John Calvin Commentary Ezekiel 18

We may gather from this rebuke that the Jews were perverse interpreters of the best teaching; indeed, they purposely reviled the Prophet’s expression and twisted it to a contrary meaning. For it is far more common than it should be among unbelievers to always take the opportunity of turning backwards, twisting, distorting, and tearing the teaching from heaven.

And at this time we see this impudence increasing greatly in the world. For the world is full of buffoons and other deceivers, who wickedly trifle with God and seek material for joking from the law and the gospel. And so it also appears to have been in the Prophet’s time; for although they heard of the wrath of God hanging over them, they did not cease to provoke Him, and that for many years.

And not only were their own iniquities brought against them, but also those of their fathers. This was the reason for their quibbling when they heard, “For so many ages you have not ceased your warfare against God; He has borne with you patiently to this day. Do you think that you can carry on your audacity with impunity?”

God wished until now to tame you by His forbearance, but your obstinacy is not to be subdued. Since, therefore, not only for one or two generations, but for four and five, your obstinacy has wrestled with God’s goodness, He can no longer pardon you.

Since the prophets thus gathered up the iniquities of their fathers, impious men scattered abroad their witticisms: “Then we are to pay the penalty for our fathers’ sins; they provoked God, but we suffer the punishment which they deserved.”

The Prophet now convinces them of the unfairness of this charge and shows that they had no reason for transferring their faults to others or for thrusting them away from themselves, since God was just in taking vengeance on them. We know that men willingly try to shift blame to free themselves from it, and then afterwards accuse God of cruel injustice.

It is true, indeed, that they are held in such constraint by their own consciences that they are compelled, whether they want to or not, to feel that they are suffering punishment justly. But afterwards they become rebellious, suffocate their conscience, and quarrel petulantly with God. Hence these words:

Though guiltless of your fathers’ crimes,
Roman, it is yours to latest times
The vengeance of the gods to bear,
Till you their awful temples repair.
(Horace, Book 3, Ode 6, as translated by Francis)

Since so many crimes were prevalent at Rome, why does that trifler say that the men of his own age were undeservedly paying the penalty deserved by their ancestors? But, as I have said, this is the testimony of a corrupt nature, because we desire to throw off the blame as far from ourselves as we possibly can.

Hence we begin to contend with God and to rebel against His judgments. And hence this instruction is the more useful to us, since it is proposed as a remedy for a disease by far too common. Whatever the meaning, this sentiment came into common use like a proverb: that the children’s teeth were set on edge because their fathers had eaten sour grapes.

By these allegorical words they wished to free themselves from blame, as if God were unjustly charging the wickedness of their fathers against them. For to eat the sour grape or wild grape has the same meaning as to set the teeth on edge, because we know this to be the effect of acidity. If anyone eats a sour grape, his teeth will suffer from its unripeness. Thus, “to eat” signifies causing this effect on the teeth, referring to sin; for they said that their own teeth suffered, not through their own eating the sour grapes, but through it flowing down from their fathers.

On the whole, they wished to contend with God, as if He were afflicting the innocent, and that too, under the fallacious pretext I have mentioned, as God announced that He would avenge the wickedness which had been perpetrated in former ages.

You, He says, use this proverb; but as I live, says the Lord Jehovah, you shall not use this proverb anymore. He does not mean by these words that the Jews should repent and become more modest, and not dare to vomit forth such blasphemy against Him; for He is not treating repentance here. Instead, it is just as if He said, I will strike this boasting from under you, since your iniquity shall be made manifest, and the whole world shall acknowledge the justice of your punishment, and that you have deserved it yourselves, and cannot throw it upon your fathers, as you have previously endeavored to do.

The Jews indeed did not cease their rebellion against God, and there is no doubt that they were more and more exasperated, so as to expostulate with audacity against Him. But their wickedness was truly apparent, and God was not hostile to them without cause or for trifling reasons. And although He was severe, yet they had arrived at the highest pitch of impiety, so that no punishment could be sufficient or too oppressive.

We now understand the meaning of the Prophet, or rather of the Holy Spirit, since God took away all pretense for evasion from the Jews when He detected their impiety and made it conspicuous that they were only suffering the due reward of their crimes. But God swears by Himself, from which we gather how abominable their blasphemy was. And truly, men cannot absolve themselves without condemning God, for God’s glory then shines forth when every mouth is stopped, as we saw before (Ezekiel 16:63; Romans 3:19).

As soon as men descend into that arena, because they wish to show their innocence, it is just as if they wished to reduce God’s justice to nothing. Hence it is not surprising that God is very angry when He is despoiled of His justice, for He cannot exist without this attribute.

We now see why an oath is interposed, while He pronounces that He will take care that the Jews should not ridicule any longer. Behold, He says, all souls are Mine; as the soul of the son, so the soul of the father, all souls are Mine; the soul, therefore, which has sinned, it shall die.

Some interpreters explain the beginning of the verse this way: that men vainly and rashly complain when God seems to treat them too severely, since the clay does not rise against the potter. Since God is the maker of the whole world, we are His workmanship. What madness, then, to rise up against Him when He does not satisfy us? And we saw this simile used by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 18:6).

The sentiment, then, is true in itself: that all souls are under God’s sovereignty by the right of creation, and therefore He can arbitrarily determine for each whatever He wishes. All who clamor against Him reap no profit, and this teaching is advantageous to note. But this passage should be understood otherwise; namely, that nothing is more unworthy than that God should be accused of tyrannizing over men, when He rather defends them, as being His own workmanship.

