson in front of him. Suppose he reads it rightly, turns from his father's iniquity, and walks in the divine statutes. Should he die for his father's iniquity? No, he should surely live. Father and son are each judged according to their own personal character.

The first case is a man who is himself just and does what is right, towards God and towards his neighbour — not only refusing impurity and unrighteousness, but also caring for those in distress, refusing selfish advantage, and walking in God's statutes: such a one shall surely live (verses 5-9). But what if his son should be a burglar, a shedder of blood, or the like — should he live? "If he fathers a son who is a robber, a shedder of blood... and does none of those duties, but even has eaten on the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife... shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him" (verses 10-13).

In Israel, turning away from God took the outward form of building "high places." It was only a heathen habit, playing on the imagination with a worship that has no heart... On the mountain tops a man could imagine himself nearer to God than in the valleys. The depths of groves and forests helped too. Their beauty made him think he was nearer to the God of nature than he was... Among the nations these high places and groves were bound to turn to evil instead of good, and the worst of their abominations attached themselves to them. The language used here is figurative, but it is drawn from the awful grossness of those abominations, in which the lusts and passions of men were let loose as homage to the God of nature, with the degradation that followed.

This was an important question for the Jew, and above all for the Jew of the captivity. The nation was under God's dealings and cut off from their land and temple, so they learned more and more to fall back on the merits of Abraham... The question is turned back on them. Here was a father who had not eaten sour grapes; did it stop his children having their teeth set on edge? God was dealing with them for their own sins. They forfeited all the privileges they had through Abraham if in their own character they were not the true seed of Abraham.

At the captivity God acts on the murmuring of His people and He stops governing them on the principle of Exodus 34:6-7. From now on He would take them on their own terms. They complained of the hardship of suffering for their fathers' failures, so He would now give them what they themselves deserved. It is clear that a sinner must suffer for sin. A man may challenge the justice of paying for a parent's evil. He still cannot deny that he deserves punishment for his own. All were God's, the souls of fathers and of sons alike; and the sinner must die. There was no relief or escape on any such pretext.

Another thing important to notice here is the misuse of the word "die"... But dying in its positive sense is never applied to the soul. So Ezekiel 18 is constantly quoted for this, and good people use it with good intentions. But it speaks only of death in this world — present judgment here, not for a father's sins, but for our own.

Each one of them was guilty, and God would judge them as such. Still, where a man showed repentance, God would pardon, for He had no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Here we have the son of the righteous, or the son of the wicked, as he himself is righteous or wicked. Take first the son of the righteous. Suppose this righteous man "fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood" — shall that son live because of his father's righteousness? This was an important question for the Jew, and above all for the Jew of the captivity. The nation was under God's dealings, cut off from their land and temple, and they leaned more and more on the merits of Abraham. God was dealing with them for their own sins. They lost all the privileges they had through Abraham if in their own character they were not the true seed of Abraham.

At the captivity God acts on the murmuring of His people. He ends any further dealings with them as their Ruler on the ground of Exodus 34:6-7. From now on He would take them on their own terms. They complained that it was hard to suffer for the failures of their fathers, so He would now give them what they themselves deserved. It is clear that a sinner must suffer for sin. If he challenges the justice of paying the penalty for a parent's evil, he cannot deny that he ought to be punished for his own.

All through the Word of God we are told to remember the poor in kindness. He gives some most blessed promises to those who obey these gracious words. See Proverbs 19:17; 22:9; Psalm 41:1. Oppression of the poor is a sin God takes special note of. See Isaiah 3:14, 15; Ezekiel 18:11-13; Amos 2:6; James 2:6. When the Lord comes He will remember the poor and deliver them.

If a borrower gave his garment as security, the lender must not keep it even overnight. God's righteous demands must never come before proper compassion.

This word does not in Scripture mean, as it does now, unfair interest, but simply interest of any kind. The Israelites were forbidden to require interest from their brothers, always assuming that the person taking the loan was poor — otherwise he would not need to borrow; to foreigners, however, they were allowed to lend on interest.

In Israel, turning away from God showed itself outwardly in the building of "high places." This was only a pagan habit. It played on the imagination with a worship that has no heart in it... On the mountain tops a man could imagine himself nearer to God than in the valleys... Among the pagans these high places and these groves were bound to turn to evil instead of good, and the worst abominations of the pagan world attached themselves to them.

Verses 1-4 give us the false accusation against God and God's answer. Verses 5-9 then set out the conditions of life... But sinful man cannot meet the conditions for having life and being just, and "eternal life" is not in view in these verses. These are not conditions for securing eternal life, but for escaping physical death in the judgment that was announced. Verses 10-13 give the conditions that bring death.

