Eze 18:10 | KD | STEP | 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 והוליד, in , is the righteous man described in the preceding verses. פּריץ, violent, literally, breaking in or through, is rendered more emphatic by the words “shedding blood” (cf. Hos 4:2). We regard אח in the next clause as simply a dialectically different form of writing and pronouncing, for אך, “only,” and he doeth only one of these, the sins previously mentioned (Eze 18:6.). מאחד, with a partitive מן, as in , where it is used in a similar connection; the form מאחד 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. עשׂה 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, לא עשׂה...והוּא, 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 כּל־אלּה cannot possibly refer to different things from the preceding מאלּה, and a man cannot at the same time both do and not do the same thing. The כּי which follows signifies “if,” as is frequently the case in the enumeration of particular precepts or cases; compare, for example, , , , 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 גּם (even) forms an antithesis to אח מאחד (אך), or rather an epanorthosis of it, inasmuch as כּי גּם 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 וחי introduces the apodosis, which contains a question, that is simply indicated by the tone, and is immediately denied. The antique form חי for חיּה, 3rd pers. perf., is taken from the Pentateuch (cf. and Num 21:8). The formulae מות יוּמת and דּמיו בּו dna are also derived from the language of the law (cf. , , , etc.).

‏ Ezekiel 18:10

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 והוליד, in Eze 18:10, is the righteous man described in the preceding verses. פּריץ, violent, literally, breaking in or through, is rendered more emphatic by the words “shedding blood” (cf. Hos 4:2). We regard אח in the next clause as simply a dialectically different form of writing and pronouncing, for אך, “only,” and he doeth only one of these, the sins previously mentioned (Eze 18:6.). מאחד, with a partitive מן, as in Lev 4:2, where it is used in a similar connection; the form מאחד 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. עשׂה 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, לא עשׂה...והוּא, 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 כּל־אלּה cannot possibly refer to different things from the preceding מאלּה, and a man cannot at the same time both do and not do the same thing. The כּי 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 גּם (even) forms an antithesis to אח מאחד (אך), or rather an epanorthosis of it, inasmuch as כּי גּם 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 וחי introduces the apodosis, which contains a question, that is simply indicated by the tone, and is immediately denied. The antique form חי for חיּה, 3rd pers. perf., is taken from the Pentateuch (cf. Gen 3:22 and Num 21:8). The formulae מות יוּמת and דּמיו בּו dna are also derived from the language of the law (cf. Lev 20:9, Lev 20:11, Lev 20:13, etc.).