When, therefore, God pronounces that all souls are His own, He does not merely claim sovereignty and power, but He rather shows that He is affected with fatherly love towards the whole human race since He created and formed it. For, if a workman loves his work because he recognizes in it the fruits of his industry, so, when God has manifested His power and goodness in the formation of men, He must certainly embrace them with affection.

True, indeed, we are abominable in God’s sight because we are corrupted by original sin, as it is elsewhere said (Psalms 14:1–2). But inasmuch as we are men, we must be dear to God, and our salvation must be precious in His sight. We now see what kind of refutation this is: All souls are Mine, He says: I have formed all and am the creator of all, and so I am affected with fatherly love towards all, and they shall rather feel My clemency, from the least to the greatest, than experience too much rigor and severity.

At length He adds, the soul which sinned, it shall die. Now, Ezekiel expresses how God restrains the Jews from daring to boast any longer that they are afflicted undeservedly, since no innocent person shall die; for this is the meaning of the sentence. For He does not mean that every guilty person should die, for this would shut against us the door of God’s mercy, for we have all sinned against Him. So it would follow that there is no hope of safety, since every man must perish, unless God freed sinners from death.

But the Prophet’s meaning is not doubtful, as we have said, since those who perish are not without fault; neither can they bring up their innocence to God, nor complain of His cruelty in punishing them for the sins of others. Although here a question may arise, since no one at this day perishes who does not partly bear the fault of another, namely, of Adam, by whose fall and revolt the whole human race actually perished.

Since therefore Adam, by his fall, brought destruction upon us, it follows that we perish through the fault of another. Since this question will be treated again in its own place, it will now be sufficient to say briefly that although we perish through the fault of another, yet the fault of each individual is joined with it.

We are not condemned in Adam as if we were innocent in ourselves, but we have contracted pollution from his sin. And so it has come to pass that each must bear the punishment of his own crime, since the punishment which Adam first deserved is not simply inflicted on the whole human race, but we have been tainted with his sin, as will afterwards be said.

Whatever the meaning, we shall not die innocent, since each is held convicted by the testimony of his own conscience. As far as relates to young children, they seem to perish not by their own fault, but for another’s; but the solution is twofold. For although sin does not appear in them, yet it is latent, since they carry about with them corruption shut up in their soul, so that they are worthy of condemnation before God.

This does not come under the notice of our senses, but we should consider how much more acutely God sees things than we do. Hence, if we do not penetrate into that hidden judgment, yet we must hold that, before we are born, we are infected by the contagion of original sin and therefore justly destined to ultimate destruction. This is one solution.

But as far as concerns the Prophet’s expression, the dispute concerning infants is vain and out of place, since the Prophet only wished to refute that impious perverseness, as I have said, so that the people should no longer charge God with cruelty. The soul, He says, which has sinned; that is, none of you can boast of innocence when I punish you. This is like when it is said, He who does not labor, neither let him eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

Surely this cannot be extended to infants. Nature teaches us that they must be nourished, and yet certainly they do not acquire their food by labor. But this is said of adults, who are old enough to acknowledge the reason why they were created and their fitness for undergoing labor.

So also, in this place, we are not treating the tender young when newly born, but adults who wish to charge God instead of themselves, as if they are innocent. And so, when they cannot escape punishment, they are anxious to transfer the fault elsewhere—first upon others, and then upon God Himself.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, since You have not only created us out of nothing, but have deigned to create us again in Your only-begotten Son, and have taken us from the lowest depths, and deigned to raise us to the hope of Your heavenly kingdom—Grant, I say, that we may not be proud or puffed up with vainglory; but may we embrace this favor with becoming humility and modestly submit ourselves to You, until we at length become partakers of that glory which Your only-begotten Son has acquired for us. Amen.

Here the Prophet confirms his former teaching by examples. For he first says, if anyone faithfully keeps the law, he will prosper, since God will repay the reward of justice. Afterward, he adds, if the just man begets a son unlike himself, the justice of the father will not profit the degenerate son, but he will receive the reward of his iniquity.

But if this second person begets a son who does not imitate his father, God promises that this third person will be acceptable to Him, because he is just, and therefore enjoys prosperity and happiness. We see, then, that the grandfather and grandson are here spoken of, and that the son of the first, and father of the third, is placed between them.

But this is the Spirit’s intention: that God has prepared a reward for each according to their lives, so that He does not permit them to be deprived of their promised blessing, nor let the impious and despisers of His law escape. Now let us come to the words: if anyone has been just, he says, he will be just, therefore he will live.

He speaks generally first; he afterward enumerates certain categories under which he embraces the sum of the whole law. The full sentence is, if anyone has been just, he will live in consequence of his justice. But the Prophet defines what it is to be just, and there he chooses certain parts of the law. By putting a part for the whole, as I have said, he signifies that whoever faithfully observes the law is esteemed just before God.

Now we must examine each of these kinds of justice, and afterward come to the general doctrine. He says first, that he is just who does justice and judgment. By the word judgment, Holy Scripture signifies rectitude; but when the two words are joined together, judgment seems to express more than justice. For justice is nothing but equity, fidelity, integrity, when we abstain altogether from fraud and violence, and deal with our brothers as we wish them to deal with us.