This word does not in Scripture mean, as it does now, unfair interest, but simply interest of any kind. The Israelites were forbidden to charge interest to their fellow Israelites. This always assumed that the person taking the loan was poor, since otherwise he would not need to borrow. To strangers, however, they were allowed to lend on interest. Ex. 22:25; Lev. 25:35-38; Deut. 23:19-20.

First, the son of the righteous man. If this righteous man "fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood … shall he live because of his father's righteousness?" This was an important question for the Jews, and especially for the Jews of the captivity. The nation was under God's dealings and cut off from their land and temple, so they fell back more and more on the merits of Abraham. The Rabbis pressed those merits so far as to include, in some sense, the acceptance of all Abraham's natural offspring. The question is turned back on them. Here was a father who had not eaten sour grapes; did that stop his children's teeth being set on edge? God was dealing with them for their own sins. They lost every privilege they had through Abraham if in their own character they were not the true seed of Abraham.

Turn to the passage in Ezekiel where this expression appears, and where it comes from. We shall see that it has nothing to do with the death of the soul as separate from the body. It means a man's death as living in this world. We use "soul" to mean "person" like this all the time. I say, "It is a town of fifteen thousand souls." Who misunderstands me? … A devout father had a wicked son: "Shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself."

At the captivity God acts on the murmuring of His people. He ends any further dealings with them on the ground of Exodus 34:6-7. From now on He would take them on their own terms. They complained of the hardship of suffering for the failures of their fathers, so He would now give them their own deserts. It is clear that a sinner must suffer for sin. If he challenges the justice of paying the penalty for a parent's evil, he cannot deny that he ought to be punished for his own. All were God's, the souls of fathers and of sons alike; and the sinner must die. There was no relief or escape on any such pretext.

The individual would be dealt with by God according to his own conduct. It was not a question of what their fathers had been. Their own iniquities called for and would bring God's judgment… Still, where a person showed repentance, God would pardon, for He had no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23). We must keep in mind that this passage speaks of judgment in this life — physical death because of sin now. It gives us no teaching about the eternal judgment of sin, which is taught elsewhere.

Next comes the question of the son of the wicked man. He "sees all the sins that his father has done; he sees, and does not do likewise." This should always be the result for someone who has had such an object lesson in front of him. Suppose he reads it rightly and turns from his father's iniquity to walk in the divine statutes. Should he die for his father's iniquity? No, he should surely live. Father and son are judged according to their own personal character.

At the captivity God acts on the murmuring of His people. He no longer deals with them on the ground of Exodus 34:6-7. From now on He would take them on their own terms. They complained of the hardship of suffering for their fathers' failures, so He would now give them what they themselves deserved. It is clear that a sinner must suffer for sin. If he challenges the justice of paying the penalty for a parent's evil, he cannot deny that he deserves punishment for his own.

Many commentators say otherwise, but the second commandment of the law is clearly in question here... For God had declared that He was "a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me, and showing mercy to thousands of those who love Me and keep My commandments."... But the commandment says something quite different. Those who love God and keep His commandments have in it the definite assurance that He will show them mercy. So they could not come under the contradictory rule of inheriting their father's sins.

If I keep on in my father's sin, I am more guilty than he is, because his sin was a warning to me. My sin is double, morally increased by all the effect his sin ought to have had in holding me back... it is clear that in this case my father's sin has hardened my heart. I have seen my father, or ought to have seen him, in the light of God given to me.

This was an important question for the Jew, and above all for the Jew of the captivity. The nation was under God's dealings and cut off from their land and temple, so they fell back more and more on the merits of Abraham... The question is turned back on them. Here was a father who had not eaten sour grapes; did that stop his children's teeth being set on edge? God was dealing with them for their own sins. They forfeited every privilege they had through Abraham if in their own character they were not the true seed of Abraham.

Each one was guilty, and God would judge each one as such. Yet where repentance was clear, God would pardon, for He had no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23). Keep in mind that what is spoken of here is temporal judgment — physical death, because of sin now. It gives us no teaching about the eternal judgment of sin, which is taught elsewhere.

At the captivity God acts on the murmuring of His people and ends any further governmental dealings on the ground of Exodus 34:6-7. From now on He would take them on their own terms. They complained of the hardship of suffering for the failures of their fathers, so He would now give them what they themselves deserved. It is clear that a sinner must suffer for sin. A man may question whether it is just to pay the penalty for a parent's evil. He still cannot deny that he deserves punishment for his own.

Suppose a third case — a son warned by the wicked ways of his father. "Now, look, if he has a son who sees all his father's sins ... he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live."

