Bible Commentary (1871–1879 Edition) (continued)
GotTs Just Dealings with Men. EZEKIEL XVIII. Every Man Judged by his own Acts.
whom this was to be accomplished, high . . . low tree the passage here; it had been always God's principle to punish only the guilty, and not also the innocent, for the sins of their fathers. God does not here change the principle of His administration, but is merely about to manii. e., princes elevated . . . depressed. Ail the empires of the world, represented by Babylon, once flourishing ("green"), shall be brought low before the once depressed
("dry"'), but then exalted, kingdom of Messiah and His people, the head of whom shall be Israel (Daniel 2. 44).
fest it so personally to each that tlie Jews should no longer throw on God and on their fathers the blame wliich was their own. soul that slnueth, It shall die—and it alone (Romans 6. 2;?); not also the innocent. 5. Here begins the illustration of God's impartiality in a series of suppose'l cases: (1.) from v. 5-9, the just man ; the excellencies aie selected in reference to the prevailing sins of the age, from which such a one stood aloof; hence arises the omission of some features of righteousness, which, under different circumstances, would have been desirable to he enumerated. Each age has to ow/i besetting temptations, and the just man will be distinguished by his guanling against the peculiar defilements, inward and outward, of his age. just . . . lawful . . . right—the duties of tho second table of the law, which flow from the fear of God. Piety Is the root of all charity; to render to each his own, as well to our neighbour as to God. 6. not eaten upon . . . mountains—the high places, where altars were reared. A double sin : sacrificing elsewhere than at the temple, where only God sanctioned s.acrifice (Deuteronomy 12. 13, 14); and this to idols instead of to Jehovah. " Eaten" refers to tlie feasts which were connected with the sacrifices (see Exodus 32. 6; Deuteronomy .32. 38; Judges 9. 27; 1 Corinthians 8. 4, 10; 10. 7). lifted . . . eyea to—r!2., in adoration (Psalm r21. 1). The superstitious are compared to harlots; their eyes go eagerly after spiritual
CHAPTER XVIII.
Ver. 1-32. The Parable of the Sour Grapes rePRO-VED. Vindication of God's moral government as to His retributive righteousness from the Jewish imputation of injustice, as if they were sutl'ering, not for their own Bin, but for that of their fathers. As in ch. 17. he foretold Messiah's happy reign in Jerusalem, so now he warns them that its blessings can be theirs only upon their individually turning to righteousness. 3. fathers . . . eaten Bour grapes . . . childi-eii's teeth . . . set on etlge—^their unbelieving calumnies on God's justice had become so common as to have assumed a proverbial form. The sin of Adam in eating the forbidden fruit, visited on his posterity, seems to have suggested the peculiar form ; noticed also liy Jeremiah 31. 29; and explained in Lamentations 5.
7, "Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities." They mean by "the children" themselves, as though they were innocent, whereas they were far from being so. The partial reformation effected since Jlanasseh's wicked reign, especially among the exiles at Chebar, was their ground for thinking so; but the improvement was only superficial, and only fostered their self-righteous spirit, which sought anywhere but in themselves the cause of their calamities; just as the modern Jews attribute their present dispersion, not to their own sins, but to those of their forefathers. It is an universal mark of corrupt nature to lay the blame on others wliich belongs to ourselves, and to arraign the juslusts. The righteous man not merely refrains from the act, but from the (//nnce of spiritual lust(Job31.1; Matthew