Whoever so conducts himself is said to do justice. But judgment is extended further, namely, when we not only desire to benefit but also defend our brothers when unjustly oppressed, as far as we can, and when we oppose the lust and violence of those who would overthrow all that is right and holy.

Hence, to do judgment and justice is nothing other than to abstain from all injury by cultivating good faith and equity with our neighbors, and then to defend all good causes and to take the innocent under our patronage when we see them unjustly injured and oppressed. But these duties belong properly to the second table of the law.

But it is clear from this that we fear God when we live justly with our brothers, for piety is the root of charity. Although many profane persons seem blameless in their life and manifest a rare integrity, yet no one ever loves his neighbor from his heart unless he fears and reverences God.

Since, therefore, charity flows from piety and the fear of God, as often as we see the duties of the second table placed before us, we should learn that they are testimonies to the worship of God, as is the case here. But then the Prophet also adds certain parts of the first table.

He says then, if he has not eaten upon the mountains, and not raised his eyes to the abominable deeds of the house of Israel. These two points relate to the worship of God. For by the figure of speech “a part for the whole,” to eat means to offer sacrifices; he refers to those to which banquets were added as appendages.

And truly, when Paul speaks of idolatry, he does not say, if anyone bends his knees before stone or wood, but he quotes the words of Moses, that the people rose up to play after eating, that is, after banqueting (1 Corinthians 10:7 and Exodus 32:6). Hence, a feast is there taken for that sacrilege when the people made for themselves a calf and wished to worship God before it.

When, therefore, it is now said, if anyone has not eaten upon the mountains: by a feast, as I have said, a sacrifice offered to idols is intended. Now we know that altars were raised on high in every direction, because they thought that they were near God when they ascended to an elevated spot.

Because, therefore, superstitions were so practiced on the mountains, the Prophet therefore relates what was customary: if anyone has not eaten upon the mountains; then he explains himself more clearly: if anyone has not raised his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel.

To raise the eyes is here taken by a figure of speech to mean being drawn with eagerness towards superstitions. For we know that eyes are the principal expressions of the affections; since affections often visibly burst forth in the eyes and are conspicuous there, it is not surprising if all our desires are described by this figure of speech.

Thus a person is said to raise his eyes to the house of his neighbor when he covets it, and also towards his wife, or anything else, when he is seized by a depraved lust. The meaning is, then, that those who do not contaminate themselves with idols are thought just before God, as far as concerns the first table of the law, since they are content with the simple and lawful worship of God, and do not incline from it in any direction; nor, like the superstitious, allow their eyes to be wandering and erratic. And so they are compared with prostitutes who seek lovers on all sides.

To repeat: the meaning is that the true worshipers of God are those who are content with His doctrine and are not carried here and there by a perverse appetite, and so fabricate idols for themselves.

Besides, the Holy Spirit calls idols גלולים, gelolim, “defilements,” since all superstition should be detested by us; for as we are prone by nature to all kinds of error, we cannot be sufficiently restrained within the true and pure worship of God.

Since, then, unbelievers imagine their gods to be sacred, the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, pronounces them to be defiling, because their profane worship is disgusting and abominable.

But he says, the idols of the house of Israel, so that all evasion must cease. For if he had spoken of idols only, they might have objected that they detested the false and foolish gods of the Gentiles. But since many ceremonies were through long use received among the elect people, these, they might argue, ought not to be condemned like the impious rites of the heathen.

The Holy Spirit refutes this objection and says that though the house of Israel has approved such defilements, yet they are not to be excused for setting aside the law of God and devoting themselves to human fictions.

And has not polluted his neighbor's wife. The Prophet now returns to the second table and here discusses adultery. The language must be noticed, since such contamination shows how holy God considers the marriage tie. Hence we see the atrocity of the sin and the detestable nature of adultery; for both parties are equally polluted, though it appears stronger in women through their natural modesty.

We must hold, then, that the very body is ingrained with disgrace and infamy, as Paul says, when such sins are committed. Other sins, says he, are without the body; but this is a sin against the body itself which thus bears the marks of shame and infamy (1 Corinthians 6:18). Here, as I have said, Ezekiel treats the case of the woman, since the offense is in her case more pernicious.

And has not approached a woman when legally unclean: for we know this to be prohibited under the law, since it is contrary to nature. For it was not necessary to define this by written law, as it is self-evident. And God detests such crimes, not only because their offspring would contaminate cities and the nation at large, but because they are adverse to the instincts of human nature (Leviticus 18:19 and Leviticus 20:18).

He afterward adds, if he has not oppressed or afflicted anyone. This is general, just as if the Prophet had said, if he has abstained from all fraud, violence, and injustice. But this is a great point: to live so innocently among men that no one should complain of any injury done to him, nor of any loss sustained.

But it is not enough to preserve this self-restraint unless we desire to profit our brothers, since God wishes the mutual services of life to be reciprocal. Although, indeed, to take care to be free from all injustice ought to precede other duties. He says, if he has returned his pledge to the debtor.

This ought not to be taken generally but depends on the precept of the law. For we have often said that the prophets are the interpreters of Moses, and so they often touch briefly on what Moses expresses more clearly. But if we wish to engage usefully in reading them, we ought to determine the meaning of the law, and then to relate what we read in the prophets to what is contained there.

