EXEGETICAL NOTES.—The ways of life and death are here for all set forth. A man’s own sins even, provided they are forsaken, will not exclude him from salvation. “The proof that every one must bear his sin did not contain an exhaustive reply to the question—in what relation the righteousness of God stood to the sin of man? For the cases supposed in Ezekiel 18:5-20 took for granted that there was a constant persistence in the course once taken, and overlooked the instances, which are by no means rare, when a man’s course of life is entirely changed. It still remained, therefore, to take notice of such cases as these, and they are handled in Ezekiel 18:21-26. The ungodly man who repents and turns, shall live; and the righteous man, who turns to the way of sin, shall die.”—(Keil.)
Ezekiel 18:21. “But if the wicked will turn.” This was the real point of the controversy. God deals with each man as one who is capable of renouncing evil and choosing good, i.e., He deals with each individual as a moral being.
Ezekiel 18:22. “They shall not be mentioned unto Him.” They shall not be remembered against him (Jeremiah 31:34). The guilt is blotted out of remembrance, though for the purposes of a salutary discipline the chastisements of God may be allowed to continue (Hebrews 12:10; 2 Samuel 12:13-14), “In his righteousness that he hath done he shall live” Not, for his righteousness, as if that is to be regarded as the procuring cause of his acceptance; but in it, righteousness being regarded as the fruit of his true conversion (Ezekiel 20:11).
Ezekiel 18:23. “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” God had declared even that concerning the sacrificial victims He “had no pleasure in them.” (Psalms 40:6). He had no absolute and final pleasure in them, for they were ordained only to shadow forth the one sacrifice for sin. The providing of that sacrifice would be the highest proof that God willed not the death of the sinner. “The motive for the pardon of the repenting sinner is here given, in the declaration that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but desires his conversion, that he may live. God is therefore not only just, but merciful and gracious, and punishes none with death but those who either will not desist from evil, or will not persevere in the way of His commandments. Consequently the complaint, that the way of the Lord, i.e., His conduct toward men, is not weighed, i.e., is not just and right, is altogether unfounded, and recoils upon those who make it. It is not God’s ways, but the sinner’s that are wrong.”—(Keil).
Ezekiel 18:24. “In his trespass.” Referring to his present condition, which determines his real state. He “hath trespassed,”and is therefore still “in his trespass.”
Ezekiel 18:25. “Yet ye say, the way of the Lord is not equal.” They affirmed that God worked by no regular and uniform law or method. They repeat the charge in Ezekiel 18:2, complaining that some were punished while others were spared, and hence they regarded the way of God as marked by caprice and not the result of a just law of working. “Your ways.” The prophet is continually urging his hearers to reflect and consider their “own ways” (Ezekiel 16:61; Ezekiel 20:43; Ezekiel 36:31).
Ezekiel 18:26. “And dieth in them.” Heb. “Dieth upon them.” They are the footing upon which he stands when he is called to appear before God.
HOMILETICS
THE EQUITY OF GOD’S GOVERNMENT
The unbelievers still imprudently contended that God’s ways were not equal, though the contrary had been declared by the mouth of the prophet. The equity of God’s dealings is re-asserted, and fresh instances and considerations are given by way of proof.
I. The case of the repentant sinner. He is dealt with not on the score of his past transgressions, but on the ground of his new obedience. When the sinner forsakes his way, the mercy of God steps in and accepts his repentance.
1. Repentance, of itself, has no efficacy to procure pardon. Whatever it might do to set us right in the future, it could not possibly undo the past. For that we should still have to reckon.
2. Repentance is accepted through the mercy of God. God is willing to forget the past and to receive the sinner. The pardon of sin is a special revelation, for nature teaches no doctrine of the forgiveness of sins. We transgress her laws and we are punished. We are not excused on the ground of ignorance. But God in His mercy accepts a genuine repentance. He will not punish the righteous man for his father’s sins; and will not even remember against a man his own sins, if he repents. “Scripture represents forgiveness as the result, not of repentance, but of the death of Christ, ‘in whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of our sins,’ repentance being essential, not to the efficacy of His death, but to the appropriation of the benefits secured by it. Even if repentance, however, could save us, natural religion is unable to produce it. It is, in the evangelical true meaning of the term, such sorrow for sin as flows from a sense of the love and reverence due to God, and of the heinousness of sin against Him. The sorrow of the world is no such feeling. It is, on the contrary, blended with fears and impressions which make it impossible to love God or draw near to Him.”—(Angus).