5. 28). Idols of . . . Israel—not merely those of the Gentiles, but even those of Israel. The fashions of his countrymen could not lead him astray, defiled . . . neigh hour's wife—not only does he shrink from spiriluiil, but also from carnal adultery (cf. 1 Corinthians 6. IS), neither tice of Goil. Cf. Genesis 3. 12, where Adam transfers the blame of his sin to Eve, and even to God, "The woman Whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." 3. ye shall not have occasion ... to use tills proverb any more—because I will let it be seen by the wliole world in tlie very fact tliat you are not righteou,s, as ye fancy yourselves, but wicked, and that you suffer only the just penalty of your guilt; whilst the elect righteous remnant alone escape. 4. all gonls are mine—therefore I can deal with all, being my own crea-. . . menstmous woman—Leprosy and elephantiasis were said to be the fruit of such a connection. [Jerome.) Chastity is to be observed even towards one's own wife (Leviticus 18. 19; 20. 18). 7. restored . . . pledge-that which the poor debtor absolutely needed ; as his raiment, which the creditor was bound to restore before sunset (Exodus 22. 26, 27), and his millstone, which was needed for preparing his food (Deuteronomj' 24. G, 10-13). bread to . . . hungry . . . covered . . . naked—(Isaiah .58. 7; Matthew '25. 30). After duties of Justice come those of benevolence. It is not enough to refrain from doing a wrong to our neighbour, we must also do him good. The bread owned by a man, though " his," is given to him, not tion, as I please (Jeremiah 18. 6). As the Creator of all alike I cn.n have no reason, but the principle of equity, according to men's works, to make any difference, so as to punish some, and to save others (Genesis 18. '2.5). "The Boul that sinnetlj it sliall die." The curse descending from father to son .assumes guilt shared in by the son ; there Is a natural tendency in the child to follow tlie .sin of his to keep to himself, but to impart to the needy. 8. usury lit., bilin;/. The law forbade the Jew to take interest from brethren, but permitted him to do so from a foreigner (Exodus 22.25; Deuteronomy 23. 19, 20; Nchemlah 5.7; Psalm 15. 5). The letter of the law was restricted to the Jewish polity, and is not binding now; and Indeed the principle of taking interest was even then sanctioned, by father, and so he shares in the father's punishment: hence the principles of God's government involved in Exodus
20. 5; Jeremiah 15. 4, are justified. The sons, therefore (as the Jews here), cannot complain of being unjustly afflicted by God (Lamentations .5. 7); for they filled up the guilt of their fathers (Mattliew 2:?. 32, 34-30). The same God who "recompenses the iniquity of the fathers into t!ie bosom of flieir cliiidren," is immediately after set forth as "giving to every man according to his ways" (Jeremiah
Its being allowed in the case of a foreigner. Tho spirit of the law still binds us, that we are not to take advantage of our neighbour's necessities to enrich ourselves, but be satisfied with moderate, oreven no interest. In the case of the needy. Increase—in the case of other kinds of wealth ; as "usury" refers to moucy (Leviticus 25.30). withdrawn
32. IS, 19). In the same law (Exodus 20. 5) which " visited the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourlh generation" (where the explanation Is added, "of them tliat hdte me," i.e., the children haling. . . hand, &c.—where he has tlie opportunity, and might find a plausible plea for promoting his own gain at the cost of a wrong to his neighbour, keeps back his hand from what selfishness prompts, judgment—justice. 9. truly—with integrity, surely live lit.,lixK' in life. Prosper in this life, but still more In the life to come (Proverbs
Oorl, as well as their fathers: tlie former being too likely to follow their parents, sin going down with cumulative force from parent to child), we find (Deuteronomy 24.
3. 1,2; Amos 5.4). 10-1,1. The second case is that of an Impious son of a pious father. Tils pious parentage, so far from excusing, aggravati's his guilt, robber—or lil.. "a breaker," viz., through all constraints of right, doeth the like to any €>uc—the Ilebri and the parallel (u.
16), "the fatliers shall not be put to death for the children, neitlur the children for the fathers: every man sliall bi' i>ut to death for his own sin." The inherited guilt of sin in infants (Romans 5. 11) is an awful fcrr/, but one met by the atonement of Christ; but It Is of adults that he speaks here. Whatever penalties fall on aommiinilies for conni Htlon with sins of their fatliers, individual adults who repent' shall escape (2 Kings
IS) require us to translate rather, "doeth to his brother Any of these things," viz., the things which follow in i'. II, &c. fMArKKH.) 11. those dulies—which his father did d'. 5,
9). VZ. oppressed the poor—an aggravation to his op-
2S, 20). This was no new thing, as some misinterpret 588
Man ehall be Judged EZEKIEL XVIII. by his own Good or Bad Actions.