So, in this passage, to restore the pledge to the debtor, is restricted to the poor and needy, who had pledged either their garments, or their beds, or the tools by which they acquired a livelihood. For God forbids taking a pledge from a widow or a poor person; then He forbids taking a millstone, that is, any tool which a workman uses to earn his living. For if anyone empties the workshop of the miserable, he might just as well take his life.

Hence Moses says, His life is in the pledge (Deuteronomy 24:6). That is, if anyone pledges his tools, it is like having his hands cut off, since he cannot carry on his trade without his tools; therefore you take away his life. Hence God forbids taking a coverlet, or garments, or bedding, for a wretched man would perish with cold were he to pledge either his coverlet or his bedding.

But if, on the other hand, men of this kind are assisted without taking a pledge, they will bless those who abstain from too much severity. Lastly, God forbids the destruction of the poor man’s house, lest he should be ashamed of his poverty, and then because it is too cruel to penetrate into the house of another and inquire for its contents; indeed, this is a species of robbery.

We see now how Ezekiel expected to be understood: if he has restored a pledge to the debtor, that is, to the poor debtor, or the necessary pledge, as I have said, such as tools and necessary furniture, without which a person cannot exercise his trade. He has not seized a prey, that is, has not preyed upon his neighbors.

For every kind of robbery is here marked by the word גזל, gezel, violence. And has given his bread to the hungry. Here the Prophet teaches what I have recently touched on: that cautious self-restraint from all injury and sparing our neighbors is not sufficient, but that more is required, since we ought to assist them as far as we possibly can.

Unless this had been added, many might object that they injured no one, never defrauded anyone, nor took advantage of the simple. But since God has united men in the bonds of mutual society, therefore they must mutually perform good deeds for each other. Here, then, it is required of the rich to help the poor and to offer bread to the hungry.

But it is said, His bread, lest anyone should object, through his habit of being too restricted: “But there is no reason to bind me to bestow my goods on others; this is my bread, and so I have a right to possess what is my own. If anyone is oppressed by want, I confess it to be praiseworthy to help him, but no one is compelled to this act of liberality.”

Lest anyone should escape thus, behold, says the Holy Spirit, although you rightly call the bread yours, yet it is not so yours that you ought to refuse your brother when his hunger provokes you to pity. And has covered the naked with a garment: the rule for garment and for bread is the same.

The substance is that others are not deemed just before God unless they are inclined to benevolence, so as to supply the necessities of their brothers and to help them in their poverty. It follows, since he has not given on usury and has not received increase. Here, among other crimes, Ezekiel enumerates usury—though the word usury is not properly suitable to this passage. נשך, neshek, is deduced from biting, and so the Hebrews name usury, because it gnaws and by degrees consumes the miserable.

Ezekiel then says that they are considered observers of the law who abstain from usury. But because men are very acute and cunning on this point, and devise subterfuges by which they may hide their cruelty, he adds, and has not received increase: for we know how various are the schemes for gain. For whoever devotes his attention to unlawful gains will find out many monstrous things which no one would ever have thought of.

Thus it happens that the usurer will deny that he exacts usury, and yet he will spoil the wretched and even suck out their blood. Under the name תרבית, therbith, Ezekiel comprehends those more secret kinds of usury which the avaricious use with many disguises; and when they spread such coverings before them, they think themselves free from all blame.

Hence the Prophet says, even if the name of usury is removed and is not taken into account, yet it is sufficient to condemn men if they receive increase, that is, make a profit at the expense of others. A question arises here, whether usury is in itself a crime, since God formerly permitted His people to take interest from strangers and only forbade it among themselves.

And there was an excellent reason for that law. For if its just proportion had been overthrown, there would have been no reciprocity, since the Gentiles could exact interest from the Jews; and unless that right had been mutual and reciprocal, as the saying goes, the condition of God’s people would have been worse than that of the Gentiles.

God therefore permitted His people to take interest, but not among each other, as I have said; this was only allowable with strangers. Besides, the law itself was political. But in this case, the Prophet seems to condemn all kinds of interest and exaggerates the weight of the sentence when he adds "increase," that is, whatever gains the avaricious mutually strive for.

So also in the 15th Psalm, where a just mode of living is prescribed for us, David mentions, among other things, one who has not lent his money on usury (Psalms 15:5). It seems, then, from these two places, that usury is in itself unlawful. But because God’s law embraces complete and perfect justice, therefore we must hold that interest, unless it is opposed to God’s law, is not altogether to be condemned; otherwise, disgrace would clearly attach to the law of God if it did not prescribe to us a true and complete rule of living justly.

But in the law there is that perfection to which nothing can be added. If, then, we wish to determine whether interest is unlawful, we must come to the rule of the law, which cannot deceive us. But we shall not find all interest contrary to the law, and therefore it follows that interest is not always to be condemned.

Here, too, we must remember that we must regard the subject rather than the words, for men trifle by their own quibbling, but God does not admit such fallacies. Hence, as I said, the substance must be weighed, because the words alone will not enable us to decide whether interest is sometimes lawful or not.

For example, among the Latins the word for interest is honorable in itself and has no disgrace attached to it, but that for usury is odious.

What causes disgrace to be hidden under it in this way, if not that they fancied they abhorred usurers? Therefore, the general term "interest" contains within it all kinds of usury, and there was nothing so cruel, so unjust, and so barbarous that was not covered by that pretense.