First the Lord speaks of His way with a righteous man — not absolutely righteous, but distinctively so: "If a man is righteous, and does judgment and justice, he has not eaten on the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel ... he shall surely live, says the Lord Jehovah." That completely undermined the proverb Israel was using. There is no question about their ancestry. Each one was responsible for himself, and this is the basic principle of all that follows.

Next comes the son of the wicked man, who "sees all his father's sins which he has done, and considers, and does not do the same." This should always be the result for someone with such an object lesson in front of him. Suppose he reads it rightly, turns from his father's iniquity, and walks in the divine statutes. Should he die for the iniquity of his father? No, he should surely live. God judges father and son by their own personal character.

Despite many commentators, the second commandment of the law is clearly in question here. It was that which gave a seeming excuse for the proverb itself... The resentful thought of those caught in the nation's present disasters seems clear. They held that the third and fourth generations were suffering for faults that were in no way their own. They admit the wickedness of former generations, which is not so hard to confess as one's own. They grant that their fathers ate the sour grapes, but say that they themselves did not. But the commandment says something quite different. Those who love God and keep His commandments find in it a definite promise of mercy.

Man's nature is actively evil, and what that nature does is our own individual responsibility. If a wicked father has a wicked son, the son's wickedness is his own responsibility, not his parent's. The law of the land would not excuse a thief because his father and grandfather had been thieves before him. In the same way, God's law does not excuse each of us for the sinful nature we inherited from the parent of our race.

An important thing to notice here is the misuse of the word "die." ... But dying in its positive sense never applies to the soul. Good people with good intentions constantly quote Ezekiel 18 for this. But it speaks only of death in this world — present judgment here, not for a father's sins but for our own.

This deserves careful thought. At the captivity God acts on the murmuring of His people and ends any further governmental dealings on the basis of Exodus 34:6-7. From now on He would take them on their own terms. They complained about the hardship of suffering for their fathers' failures, so He would now give them what they themselves deserved.

Next comes the question of the son of the wicked man, who "sees all his father's sins which he has done, and considers, and does not do the same." This should always be the result when someone has such an object lesson in front of him. Suppose he reads it rightly, turning from his father's iniquity and walking in the divine statutes. Should he die for his father's iniquity? No, he should surely live. Father and son are judged according to their own personal character.

The first case is a man who is himself just and does judgment and justice, both toward God and toward his neighbour. He refuses impurity and unrighteousness. He also shows loving care for the distressed, refuses selfish advantage, keeps clear of iniquity, and maintains fairness between man and man, all while walking in the divine statutes. Such a man shall surely live.

A lender was not to charge interest to the poor who borrowed money (Ex. 22:25), and he was not to keep a neighbour's pledged garment overnight (Ex. 22:26-27). To this last God adds this beautiful expression, "for I am gracious."

And indeed what service could be more blessed than to clothe the naked and feed the hungry? The Lord Himself will sit on the throne of His glory to judge the living nations. There He names these as services rendered to Himself in the person of His "brothers." He says, "I was hungry and you gave me food… I was naked and you clothed me." (Matt. 25:35-36.)

Sinful man cannot fulfil the conditions for having life and being just. "Eternal life" is not in view in these verses. These are not conditions for securing eternal life, but for escaping physical death in the announced judgment.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he has committed, and keep all my statutes, and do what is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he has committed shall not be mentioned to him: in his righteousness that he has done he shall live.

The wicked father must perish; the son warned by his father's example shall live. In this way the path is clear for the maxim — "the soul who sins shall die." The son does not suffer for his father's wrong, nor the father for his son's. Each reaps what he had sown.

At the captivity God acts on the complaints of His people. He ends any further governmental dealings on the basis of Exodus 34:6-7. From then on He would take them on their own terms. They complained of the hardship of suffering for their fathers' failures, so He would now give them what they themselves deserved. It is plain that a sinner must suffer for sin. If a man questions the justice of paying the penalty of a parent's evil, he cannot deny that he ought to bear punishment for his own. All were God's, the souls of fathers and of sons alike; and the sinner must die. There was no relief or escape by any such excuse.

This was an important question for the Jew, and above all for the Jew of the captivity. The nation was under God's dealings, cut off from their land and temple, and they learned more and more to fall back on the merits of Abraham... God was dealing with them for their own sins. If in their own character they were not the true seed of Abraham, they were bound to forfeit every privilege they had through him.

God had declared that He was "a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments"... But the commandment says quite the opposite. Those who love God and keep His commandments have in it the definite assurance that He will show them mercy. So they could not come under the contradictory rule of inheriting their father's sins.

This replaces the Jewish principle of government — that "children should die for their fathers' sins" — with the declaration that "each should die for his own." From other teaching of the Holy Scriptures we may know, and do know, the terrible effect of a man's dying in his sins. But that is not the direct subject here. If it were, the law would have cost a son his soul for his father's sins, which is monstrous. It is the government of Jehovah that is the subject of the chapter.

