If he beget a son - Who is the reverse of the above righteous character, according to the thirteen articles already specified and explained.

If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood,.... But if this just man beget a son that is a thief and a murderer, as he may; for grace is not conveyed by natural generation, though sin is: a good man has often bad children, even such as are guilty of capital crimes, as a "robber", a "highwayman", a "breaker up", or "through", as the word (e) signifies; one that breaks through walls, and into houses, and breaks through all the laws of God and man; and sticks not to shed innocent blood in committing his thefts and robberies, as these sins often go together; such an one was Barabbas, whose name signifies the son of a father, and perhaps his father might be a good man:

and that doeth the like to any one of these things; or that does anyone of these things, whether theft or murder.

(e) "effractorem", Montanus, Vatablus, Junius & Tremellius, Polanus, Piscator, Grotius.

The righteousness of the father does not protect the wicked, unrighteous son from death. - Ezekiel 18:10. If, however, he begetteth a violent son, who sheddeth blood, and doeth only one of these things, Ezekiel 18:11. But he himself hath not done all this, - if he even eateth upon the mountains, and defileth his neighbour's wife, Ezekiel 18:12. Oppresseth the suffering and poor, committeth robbery, doth not restore a pledge, lifteth up his eyes to idols, committeth abomination, Ezekiel 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 Ezekiel 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. Hosea 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 (Ezekiel 18:6.). מאחד, with a partitive מן, as in Leviticus 4:2, where it is used in a similar connection; the form מאחד is also met with in Deuteronomy 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, Exodus 21:1, Exodus 21:7,Exodus 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. Genesis 3:22 and Numbers 21:8). The formulae מות יוּמת and דּמיו בּו dna are also derived from the language of the law (cf. Leviticus 20:9, Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:13, etc.).

If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things,

robber: or, breaker up of an house

that doeth...: or, that doeth to his brother besides any of these

10-13. 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].

18:1-20 The soul that sinneth it shall die. As to eternity, every man was, is, and will be dealt with, as his conduct shows him to have been under the old covenant of works, or the new covenant of grace. Whatever outward sufferings come upon men through the sins of others, they deserve for their own sins all they suffer; and the Lord overrules every event for the eternal good of believers. All souls are in the hand of the great Creator: he will deal with them in justice or mercy; nor will any perish for the sins of another, who is not in some sense worthy of death for his own. We all have sinned, and our souls must be lost, if God deal with us according to his holy law; but we are invited to come to Christ. If a man who had shown his faith by his works, had a wicked son, whose character and conduct were the reverse of his parent's, could it be expected he should escape the Divine vengeance on account of his father's piety? Surely not. And should a wicked man have a son who walked before God as righteous, this man would not perish for his father's sins. If the son was not free from evils in this life, still he should be partaker of salvation. The question here is not about the meritorious ground of justification, but about the Lord's dealings with the righteous and the wicked.