Now since the name for interest was unknown to the French, that for usury became detestable; therefore the French devised a new craftiness by which they could deceive God. For since no one could bear the name of usury, they used “interest” instead. But what else does this mean than something which interests us, and thus it signifies all kinds of repayment for loans? For there was no kind of interest among the ancients which is not now comprehended in this word.

Now since we have said that interest cannot be totally and without exception condemned (for we must not play upon words, but treat the real point), we must see how far it can be proved not to be considered a crime. First of all, in a well-ordered state, no usurer is tolerated; even the profane see this. Whoever therefore professedly adopts this occupation, he should be expelled from intercourse with his fellow men.

For if any unworthy pursuits load those who pursue them with censure, that of the usurer is certainly an unworthy trade, and unbecoming a pious and honorable man. Therefore Cato said that to take usury was almost the same as murder. For when asked concerning agriculture, after he had given his opinion, he inquired, “But what is usury?”

“Is it not murder?” he says. And surely the usurer will always be a robber; that is, he will make a profit by his trade, and will defraud, and his iniquity will increase just as if there were no laws, no equity, and no mutual regard among mankind. This is one point; but there is another part of the occupation besides that of taking interest.

When anyone sets up his table, he uses the same art as a farmer does in employing his labor in cultivating the fields. But anyone may receive interest without being a professed usurer. For example, a person may have capital and lend a part of it, and thus receive interest; and if he does that once, he will not be called a usurer. So we must consider when and from whom a person exacts interest.

But this sentiment should prevail here: “neither everywhere, nor always, nor all things, nor from all.” This indeed was said of offices, and that law was imposed upon the governors of provinces, but it agrees best with this subject. It is not suitable, then, to receive “all things,” because if the profit exceeds moderation it must be rejected, since it is contrary to charity. We said also that the continual habit and custom is not without fault.

Neither “everywhere,” since the usurer, as I have said, should not enter or be brought into the Church of God. Then again, not “from all,” because it is always wrong to exact usury from a poor man. But if a man is rich, and has money of his own, as the saying goes, and has a very good estate and a large patrimony, and should borrow money from his neighbor, will that neighbor commit sin by receiving a profit from the loan of his money?

Another borrower is the richer of the two and might do without it and yet suffer no loss. But he wishes to buy a farm and enjoy its fruits; why should the creditor be deprived of his rights when his money brings profit to a neighbor richer than himself? We see, then, that it may sometimes happen that the receiver of interest is not to be hastily condemned, since he is not acting contrary to God’s law.

But we must always hold that the tendency of usury is to oppress one’s brother, and therefore it is desirable that the very names of usury and interest were buried and erased from human memory.

But since people cannot otherwise transact their business, we must always observe what is lawful, and how far it is so. I know that the subject might be treated at greater length, but I have briefly expressed what is sufficient for our purpose.

It follows, And has withdrawn his hand from iniquity. Here again the Prophet commends innocence, when we are cautious that our neighbor should not receive any damage or injury through our fault.

Therefore, abstaining from injury is again praised here, but a new form of speech is used. For if people are not very anxious and careful, they easily extend the hand to iniquity.

And why is this so? Various means of gain from many quarters present themselves to us, and we are easily led captive by such enticements.

Therefore the Prophet, not without reason, here commends the servants of God to withdraw the hand from iniquity; that is, not only to abstain from injury, but also, when the sweetness of gain entices us and some plausible means of profit is proposed, that they should restrain themselves. This is the meaning of to withdraw the hand from iniquity.

The rest I leave for tomorrow.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, since You have so instructed us by Your law in the rules of living justly, that we have no excuse for error or ignorance: Grant, I say, that we may be attentive to that teaching which You prescribe for us; and so anxiously exercise ourselves in it, that each of us may live innocently among the brotherhood; and then may we so worship You with one consent and so glorify Your name, that we may finally arrive at that happy inheritance which You have promised for us in Your only begotten Son. Amen.

[Exposition continues from previous day's lecture]

We yesterday explained why the Prophet says that no one is just unless he withdraws his hands from iniquity, because many occasions tempt us to injure others; unless we restrain ourselves in a middle course, we often hurt our neighbors. Now among the virtues of a just man he puts, to judge according to truth: to act truthfully, says he, between man and man.

This seems indeed to be the proper duty of judges who discharge a public office, but yet it is suitable to private persons; for although no one argues his own cause except before someone endowed with power to decide it, yet we see that the inclinations of men often pervert equity and rectitude in judgments.

Again, many are chosen arbitrators who do not hold any public office. The meaning is that what Ezekiel previously required concerning equity is extended to the causes of others, that no one should turn aside from right and equity through private friendship. Afterward it follows, if he has walked in My statutes and kept My judgments, in acting with truthfulness. Again, the Prophet returns to general remarks, for he has recorded certain kinds of justice, as we said yesterday, from which its nature may be more clearly perceived.

Besides, because God’s law contains within it more than the prophet has so far mentioned, therefore it was necessary to add this clause, “who has walked in My decrees,” says he. It is inadequate to restrict this to ceremonies, as is sometimes done; therefore I interpret it of edicts or decrees.

The metaphor of walking does not require a long explanation, as it is very common in Scripture. Hence, to walk in God’s precepts is nothing other than to form his life and morals according to the rule which has been prescribed by God; or, what is the same thing, so to conduct oneself that, in desiring to be deemed just, a man should attempt nothing but what is agreeable to God’s precepts.