They were guilty as individuals, and God would judge them as such. Still, where a person showed repentance, God would pardon, for He had no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

But they raise the objection: "Why? Does not the son bear the iniquity of his father?" Many commentators say otherwise, but the second commandment of the law is clearly in question here. That is what gave a seeming excuse for the proverb itself. For God had declared that He was "a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Me, and showing mercy to thousands of those who love Me and keep My commandments." The resentful thought in the minds of those caught in the nation's present disasters seems clear. They felt the third and fourth generations were suffering for faults that were in no way their own. They admit the wickedness of earlier generations — which is not so hard to confess as one's own. Their fathers ate the sour grapes, they say, but not themselves. But the commandment says the very opposite. Those who love God and keep His commandments are given in it a definite promise of mercy. So they could not come under a contradictory law of inheriting their fathers' sins.

Ezekiel 18 contains an important principle of God's dealings, unfolded at that period. God would judge the individual according to his own conduct... But now, in His land of Israel, God set aside the principle of government laid down in Exodus 34:7. Souls belonged to Jehovah one by one, and each would bear the judgment of his own sins. God would pardon the repenting sinner. For He has no pleasure in the sinner's death.

The wicked father must perish; the son who takes warning from it shall live. That leaves the way clear for the rule — "the soul that sins, it shall die." The son does not suffer for his father's wrong, nor the father for his son's. Each reaps what he has sown.

This chapter replaces the Jewish principle of government, that the "children should die for their fathers' sins," with the declaration that "each should die for his own." We may know, and do know, from other teaching of the Holy Scriptures, the terrible effect of a man's dying in his sins. But that is not directly the subject here. If it were, a son's soul would have been lost, by the law, for his father's sins, which is monstrous. It is the government of Jehovah that is the subject of the chapter.

This was an important question for the Jew, and above all for the Jew of the captivity. The nation was under God's dealings, cut off from their land and temple, and they leaned more and more on the merits of Abraham... The question turns back on them. Here was a father who had not eaten sour grapes. Did that stop his children's teeth being set on edge? God was dealing with them for their own sins. They forfeited every privilege they had through Abraham if in their own character they were not the true seed of Abraham.

We certainly inherit both a sinful nature and its consequences. But the nature is not in question here. The popular proverb is speaking about the penalty. We all truly have a fallen nature. Still, man is not like a beast, to be bound by his nature or excused by it. Let a man argue as he will about what he has inherited from Adam. About every sin he has committed, he knows in his own soul that he is responsible, and why. He cannot put his sins to Adam's account. They are his own.

At the captivity God acts on the murmuring of His people. He ends any further dealings with them on the ground of Exodus 34:6-7. From now on He would take them on their own terms. They complained of the hardship of suffering for their fathers' wrongdoing, so He would now give them what they themselves deserved. It is clear that a sinner must suffer for sin. If he challenges the justice of paying the penalty for a parent's evil, he cannot deny that he ought to be punished for his own. All were God's, the souls of fathers and of sons alike; and the sinner must die. There was no relief or escape on any such excuse.

The wicked father must perish. The son warned by his father's example shall live. The way is now clear for the rule — "The soul who sins shall die." The son does not suffer for his father's wrong, nor the father for his son's. Each reaps as he has sown.

He has assured us Himself that He is "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation." But then He adds words that guard against a wrong reading: "of those who hate Me." And elsewhere the Lord strongly condemns the proverb Israel had taken up from just such a wrong reading: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." He not only says it, He swears it. They shall have no reason to use such a proverb. The son shall not bear the father's guilt, nor the father the son's. The righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked on him. And the repentance of anyone shall turn his doom aside.

Turn to the passage in Ezekiel where this expression comes from. You will see that it has nothing to do with the death of the soul apart from the body. It speaks of a man's death while he lives in this world. Such a use of "soul" for "person" is common now. I say, It is a town of fifteen thousand souls. Who misunderstands me?

God would deal with each person according to his own conduct. It was not a question of what their fathers had been. Their own sins demanded and would bring down God's judgment... Each one was guilty, and God would judge each one. Yet where He saw repentance, He would pardon, for He had no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Keep in mind that this passage speaks of judgment in this life — physical death now, because of sin. It gives us no teaching about the eternal judgment of sin, which is taught elsewhere.

The law of holiness and truth is that the soul that sins, it shall die. Death, then, is God's just appointment for man, because he is a sinner. Man dies only because of sin... The only just way of putting sin away was by death. Clearly no sinful man could die for another's sin, because he must die for himself. The Son of God, on whom death had no claim (because He knew no sin), was able to die for others.