II. The case of the man, once righteous, who abandons his righteous course. Such a man in his backsliding will not be supported by his early righteousness. It can have no merit to weigh against his faults. The integrity of the past cannot save him. Each man will be judged by himself, and in that state in which he is found.
III. God’s motive in granting pardon to the repentant transgressor. “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God, and not that he should return from his ways, and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23). It is the pleasure of God that man should live and not die. God is not only just, but also merciful and gracious. He punishes none with death but those who will not abandon their sins, or who will not persevere in the way of His commandments.
IV. God only requires from man what is just and reasonable. It is surely just to render Him obedience, and to repent of our sin when we have wronged Him. We ought to be ready to accept what is offered to us through His mercy. Thus the complaint of these sinners against God was altogether unfounded, and only recoiled upon their own heads. And it is only just that repentance should be thorough. The unrighteous man must forsake “all” his sins (Ezekiel 18:21), making no reservation in favour of “heart-idols” (Ezekiel 14:4). The will must be subdued “if the wicked man will turn from all his sins,” etc. Thus it is not God’s ways, but the sinner’s, that are wrong, for God shows, in all His dealings with man, His abhorrence of sin and His love of righteousness.
REPENTANCE NOT EFFICACIOUS
We do not know what the whole natural or appointed consequences of vice are; nor in what way they would follow, if not prevented, and therefore can in no sort say, whether we could do anything which would be sufficient to prevent them. Our ignorance being thus manifest, let us recollect the analogy of Nature or Providence. For though this may be but a slight ground to raise a positive opinion in this matter, yet it is sufficient to answer a mere arbitrary assertion, without any kind of evidence, urged by way of objection against a doctrine, the proof of which is not reason, but revelation. Consider then: people ruin their fortunes by extravagance; they bring diseases upon themselves by excess; they incur the penalties of civil laws; and surely civil government is natural; will sorrow for these follies past, and behaving well for the future, alone and of itself, prevent the natural consequences of them? On the contrary, men’s natural abilities of helping themselves are often impaired; or if not, yet they are forced to be beholden to the assistance of others, upon several accounts, and in different ways; assistance which they would have no occasion for, had it not been for their misconduct; but which, in the disadvantageous condition they have reduced themselves to, is absolutely necessary to their recovery, and retrieving their affairs. Now, since this is our case, considering ourselves merely as inhabitants of this world, and as having a temporal interest here, under the natural government of God, which, however, has a great deal moral in it; why is it not supposable that this may be our case also; in our more important capacity, as under His perfect moral government, and having a more general and future interest depending? If we have misbehaved in this higher capacity, and rendered ourselves obnoxious to the future punishment which God has annexed to vice, it is plainly credible that, behaving well for the time to come may be—not useless; God forbid!—but wholly insufficient, alone and of itself, to prevent that punishment; or to put us in the condition which we should have been in had we preserved our innocence. And though the efficacy of repentance itself alone, to prevent what mankind had rendered themselves obnoxious to, and recover what they had forfeited, is now insisted upon, in opposition to Christianity; yet, by the general prevalence of propitiatory sacrifices over the heathen world, this notion of repentance alone being sufficient to expiate guilt, appears to be contrary to the general sense of mankind. The great doctrines of a future state, the danger of a course of wickedness, and the efficacy of repentance, are not only confirmed in the Gospel, but are taught—especially the last is—with a degree of light to which that of nature is but darkness.—Butler’s Analogy.