But since the observance of the law is difficult, first, because we are not only of a frail nature but prone to sin, therefore the word “serving” is added, by which the Prophet commends diligence. Whoever wishes to direct his life according to God’s precepts should attentively keep them, since nothing is more natural than to transgress and fall.

He now adds, for acting truthfully. Integrity is here denoted by the word truthfulness. We gather, then, from this word the fruitful teaching that the object of God’s whole law is to conduct ourselves without deceit or fraud, and study to assist one another in simplicity, and to conduct ourselves with sincerity in every duty.

If anyone, then, asks the object of the law, the Prophet here describes it to us—the performance of truth; and this is said rightly of the second table. But this may be adapted to the first table, since the Scripture teaches us that no hypocrisy can be pleasing to God.

And we see also what Paul says when he briefly defines the end of the law to be charity out of a pure heart, and faith unfeigned (1 Timothy 1:5). But the word truth in this passage is, in my judgment, referred to that sincerity which we must cultivate, so that no one should deceive another, nor act fraudulently or knowingly, but be really simple and sincere.

He adds, he is just, and in living he will live, says the Lord Jehovah. Finally, he pronounces, as we said, that he is just who has faithfully observed God’s law; then that a reward is prepared for all the just who thus sincerely worship God. Now let us come to the second example.

He has oppressed the poor and needy: he had simply said, "He has oppressed a man"; but now, to make the greatness of the crime appear, he speaks of the poor and needy, for cruelty in oppressing them is all the more blameworthy. Regardless of the condition of the person we treat unjustly, our wickedness is in itself sufficiently worthy of condemnation; but when we afflict the wretched, whose condition should arouse our pity, such inhumanity is, as I have said, far more atrocious.

Therefore, this circumstance magnifies what Ezekiel had previously simply expressed. In the phrase for seizing booty, the word for booty is in the plural. In the next phrase, he omits the word for debtor because it is sufficiently understood. In the next, he does not add “of the house of Israel” to the word “idols”; and in the last clause, the word “abomination” seems to refer to only one kind of flagrant offense. But if anyone wishes to extend its meaning further, I do not object; however, since he recently used the word in the plural, I am more inclined to understand this word in its restricted sense.

I pass so rapidly over this second example, as I shall over the third, because Ezekiel preserves the same sentiments and repeats almost the same words that he had just used.

Until now, he has taught that life is laid up for all the righteous as the reward for their righteousness; but he now sets before us a degenerate son, born to a righteous father, rushing headlong into all kinds of wickedness.

He says, then, if a man who desires to obey the law fathers a son of a perverse disposition, who rejects the discipline of his father and at the same time violates the whole law of God, shall he surely live? No, he says, he shall die; his blood shall be upon him; that is, he cannot escape God’s judgment, because his crimes cry out and are heard. Therefore, none who turn aside from the right way shall remain unpunished.

This is the simple meaning of the Prophet. Let us now come to the third point.

In this third example Ezekiel announces that if a man is born to a wicked father, he may nevertheless be pleasing to God if he is unlike his father. In this way, he refutes the proverb that was so common in Israel—that the father ate the sour grapes, and the children’s teeth were set on edge.

For if the sons were sufferers because of the father’s eating the sour grapes, then the pious who descended from wicked despisers of God would be freed from all their sins. Thus Ezekiel would have been punished instead of his father, Ahaz, and Josiah instead of Manasseh. But here the Prophet testifies that the good, even if they were born to wicked parents, should receive the reward of righteousness just as certainly and faithfully as if they had come down from heaven, and as if their family had always been without committing any crime.

Therefore, since God does not punish them for their fathers’ crimes, it follows that the Israelites uttered this taunt not only foolishly but also impiously, saying that their own teeth were set on edge because their fathers had eaten the sour grapes. Besides, as there is a difference in the phrasing, I will briefly note what is worthy of remark: if he begat a son who saw all that his father had done, and was afraid.

Here the Prophet teaches that it required the greatest attention for the son to forsake the example of a bad father. For sons are blind to their fathers’ vices; and although, when duty is set before them, they carelessly despise it, yet they imagine themselves bound by such pious reverence that they dare not condemn their fathers.

Thus it happens that sons do not acknowledge their fathers’ crimes, and so a wicked father willingly corrupts his son. Bad discipline, therefore, is added to this, so that it is not surprising if the offspring is worse than his ancestors. For this reason the Prophet says, if he has seen, that is, if a righteous child has observed his father’s sins, since sons shut their eyes as much as possible to all their fathers’ crimes; indeed, they embrace their vices as the greatest virtues.

He then adds, if he has feared. It would not be sufficient to take notice of this without adding the fear of God. It is true, indeed, that many were unlike their parents because they were restrained by shame; for when they heard their parents being reproached, they were touched with ingenuous modesty, so as to be on their guard against such enormities.

But all these followed the empty shadow of justice. Here the serious observance of the law is discussed, which cannot flow from anything else but the fear of God, and this, as Scripture says, is the beginning of wisdom (Psalms 111:10; Proverbs 1:7). Thus, a person may be blameless throughout his whole life and yet not touch on any part of justice, since righteousness flows from only one principle: the fear of God.

