John Calvin Commentary Ezekiel 18:14-17

"Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father`s sins, which he hath done, and feareth, and doeth not such like; that hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbor`s wife, neither hath wronged any, hath not taken aught to pledge, neither hath taken by robbery, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; that hath withdrawn his hand from the poor, that hath not received interest nor increase, hath executed mine ordinances, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live." — Ezekiel 18:14-17 (ASV)

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.