Some may fancy, from some expressions used in this chapter, that the prophet is laying down a new law of God’s dealings, as though the Almighty had been acting up to that time upon a certain principle, and now, hence-forward, He were about to act upon a new and different principle. It is easy to put the subject in such a light that all difficulty will vanish. This is one end I have in view. But I have the further end of drawing from the subject some useful thoughts with respect to God’s government in the world in these our days, and our own duties as creatures living under a government which at present we cannot wholly understand. The Jews complained of the law under which they lived as unjust; because it spoke of the sins of the father being visited upon the children: they used this proverb, “that the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” The punishment which ought to have fallen upon the father fell upon his guiltless children. They complained that God’s ways were not equal, not fair, not righteous. It was not as a mere piece of philosophical speculation that they held this language. There was a practical consequence belonging to the spread of the proverb of the sour grapes, which was of the highest importance. It was not a few unbelieving, acute, clever students of the law, who had detected this injustice in it. Had it been so, probably the prophet Ezekiel would not have made the discovery the subject of a general address; no, the thing had passed into a proverb, it was in the mouth of the people at large, and the practical consequence was that it held back the people from thinking of their sins which had brought them into trouble; and from repenting of those sins. Instead of this they would look upon themselves as victims of an unjust law—as persecuted rather than punished. The good effect of any punishment depends very much upon the criminal himself feeling and admitting that he is punished justly. Let a man feel this, and he may be led to sorrow and good resolutions for the time to come. But if he fancies that the law is in fault and not himself, that he is an injured man—the victim of cruel legislation—then punishment may make him sullen and obstinate, but it can never make him sorry for his fault. This was just the case with the Jews. They were punished for not keeping God’s law. Ezekiel would have them see in their punishment the result of their own sins; would endeavour to lead them to that “Godly sorrow” which works repentance: but the devil, and those amongst men who did the devil’s work, had a different version of the history. According to them, the law which the priests and prophets would fasten upon them was an unjust law, one which did not deserve their obedience. They would argue that from its own principles the people were not in need of repentance, for the law spoke of children suffering for their father’s sins, and who could say but that this very chastisement might be the punishment of sins committed long ago? Who could say but that their teeth were being set on edge, because their fathers had eaten sour grapes many years before?
It is clear that the proverb had a very direct bearing upon the conduct of the people. If the proverb generally found favour in their eyes, then it was of no use that Ezekiel should talk of sin and its punishment, and the need of repentance. Therefore Ezekiel protested against the proverb as wicked and profane; and he lays down the great truth which should destroy the effect of the lying proverb, that of the necessary punishment of sin: “the soul that sinneth it shall die.” That was the truth which God had told man when He first made him, and the truth of all religion in all times.
Let us see what ground the Jews had to stand upon their proverb. It is evident that there was something which gave it colour and likelihood. Satan, as we know, can quote Scripture for his purpose, and Satan might have made a very good Scriptural defence of this proverb of the sour grapes. “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, and visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, and shew mercy unto thousands in them that love Me and keep My commandments.” Now, the Jews might say that their proverb only expressed as much as this passage. And it is to be observed, that the passage sets forth the mercy of God, because the three or four generations over which His curse extends are contrasted with the thousands to which He shews His love. The Jews might answer that still it did contain the principle of children suffering for sins which they had not committed, that this was unjust, and that it was no qualification of the injustice to say that in a vast number of instances children received rewards for good deeds which not they but their fathers had done. Now, how is this to be met? It is quite clear that the commandment does recognise the principle of the proverb, and that the people were smarting under it. The punishment which fell upon them was the result of a long course of national wickedness and idolatry, not the consequence of sins committed in their time only. How can we meet the objection and vindicate God’s ways?
There were two mistakes in the view which the Jews took when they used the proverb.
(1.) They took the expressions of God’s law to mean, not that the character of sin was such that it sometimes extended beyond the actual doer of it, and brought grief upon others besides himself, but that it brought grief upon others instead of himself; as though when Adam sinned he had not brought death upon himself and his posterity, but had brought it upon his posterity and not upon himself. They would have it that the children alone suffered for what their fathers had done.