sins which would have brought death on the perpetrator in Judea whilst the law could be enforced ; so it prepared the way for the gospel. [Grotitjs.] 33. in his righteous* ness . . . he shall live in it, not for it, as if that atoned for his former sins; but "in his righteousness" he shall live, as the evidence of his being already in favour with God through the merit of Messiah, who was to come. The gospel clears up for us many such passages (1 Peter 1. 12), which were dimly understood at the time, whilst men, however, had light enough for salvation. 33. (1 Timothy pressioiis, that they were practised against the poor; whereas in r. 7 Che expression Is simply, " oppressed any." Bbomiiiation—singuiar number referring lo the particular one mentioned in the end of v. G. 13. shall lie . . . live ^—uecause of tlie merits of his father ; answering, by contrast, to " die for the iniquity of his father" (v. 17). hU blood stiall I)e upon lilm—tlie cause of his bloody death
Bliall rest with liimself ; God is not to blame, but is vindicated as just in punishing him. 14-18. The third case: a son who walks not in the steps of an unrighteous father, but in tlie ways of God; e.g., Josiah, the pious son of guilty Amon; Hezekiah, of Ahaz (2 Kings 16.18,21, 22). seetii . . . and consldci-etli—the same Hebrew stands for ooth verbs, " seeth . . . yea, seeth." The repetition implies the attentive observation needed. In order that the son may not be led astray by his father's bad example; as sons generally are blind to parents' sins, and even imitate them as if virtues. 17. taken off Ills hand from the poor—!, e., ahslained from oppressing the poor, when he had tlie opportunity of doing so with impunity. The different sense of the phrase in eh. 16. 49, in reference to re-
2. 4; 2 Peter 3. 9.) If men perish, it is because they will not come to the Lord for salvation ; not that the Lord is not willing to save them (John 5. 40). They trample on not merely justice, but mercy; what farther hope can there be for them, when even mercy is against them ? (HebrewH
10. 26-29.) 34. righteous-one apparently such ; as in Matthew 9. 13, " I came not to call the righteous," <fec., i.e., those who fancy themselves righteous. Those alone arc true saints who by the grace of God persevere (Matthew
24. 18 ; 1 Corinthians 10. 12; John 10. 28, 29). turneth away from . . . rigliteousness—an utter apostasy; not like tlie exceptional offences of the godly through infirmity or heedlessness, which they afterwards mourn over and repent of. not be mentioned—not betaken into account so as to save them, his trespass—utter apostasy. 3.'j. Their plea for saying, " The way of the Lord is not equal," was that God treated diflterent classes in a dif Terent way. But it was really their way that was unequal, since li vlng in sin they expected to be dealt with as if they were righteous. God's way was invariably to deal with dif Terent men according to' their deserts. 36-38. The two last instances repeated in inverse order. God's emphatic statement of His principle of government needs no farther proof than the simple statement of it. in them—in the actual sins, which are the manifestations of the principle of "iniquity," mentioned just before. 37. he shall save his soul i. e., he shall have it saved upon his repentance. 38. consldereth—tlie first ste{) to repentance ; for the ungodly do not consider either God or themselves (Deuteronomy 32. 29 ; Psalm 119. 59, 60 ; Luke 15. 17, 18). 39. Though God's justice is so plainly manifested, sinners still object to it, because they do not wish to see it (Micah 2. 7; Matthew 11. 18, 19). 30-33. As God is to judge them " according to their ways" (Proverbs 1. 31), their only hope is to " repent;" and this is a sure hope, for God takes no delight in lieving the poor, seems to have suggested the reading followed by Fairbairn, but not sanctioned by the Hebrew, "hath not turned his hand from," &c. But ch. 20. 22 uses the phrase in a somewhat similar sense to English Version here, abstained from hurting. 19. Here the Jews object to the propliefs .word, and in their olyection seem to seek a continuance of that very thing which they had originally made a matter of complaint. Therefore translate, " Wherefore doth not the son bear the iniquity of his father?" It now would seem a consolation to them to think the 8on mightisulfer for his father's misdeeds; for it would soothe their self-love to regard themselves as innocent sufferers for the guilt of otheis, and would justify them in their present course of life, which they did not choose to abandon for a better. In reply, Ezekiel reiterates the truth of eacii being dealt with according to his own merits. [Fairbairn.J But Grotius supports English Version, wherein tlie Jews contradict the prophet, "Why (sayest thou so) doth not the son (often, as in our case, though innocent) bear (i. e., sufif'er for) the iniquity of their father?" Ezekiel replies. It is not as you say, but as I in the name of God say : " When the son hath done," &e. English Version is simpler than that of Fairbairn. 20. son shall not bear . . . iniquity of . . . father—(Deuteronomy 24.
judging them in wrath, but graciously desires their salvation on repentance. I will Judge you—Though ye cavil, it is a sufficient answer that I, your Judge, declare
16; 2 Kings 14.6.) righteousness . . , -ivickedness i.e., the reward for rigliteousness . . . the punishment of wickedness. " Righteousness" Is not used as if any were absolutely righteous; but, of siich as have it imputed to them for Christ's sake, though not under the Old Testament tliemselvcs understanding the ground oi. Tvhich they were regarded as righteous, but sincerely seeking after it in the way of God's appointment, so far as they then understood this way. 31-34. Two last cases, showing tlie ecjuily of God: (1.) The penitent sinner is dealt witli according to his new obedience, not according to his former sins. (2.) The righteous man who turns from rigliteousness to sin shall be punished for the latter, and his former righteousness will be of no avail to him. he shall surtly live—Despair drives men into hardened recklessness; God therefore allures men to repentance by holding out hope. [Calvin.]
