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 ([Reference 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 ([Reference 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 ([Reference 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 ([Reference 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 ([Reference 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 ([Reference 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.

Commentaries

Charles Ellicott

On Ezekiel 18:5

John Calvin

On Ezekiel 18:5–9

John Gill

On Ezekiel 18:5

Support Our Work

Matthew Henry

On Ezekiel 18:1–20