(2.) The other error was this, that they seemed to have taken for granted that they were fair judges as to who was punished and who not. They assumed that the fathers had not suffered for the sour grapes which they had eaten; whereas they were manifestly not sufficient judges as to what amount of punishment had been meted out, or would be meted out to different men. The apparent prosperity of vice, and the apparent suffering of goodness and virtue, have always been difficult to understand. David found the difficulty in his day, and could not overcome it until he went into the sanctuary of God. Then it was that he was able to take a higher view of God’s dealings with mankind, and so to understand the end of those men whose prosperity had so much astonished him. Ezekiel did not meet the proverb by telling the Jews that in future things should be ordered differently. He asserts the justice of God’s ways, but he gives them a new truth to reflect upon, a truth not inconsistent with the principle asserted in the Second Commandment, but which must needs be borne in mind to guard against the perversion of that principle. Ezekiel asserts the truth which God spoke to Adam in the days of his purity—“In the day that thou eatest thou shalt die!” That was the great practical truth upon which every human soul stood before God. God sends us all into the world with a conscience to tell us what is right and what is wrong, with certain commands to keep, a certain path to walk in; and He says to us all, “do these things that your soul may live.” He may say to us at the same time, do these things that it may be well with you, and with your children after you; but whether this be said or not, still the responsibility for his own actions lies on the head of each man: if he sins, he dies; and no wrath which he may bring upon his children can save him from the consequences of his own sin. God did not say to Adam, if you disobey you will bring death upon your children; He only said—“In the day that thou sinnest, thou shalt die.” Yet, though the consequence was not threatened the consequence came, and Adam’s sin, which was to bring death to himself, brought death to his posterity besides. Ezekiel was not introducing any new principle of government, he was only asserting a principle as old as the creation. What he wished the people to believe was this—that although it had been held out as a warning against disobedience and an encouragement to obedience, that those who sinned were bringing in a curse which would affect others besides themselves, and that contrariwise those who were holy and good were bringing a blessing down upon their children, still this was not supposed to be in opposition to the great law of every man standing or falling by his own deeds, being “judged by the things done in the body, whether good or bad.” There followed at once this practical consequence, that when they found themselves suffering under God’s judgments they were not to speculate as to what sin it was of their fathers which had brought this grief upon them, but they were to look into their own hearts and examine their own conduct. Ezekiel would say to them, “Do not look to your fathers, but look to yourselves: you say that they sinned, and you are suffering for it; well, but think whether you do not deserve to suffer? Are you really better than your fathers? Have you no sins to repent of, no idolatry to forsake, no ungodliness to make you ashamed?” “Indeed,” he might go on to say, “is not this itself a sufficient proof of the wicked state of your hearts, that you venture to attribute unrighteousness to God? You say that the ways of the Lord are not equal, but may it not be that His ways seem unequal just because your own are not equal themselves? The ways of God seem to you dark and confused, but may not the defect be in your own eyes?” He would assure them that, whatever unworthy thoughts Satan might put in their minds, yet certainly God loved them and had no pleasure in their death. “Make you a new heart, and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God, wherefore turn yourselves and live ye.” Those words would cut through all the speculative doubts of God’s justice which the devil had raised; they would put religion upon the true practical ground of trusting in God’s love, and therefore obeying His commands; and they would encourage men to walk in the narrow path of duty, leaving all difficulties to be solved by those wise words of Abraham, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
There is something repugnant to our idea of justice in the law that the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the children. But this principle was not all peculiar to the Jewish law. It is manifestly the principle upon which the world is governed. We see numberless instances in which, as a matter of fact, the son does suffer for what the father has done amiss. We say, “Of course it is so, it cannot be otherwise.” Yes; but why of course? Why must it be so? Why cannot it be otherwise? And how comes it that we are linked together in such a mysterious manner, that we cannot help being affected by those over whom we have no control? Do you not see that this is God’s doing? We may call it natural, or necessary, but after all it is the Lord’s doing, however wonderful it may be in our eyes. And yet, when we see this law of God’s government we see nothing to surprise us, because we cannot imagine it otherwise. And we do not find that persons have any difficulty in practice because they suffer for their parent’s faults. No one thinks it necessary to be idle and to starve, because his father was idle before him. No one doubts but that he has his own work to do, his own food to seek, his own soul to save, and that if his father forgot his duty, that is the very best warning to him not to do the like. And what follows? why this: that the same way of looking upon our condition here is to be applied in all cases. God did not put us here to explain difficulties, but to work out our salvation. God does not require us to shew how all His doings are the best and wisest that could be, but He requires us to do His will. Of all things that we have to learn, this is one of the chief and greatest, that our life here is to be a scene of active work. We are encompassed with mystery, above, below, and around us, and there is much in this world which our philosophy can never reach. God’s ways are too deep to fathom, too large to measure. And who does not conclude that in the meanwhile he has great positive duties to fulfil, which no speculative difficulties can prevent him from fulfilling? “The soul that sinneth it shall die,” though it was proved by the fall of Adam, was still more strikingly proved by the death of the spotless Lamb of God, the great offering for sin; and the truth that God wills not the death of a sinner, was then proved in the most wonderful manner when God spared not His only Son that He might be able to pardon those who repent of their sins. The Old Testament denunciation, “the wages of sin is death,” has this New Testament addition made to it, “but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”—Goodwin’s “Parish Sermons.”