It so, and will judge you according to my will; and then your cavils must end. -Repent inward conversion (Revelation 2. 5). In the Hebrew there is a play of like sounds, " Turn ye and return." turn yourselves, &c.—tlie outward fruits of repentance. Not as Margin, "turn others;" for the parallel clause {v. 31) is, "cast away from you all your transgressions." Perhaps, however, the omission of tlie object after the verb in the Hebrew implies that bolh are included: Turn alike yourselves axiA all whom you can influence, from all .-. . transgressions—not as if believers are perfect; but they sincerely aim at perfection, so as to be habitually and wilfully on terms with no sin (1 John
3.6-9). your min — lil., your snare, entangling you in ruin. 31. Cast away from you—for the cause of your evil rests with yourselves ; your sole way of escape is to be reconciled to God (Ephesians 4. 22, 23). malcc you a new heart—This shows, not what man can do, but what h.eoughtto do: what God requires of us. God alone can make us a new heart (ch. 11. 19; 36. 26, 27). Tlie command to do what men cannot themselves do is designed to drive them (instead of laying the blame, as the Jews did, elsewhere rather than on themselves) to feel their own helplessness, and to seek God's Holy Spirit (Psalm 51, 11, 12). Thus the outward exhortation Is, as it were, tlie organ or instrument whicb God uses for conferring grace. So we may say witli Augustine, "Give what thou nquirest, and (then) require what tiion wilt." Our strength (which is weakness in itself) shall suffice for whatever He exacts, if only Hegive thesupply. [Calvin.] spirit the imderstanding : as the " heart" means the will and affections. The root 589
" To tlireats the stubborn sinner oft is hard,
Wr:ipt in Iiis crimes, against the stonn prepared, lint wiien the milder beams of mercy, play. He melts, and tiirows the cumbrous cloak away."
Hitherto the cases had been of a change from bad to good, or vice versa, in one generation compared with another. Here it is such a change in one and the same individual. This, as practically all'ecting the persons here addressed, is properly put last. So far from God laying on men the penalty of others' sins. He will not even punish them for their own. If tljey turn from sin to righteousness; but
If they turn from righteousness to sin, they must expect In justice that their former goodness will not atone for Bttbsequent sin (Hebrews 10.38, 39 ; 2 Peter 2. 20-22). The exile In Babylon gave a season for repentance of those
A Lamentation for the Princes. EZEKIEL XIX, XX. A Recital of IsracVs Rebellions.
tnnst be changed, before the fruit can be good, why will breaks, "in the blood of thy grapes," i.e.. In her fuU strength, as the red wine is the strength of tlie grape. Genesis 49. 11 is evidently alluded to. many waters— j-e clle—brin-; on your own selves your ruin. God's decrees ars secret to us ; it is enough for us, tliat He Invites tlie well-watered land of Canaan (Deuteronomy 8. 7-9). 11. stroig rods—princes of the royal house of David. The vine sliot forth her branches like so many sceptres, not creeping lowly on the ground like many vines, but trained aloft on a tree or wall. The mention of their former royal dignity, contrasting sadly with her present sunken state, would remind the Jews of their sins whereby they had incurved such judgments, stature—(Daniel all, and -will reject none that seek Him. 33. (Lamentations 3. .13; 2 Peter .3.9.) God is " slow to anger;" punishment is " His strange work" (Isaiah 28. 21).
CHAPTER XIX.
