Ezek 18:10

“(Ver. 10 and following) But if he has fathered a son who is a robber, shedding blood, and he has committed one of these (or, as the Septuagint has translated, if he has committed sins: if he has not walked in the way of his righteous father), and he does all these things, not abstaining from them, but rather feasting on the mountains, defiling the wife of his neighbor, oppressing the needy and the poor, seizing plunder, not returning pledges, lifting his eyes to idols, committing abominations, engaging in usury, and taking more, will he live? When he has done all these detestable things, he will die: his blood will be upon himself. Regarding the thief, it is written in Hebrew Pharis, which in the second edition of Aquila means sinner; Symmachus translates it as transgressor, and the Septuagint and Theodotion as pestilent. Just as a plague creates diseases and usually devastates the regions where it has spread, so does a pestilent person ravage everything. And let us say first according to history, so that you may know that the iniquities of the fathers do not overflow onto the children. If a righteous man does the things that the previous discourse explained in order, he will live. But if he begets a son who departs from the service of the Lord and exchanges his father's virtues for vices, doing what his father did not do and not doing what his father accomplished, can he live? Surely he will not live, but will be guilty of his own blood. Moreover, according to spiritual understanding, the righteous man in Ecclesiasticus, if he proclaims the Gospel faith and his son and disciple is deceived by heretical error, will be called a pestilence. Concerning this, it is written in the first psalm: 'And he did not sit in the seat of pestilence' (Psalm I, 1). And in Proverbs, he is described as confident, shameless, and arrogantly pestilent (Prov. XXXIII). He sheds the blood of the deceived and heaps sins upon himself; he feasts on the mountains of pride, polluting the Church of his neighbor, causing distress to the needy and poor in the knowledge of Scripture, oppressing and overthrowing them; seizing plunder from those who he has led astray from the Church: not returning the pledge he received from his teacher, in order to fulfill what is written: 'Freely you have received, freely give' (Matthew X, 8). And to idols and images, which he fashioned from his own heart, he lifts his eyes, and committing all abominations; and he gives money for usury, so that the error of the master may increase by the diligence of the disciples; and seeking repayment from those to whom he loaned, he demands more than he had given: surely he will not be able to live, but he will die in his own blood.”

“The second case is that of an impious son of a pious father. His pious parentage, so far from excusing, aggravates his guilt. robber--or literally, "a breaker," namely, through all constraints of right. doeth the like to any one--The Hebrew and the parallel (Eze 18:18) require us to translate rather, "doeth to his brother any of these things," namely, the things which follow in Eze 18:11, &c. [MAURER].”

“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.).”