He afterwards adds, and has not done according to them. We see, therefore, that those who implicate themselves in others’ crimes are deceived only because they purposely stifle all distinction between good and evil. For if they had paid attention to this, they would doubtless have been touched with some fear, and thus have governed their lives according to God’s precepts. But scarcely one in a hundred thinks of this, and so everyone mingles freely with his neighbors, and thus all perish together.

He afterwards adds, he has not eaten upon the mountains, has not raised his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel. We have explained all these things. He also adds, and has not oppressed any one, and has not received a pledge. We said that this ought not to be explained as referring to every pledge, for it was lawful for anyone, on lending money, to receive a pledge for its return, but not from someone who is destitute of either garments or the necessary tools of trade. So I will pass over this point.

He has not received a prey, has distributed his bread to the hungry. He adds what he had not touched on previously: he has withdrawn his hand from the poor. This seems to differ from the opinion we discussed regarding the sixteenth chapter (Ezekiel 16:49). Among the sins of Sodom, the Prophet there also includes this: that they withdrew their hand from the poor and needy. Surely, when we extend our hand to help, it is a true proof of charity; but if we withdraw our hand, it is a proof of cruelty, since we do not deign to help a brother who ought to receive some favor from us.

But we must bear in mind that there are two senses in which the hand is either extended or withdrawn. If I extend my hand to the poor to supply what is lacking, and to the weak to give him aid, this is the duty of charity. If, on the contrary, I withdraw my hand, I unjustly turn away from him who implores my help, and whose misery ought to win him some favor.

But we also extend the hand when we seize a neighbor’s goods, violently deprive him of them, and despoil the innocent of their rights. On the contrary, he who withdraws his hand in this other sense is humane in sparing his brothers, not enriching himself at their expense, and not profiting by their oppression.

In this sense the Prophet now enumerates withdrawing the hand from the poor in the list of virtues, because the poor are subject to all kinds of injury. Therefore, if we see booty already prepared for us and yet we refrain from it, this is a proof of true charity.

But again, we must remark on what I discussed only briefly yesterday: namely, that we must withdraw our hands from the poor, because nothing is easier than to be enticed to profit from the poor. Wherever opportunity and impunity present themselves, avarice so seizes us that we neither discern nor consider what is right and fair.

Everyone who wishes to preserve his self-restraint and subdue his desires ought to attend to this with all his strength and with constant struggling. Thus the Prophet says, we must withdraw the hand.

Now at last he concludes: he shall not die through his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live. He does not repeat that this is just, yet we must understand it to be so. Instead, he stops at the immediate effect, since God’s blessing awaits all the just, as Isaiah says, surely there is a reward to the just (Isaiah 3:10).

The Prophet exclaims as if this were difficult to believe, for since we see all things in the world happening indiscriminately, we immediately imagine either that God is at rest in heaven or that chance governs all things here on earth.

But we must strive against this perverse assumption and affirm, as Isaiah teaches, that there is a reward for the just. The Prophet now expresses this, although a difficult question arises from the passage. For he says that he is just who has kept the law, and so God will bestow a recompense upon him.

Thus, these two things are connected, and the question I mentioned arises from the former clause: for the whole of Scripture teaches that no one is just and that no one can be justified by the law.

But these things are contrary to each other: to be just and worthy of reward through keeping the law, when in fact no one is just, all are transgressors, all are devoid of justice. And so only one remedy remains—seeking our salvation from the gratuitous mercy of God.

But although, at first sight, this kind of inconsistency disturbs the unlearned and partially-trained commentator, yet this solution is easy, since, strictly speaking, justice is the observance of the law.

If anyone asks, then, what justice is, the proper definition is the observance of law. Why so? Because the law, as I said yesterday, lays down the solid rule of justice; whoever observes it will be esteemed just, and thus justification is properly said to be found in works.

But, on the other hand, Scripture declares what is very true and entirely confirmed by experience: that no one can satisfy the law. And, because of this defect, we are all deprived of justification by works. What I have said may be made much clearer by many testimonies from Scripture.

Paul says in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Not the hearer of the law, but the doer of the law, shall be justified (Romans 2:13). There Paul speaks plainly that those are just who conform their whole life to the obedience of God’s law. So also John, in his canonical epistle: He who does righteousness is righteous (1 John 3:7).

Now, if anyone asks whether any perfect observer of the law can be found, or one who does justice in every respect, the answer is readily available: we are all by nature very far removed from all righteousness, and all our senses and desires are enemies that contend against God’s law.

As Paul teaches: The whole soul of man is perverse; we are not able to think anything as from ourselves, and all our sufficiency is from God, since we are slaves of sin (Romans 8:7; 2 Corinthians 3:5; Romans 11).

But it would be superfluous to pile up many testimonies. Let it suffice, then, that by nature we are all rebels against God, so that not the slightest particle of good can be found in us.

As for the faithful, they do indeed aspire to righteousness, but they do so lamely and fall far short of their goal. They often wander from the way and often fall, so that they do not satisfy the law, and therefore require God’s pity.

Therefore, we must come to the second kind of righteousness—which is improperly so called—namely, that which we obtain from Christ. He who does righteousness is righteous (1 John 3:7). None of us does it; but Christ, who fulfilled the law, is esteemed just before God.

Therefore, it is necessary that we should be approved by God through His righteousness; that is, it is imputed to us, and we are accepted through His righteousness.