Ver. l-U. Elegy OVER. THE Fai-l of David'.s House. There is a tacit antithesis between this lamentation and that of the .lews for their own miseries, the causes of
4. 11.) among the thick branches i. e., the central stock or truulc of the tree shot up highest "among its own branches" or ott'shoots, surrounding it. Emblematic of the nuraliers and resources of the people. Hengstenhehq wliich, however, they did not inquire. 1. princes of
Israel—!, e., Judah, whose "princes" alone were recognized by prophecy; those of the ten tribes were, in respect to tlie tlieocracy, usurpers, thy mother—the mother of Jelioiachin, tlie representative of David's line in exile with Ezekiel. The "mother" is Judea: "a lioness," as being tierce in catching prey (v. 3), referring to her heaihenish practices. .Jerusalem was called Ariel (the lion of God) in a good sense (Isaiah 29. 1) ; and Judah " a lion's whelp ... a lion ... an old lion" (Genesis 49. 9), to which, as also to Numbers 23. 24 ; 24. 9, this passage alludes.
translates, "among the clouds." But ch.31.3, 10,14, supports English Version. ISJ. plucked np—not graduallj/ withered. The sudden upturning of the state was designed to awaken the Jews out of their torpor to see the hand of God in the national judgment, east wind (Note, ch. 17. 10.) 13. planted—i. e., transplanted. Though already "dried up" in regard to the nation generally, the vine is said to be "transplanted" as regards God's mercy to the remnant in Babylon, dry . . . ground — C'hahlea w;is well w.atered and fertile; but It is the condition of tlie captive people, not that of the land, which is referred to. 14. fire . . . out of a rod of her brandies—The Jews' disaster was to be ascribed, not so much to the Chaldeana as to themselves; tlie " fire out of the rod" is God's icroth kindled by the perjury of Zedekiah (ch. 17. IS). " The anger of the I/ord" against Judah is specified as the cause why Zedekiah was permitted torebel against Babylon (2 Kings i>OMris!i«-d . . . among yo«i»g lions—she herself had
"biiii" among lions, j. e., had intercourse witli the corruptions of the surrounding heathen, and had brouglit up the royal young ones similarly: utterly degenerate from the stock of .-Vbraham. "Lay down," or "couched," is appropriate to the lion, the Arab name of which means " the coucher." 3. yonnjf lien—.Tehoahaz, son of Josiah, carried captive from Riblah to Egypt by Pharaoh-necho
(2 Kin,<TS 2.'!. 4. The nations— Egj'pt, in the case of Jehoahnz, who probalily provoked Pharaoh by trying to avenge t!:e death of liis father by assailing tlie bordering
24. 20; cf. Judges 9. 15\ thus bringing Nebuchadnezzar against .Terusalem. no strong rod . . . sceptre to rule no more kings of David's stock are now to rule the nation. Not at least until "the Lord shall send the rod of Hia strength (Jlessiah, Psalm 110. 2; Isaiah 11. 1) out of Zion," to reign first as a spiritual, then hereafter as a literal king, is . . . and shall be for a lamentation—part of the lamentation (that as to Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim) wa« matter of history as already accomplished; part (as to cities of Ksrypt C2 Kings 23.29, 30). In thetr pit—image from the plffaH.s used for calcliing wild beasts (Jeremiali
22.11, 12i. cliains—or hool.% which were fastened in the noses ol wild bensts fsee Note, v. 9). 5. saw that she ha«l waited, anil her hope was lost i. e., that her longwaited for hope was disappointed, Jehoahaz not being restored to her from Egypt, she took another of her whe Jps—.Ii>hoiakini, brother of Jehoahaz, who was placed on liie I !r,-o!ie by Phai aoli (2 Kings 23. 34), according to the wish of Judall. G. went np and do Avn among the lions —imittited tlie recklessness and tyranny of tlie surrounding kings ('Jeremiah 22. 13-17). catch . . . prey—to do evil, gratifying liis lusts by oppression (2 Kings2;?. 37). 7. knew. Zedekiah) was yet to be fulfilled ; or, this prophecy both
Is a subject for lamentation, and shall be so to distant posterity.
CHAPTER XX.
