John Calvin Commentary Ezekiel 5:9-10

"And I will do in thee that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all thine abominations. Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments on thee; and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter unto all the winds." — Ezekiel 5:9-10 (ASV)

Now God adds that their punishment would be so severe that no similar example could be found in the world—I will do what I have not done, nor intended to do, that is, I will avenge your contempt of My law in a striking and unexpected manner, for God sometimes so chastises people as not to exceed the ordinary method.

But because punishments seem insignificant and contemptible when they are so common, God is compelled to surpass the ordinary measure and to punish the wicked strikingly and portentously, as He says through Moses (Deuteronomy 28:46). Therefore, when He now says, that He would do what He had not done before, and what He would not do again, He signifies a horrible vengeance, which has no similar example. It means nothing else than what we have quoted from Moses: that the vengeance would be striking and portentous.

Interpreters take this metaphorically, but this view cannot be admitted, because in their opinion no history has recorded its fulfillment; hence they resort to allegory and metaphor. But first of all, we know what Josephus says: that mothers were so ravenous that they killed their children and fed on them. Although here a previous siege is referred to, in which God signifies that He would cause fathers to devour their children, I confess it. But even if we accept what they wish, it was not done then; therefore, Jeremiah is mistaken when he says that miserable women cooked their children for food (Lamentations 4:10). Surely this is a sufficient witness, for to say that we never find that this actually happened is to reject the testimony of Jeremiah. Besides, God had threatened that very thing through Moses; nor can the passage be evaded, because there is weight in the words:

“Men delicate among you, and those accustomed to luxuries,” He says, “shall eat their own children; a man shall envy the wife of his bosom, so that he shall not suffer her to enjoy that nefarious food with him. Then by stealth shall he consume and devour the flesh of his son, so that he shall distribute no part of it to another” (Deuteronomy 28:54–55).

When Moses uses this language, he certainly does not mean that there will be internal dissensions, so that disciples will rise up against their masters, and masters oppress their disciples, as Jerome imagines. But it is necessary to take the words as they sound—namely, that God would not be content with common and customary punishments when the Jews had arrived at the very height of impiety and wickedness, since He blames them so severely.

Hence Ezekiel now threatens this. Nor is it surprising that the Prophets took such forms of expression from Moses, since they used the language of Moses rather than a new one, so that the people might not despise their prophecies. Now, therefore, we must conclude that the Prophet uses these threats against the Jews literally.

But if anyone now objects that what God says will not happen often does happen, a solution must be sought. For we said that when the Jews were besieged by Titus, such ravenousness afflicted certain women that they secretly fed on their own children. But God pronounces that He never would do this again. I reply that this kind of vengeance is not to be restricted to one occasion, as if to imply that God could not often punish the Jews in a similar manner.

But we do not read that this was done by anyone except the Jews. For although this cruelty is related in tragedies—that children were used as food by their parents—yet this particular barbarity, a father knowingly and willingly eating his own son, nowhere else existed; hence this was peculiar to the Jews.

And the fact that God had once executed this vengeance on them through the Chaldeans is no obstacle to His again inflicting the same punishment when He wished to take vengeance on the extreme rebellion of the people. For although in Ezekiel’s time all things were very corrupt, yet we know that when the Son of God was rejected, the Jews cut off from themselves all hope of restoration to the mercy of God. It is not surprising, then, if He again allowed sons to be devoured by their fathers, as He now threatens that fathers would be so rabid as not even to spare their own offspring.

I do not know why Jerome invented this distinction, which is altogether futile. For he says that when a thing is honorable and fitting it should be ascribed to God, but when the thing itself is base, God averts the infamy from Himself. For when this terrible event is spoken of here, God does not say, “I will cause the people to eat their sons,” but He says, “Fathers shall eat their sons, and sons their fathers.”

But there is nothing solid in this comment, because the cruelty that the Chaldeans exercised towards the Jews was certainly neither honorable nor fitting, and yet God ascribes to Himself whatever the Chaldeans did. Again, what was baser than the incest of Absalom in debauching his father’s wives? And even that was not sufficient, but he wished the whole people, at the sound of a trumpet, to be witnesses of his crime. And yet what does God say?

“I will do this before the sun,” He says (2 Samuel 12:12; 2 Samuel 16:21–22). We see, then, that this man was not familiar with the Scriptures, and yet he offered his comments too hastily. Indeed, there was no true religion in the man, and it is not without cause that I admonish you; for there is danger that many may be deceived if they are not warned that his mind was full of ostentation and arrogance.

He says, then, fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you, and this was certainly fulfilled, for Jeremiah speaks of women but includes men also (Lamentations 4:10). For Jeremiah says that women are tender-hearted; he does not speak of mothers merely, but that they were humane beyond others. Yet we know that maternal affection is more tender.

But when mothers and those tender ones devour their children, that was the final portent. Now He adds, I will execute, therefore, (for the connecting word “therefore” should here be understood as an emphatic particle), judgments against you. That is, in this manner I will truly show Myself a judge.

And I will scatter all your remnants to all winds. He signifies that there would be such a dispersion that no body or name of the people would remain.

Hope might have cherished and sustained the Jews if any name and body of the people had been left. But when God pronounces that they would be offscourings to be scattered to every wind, He takes away all hope of restoration, at least for the present. We know that a certain number was left, but such destruction was necessarily threatened before God gave any hope of His mercy.

When He says, to any wind, He signifies in every direction. For as one or another wind blows, so the dust is carried, and the offscourings are dispersed in all directions.