Therefore, justification by faith, as it is called, is not strictly speaking righteousness; but because of the lack of true righteousness, it is necessary to flee to this as to a sacred anchor. Paul, in the tenth chapter of Romans, explains this briefly and clearly.

The righteousness of the law, he says, speaks thus: He who has done these things shall live in them; but the righteousness of faith says, He who has believed shall be just.

The Apostle here speaks of a twofold righteousness—that of the law and that of faith. He says that the righteousness of the law consists in works, since no one is considered just unless he fulfills the law (Romans 10:5–8).

Since all are far from this standard, another righteousness is added and substituted: namely, that we may embrace the righteousness of Christ by faith and so become just by means of another righteousness outside of ourselves.

For if anyone again objects that justification by the law is superfluous, I answer that it profits us in two ways. First, because the law brings those convicted of their own unrighteousness to Christ.

This, then, is one fruit of the law: that we renounce our own righteousness when our iniquity so reveals itself that it compels us to be silent before God, as we previously saw.

A more fruitful result follows, because when God regenerates His elect, He inscribes a law on their hearts and in their inward parts, as we have seen elsewhere and will see again in the thirty-sixth chapter (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 36:26–27).

But the difficulty is not yet solved. Because the faithful, even if regenerated by God’s Spirit, endeavor to conform themselves to God’s law, yet through their own weakness they never arrive at that point and so are never righteous.

I answer: although the righteousness of works is imperfect in the sons of God, yet it is acknowledged as perfect because, by not imputing their sins to them, He proves what is His own.

Thus it happens that although the faithful fall back, wander, and sometimes fall, yet they may be called observers of the law, walkers in the commandments of God, and observers of His righteousness.

But this arises from gratuitous imputation, and from this also comes their reward. The works of the faithful are not without reward, because they please God; and pleasing God, they are sure of reward.

We see, then, how these things are rightly united: that no one obeys the law, and no one is worthy of the fruits of righteousness, and yet God, out of His own generosity, acknowledges as just those who aspire to righteousness and repays them with a reward of which they are unworthy.

Therefore, when we say that the faithful are esteemed just even in their deeds, this is not stated as a cause of their salvation. We must diligently note that the cause of salvation is excluded from this doctrine, for when we discuss the cause, we must look nowhere else but to the mercy of God, and there we must stop.

But although works contribute in no way to the cause of justification, yet when the elect sons of God have been justified freely by faith, at the same time their works are esteemed righteous by the same gratuitous liberality.

Thus it still remains true that "faith without works justifies," although this statement needs prudence and a sound interpretation. For this proposition, "faith without works justifies," is true and yet false, according to the different meanings it can have.

The proposition that faith by itself justifies without works is false, because faith without works is void. But if the clause “without works” is joined with the word “justifies,” the proposition will be true, since faith cannot justify when it is without works, because it is dead and a mere fiction.

As John says, He who is born of God is just (1 John 5:18). Thus faith can no more be separated from works than the sun from its heat. Yet faith justifies without works, because works form no part of the reason for our justification.

Faith alone reconciles us to God and causes Him to love us—not in ourselves, but in His only begotten Son. Now, therefore, that question is solved when the Prophet teaches that life is given to the just, even if they are born to wicked and unholy parents.

Lastly, we must notice the word “life,” since the word “living” should not be understood only of life on earth, but refers to eternal life. And here some commentators are mistaken, for because they could not free themselves from those difficulties which I recently explained, they interpreted the words of Moses in a civil sense: He who has done these things shall live in them.

But Moses is speaking of eternal life. Therefore, we must hold not only that a reward in this life is promised to the just observers of the law, but that eternal life is also a promised reward.

Besides, as I have said, since we are all destitute of righteousness, we ought not to hope for any reward on our own account, as we are all under the law and under the curse, as Paul says. Nor is there any means of escape, as Paul again says (Galatians 3:10, 13), unless we flee with complete and humble faith to the mercy of God alone, and to the satisfaction by which Christ has reconciled us to His Father. Here I will finish.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, since You have pointed out to us the true way of salvation, since You perceived us all to be deficient in this respect, and since the law, which ought to have given us life, brought death through our transgressing it—Grant, I pray You, since You have set before us Your only Son in whom we may be reconciled and obtain the perfect righteousness which we need, that we may so embrace the grace which is offered to us in the gospel, that we may strive more and more to advance in the pursuit of piety, until at last we arrive at the blessed inheritance which the same, Your only-begotten Son, has acquired for us. Amen.

He emphasizes the same point at greater length, not so much for embellishment as to refute that ungodly saying to which the Israelites so harmfully clung. Because it was difficult to remove from their minds what was so deeply rooted in them, the Prophet often exclaims that no one was punished unless they deserved it for their crimes.

He adds in the next verse what seems unnecessary and absurd: for the Israelites did not argue with God about His sparing the innocent. But here Ezekiel represents them as speaking as if they wished the innocent son to be punished equally with the wicked father. However, he does not mean that they argued about the principle of the matter, but about the actual occurrence, as we commonly say.

For since they were deeply convinced of that error—that punishments extended beyond the criminals themselves—he, on the other hand, declares that the righteous were not acquitted by their own goodness if they were descended from ungodly parents, even though the people assumed this; for they were buried under their own corrupt judgment. Otherwise, they would surely have perceived that God never deprives justice of its reward of life.