Ver. 1-49. Rejection of the Elders' Application to THE Prophet: Exposure of Israel's PROTRACTEn Rebellions, NOTWITHSTANDING GOD'S LONG-.SUFFERINQ Goodness: Yet will God Restore His People at Last. 1. seventh year, &c.—viz., from the carrying away of Jeconiali (cli. 1. 2; 8.1). This computation was calculated to make tliein cherish the more ardently the hope of the restoration promised them in seventy years, for, when prospects are hopeless, years are not computed. [Calvin.] elders . . . came to Inquire— The object of their inquiry, as in ch. 14. 1, Is not stated; probably it was to ascertain the cause of the national calamities, and the time of their termination, as their false prophets assured them of a speedy restoration. 3. The chapter falls into two great parts: t'. 1-32, the recital of the people's rebellions during Ave distinct periods: in Egypt, the wilderness, on the borders of Canaan when a new generation arose. In Canaan, and in the time of the prophet. I will not be Inquired of by you—because their moral state precluded them from capability of knowing tlu will of God (Psalm (iti. 18; Proverbs 28.9; John 7.17). 4. Wilt thou Judge 1 . . . Jutlge—the emphatlcal repetition expresses, "Wilt thou no Judge? ycs,Jhdge them. There is a loud call for immediate Judgment." The Hebrew interrogative here Is a command, not a prohibition. [M aurbb.] Instead of spending time in tofc/ii?i(/ them, tell lliem of the abominallou of their fathers, of which their own are the complement and counterpart, and which call lor judgment. 5, 6. The llirlce lifting up of God's hand (the slga of His oa//i, Ri'velalion lO.,'!, (i; Exodus 6. 8, jl/d/v/i?! ,• Numbers 11.31); to wlili h passages the form of words here alludes) Implies the solemn earnestness of God's pur-. . . «{i(solatp palaces i. e., claimed oj his oivn their palaces, wliic-li lie then proceeded to "desolate." The Hebreio lit. means v>idov>s ; hence roidowed palaces (Isaiah 13.
22). Vatablus (whom Fairbaikn follows) explains It, "He knew (carnally) the widows of those whom he devoured" {v. 6). But thus the metaphor and the literal rea Uly would be l)lciuled: the lion being represented as knowinri widows. Tlie reality, however, often elsewhere thus breaks through the veil, fulness thereof—all that it continued; its inhaljitants. 8. the nations—the Chaldeans, .'lyrians, Moab, and Amnion (2 Kings 21. 2). 9. In chains — (2 Chronicles SO. 6; Jeremiah 22.18). Margin, "Hooks;" perhaps referring to the hook often passed through the nose of beasts; so, too, through that of captives, as seen in the Assyrian sculptures (see A'o/e, r. 4). voice i. e., his roaring, no more be heard upon the mountains—carrying on the metaphor of tlie lion, whose roaring on the mountains frightens all the other beasts. The insolence of the prince, not at all abated thougli Iiis kingiioui was Impaired, was now to cease. 10. A new meliiphor, taken from the vine, the chief of the fruit-bearing Iri-es, as the lion Is of the beasts of prey (see eh. 17. fi). In thy blood—" planted when thou wast In thy blood," t. (•., Ill lliy very infaiKy ; as in ch. Ifi. fi, wlien thou hadst just come liom the? womb, and hadst not yet. the blood washed from l liee. The Jews from the first were planted In Canaan to take root there, ((^alvin.] Guotius trnns Intrs as Afarr/in, "in thy quietness," i.e., in the period when Judah had not yet fallen into her present troul)les.
Englinh Version is better. Gi.ASSlus explains It well, retaining the metai)hor, which Cai.VIN'8 explanation o'JO
EZEKIEL XX.
and in the Land of Canaan,
Israer Rebellions in the Wilderness, pose of grace to them, made myself known nnto tlieiH—proving myself faithful and true by the actual they "rebelled" In the very place where death and terror were on every side, and wiiere they depended on my miraculous bounty every moment! 15. I swore against them (Psalm 95.11; 106. 26) that I would not permit the generation that came out of Egypt to enter Canaan. 16. Tlie special reason is stated by Moses (Numbers 13., 14.) to be that they, through fear arising from the false report of the spies, wished to return to Egypt ; the general reasons are stated here which lay at the root of their rejection of God's grace, viz., contempt of God and His laws, anfl love of idols, their heart—the fault lay in it (I'salm 78.
fultilnipnt of my promises (Exodus 4. 31 ; 6.3); revealing myself as "Jeliovah," i. e., not that the name was unit noun before, but that then first the /o?-ce of that name was manifesfed in the promises of God then being realized in performances. 6. espied for tUem—as though
(jod liiid spied out all other lands, and chose Canaan as the best of all lands (Deuteronomy 8. 7, 8). See Daniel 8.
9; 11. 16, 41; " the glorious land ;" see Margin, " land of delijixt or ornament ;" Zechariali 7. 14, "the pleasant land,"
37). 17. Nevertheless—How marvellous tliat God should spare such sinners! His everlasting covenant explains
(.•r land of desire, glory of all lands i. e., Canaan was
tlie beauty of all lauds:" the most lovely and delightful lam! ; "milk and honey" are not the antecedents to " wliich." 7. Moses gives no formal statement of idolit; His long-suffering standing out in strilving contrast to their rebellions (Psalm 78. 38; Jeremiah 30. 11). 18. I said unto tlieir children—Being unwilling to speak any more to the fathers as being incorrigible, walk ye not in . . . statutes of . . . fathers—The traditions of the fathers are to be carefully weighed, not indiscriminately followed. He forbids the imitation of not only tlieir gross atiies practised by Israel In Egypt. But it is implied iu their readiness to worship the golden calf (resembling the Egyptian ox, Apis) (Exodus 32.), which makes
It likely they had worshipped such Idols in Egypt. Also, in Leviticus 17.7, "They shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils (lit., Seirim, 'he-goats,' the symbol of the false god. Pan), after whom they have gone a-whoririg." The call of God by Moses was as much sins, but even their plausible statutes. [Calvin. j 19. It is an indirect denial of God, and a robbing Him of His due, to add man's inventions to His precepts. 30. (Jeremiah 17. 22.) 21. Though warned by the judgment on their fathers, the next generation also rebelled against God. The "kindness of Israel's youth and love of her espousals in the wilderness" (Jeremiah 2. 2, 3) were only comparative (the corruption in later times being more general), and confined to the minority; as a whole, Israel at no time fully served God. The "children" it was that to them to separate from Idols and follow Jehovah, as it was to Pharaoh to let them go forth. Exodus 6. 6, 7; Joshua 21. 14, expressly mentions their idolatry "in Jlgypt Hence the need of their being removed out of the contagion of Egyptian idolatries by the exodus, every one—so universal was the evil, of Ills eyes—It was nol li ar of their Egyptian masters, but their own lust of the eye that drew them to idols (ch. 6. 9 ; 18. 6). 8, 9. then I enid, I will . . . Bnt, &c.—i. e. (God speaking in condescension to liuman modes of conception) their spiritual degradation deserved I should destroy them, "but I jvrought fell into the fearful apostasy on the plains of Moab at the close of the wilderness sojourn (Numbers 25. 1, 2; Deuteronomy 31. 27). 23. It was to that generation the threat of dispersion was proclaimed (Deuteronomy 28. 64; cf. ch. 29.
(riz., the deliverance 'out of . . . Egypt') for my name's
4). 25. I gave them . . . statutes . . . not good—since they would not follow my statutes that were good, "I gave them" their own {v. 18) and their fathers' "which were not good;" statutes spiritually corrupting, and, finally, as the consequence, destroying them? .Righteoos retribution (Psalm 81. 12; Hosea 8. 11; Romans 1. 21; 2 Thessalonians 2. 11). Verse 39 proves this view to be correct (ef. Isaiah 63. 17). Thus on the plains of Moab (Numbers 25.), in chastisement for the secret unfaithfulness to God in their hearts. He permitted Baal's worshippers to tempt them to Idolatry (the ready success of the tempters, moreover, proving the inward unsoundness of the tempted); and this again ended necessarily in punitive Judgments. 26. I polluted them—not directly ; "but I judicially gave them up to pollute themselves." A just retribution for their " polluting my Sabbaths" {v. 24). This V. 26 is explanatory of v. 25. Their own sin I made their punishment, caused to pass througli the f\re-~ Fairbaikn translates, "In Vae\r presenting (lit., the causing topass over) all their first-born," viz., to the Lord; referring to the command (Exodus 13. 12, Margin, where the very same expression is used). The lustration of children by passing through the fire was a later abomination {v. 31). The evil here spoken of was the admixture of heathenish, practices with Jehovah's worship, which made Him regard all as "polluted." Here, "to the Lord" is omitted purposely, to imply, "They kept up the outward service indeed, but I did not own it as done unto me, since it was mingled with such pollutions." But English Version is supported by the similar phraseology in v. 31, where see my note. They made all their children pass through the fire; but he names the first-born, in aggravation of their guilt; i.e., "I had willed that the firstborn should be redeemed as being mine, but they imposed on themselves the cruel rites of offering them to Molech" (Deuteronomy 18. 10). might know . . . the Iiord—that they may be compelled to know me as a powerful Judge, since the.v were unwilling to know me as a gracious Father. 27-29. The next period, viz., that which followed the settlement in Canaan; the fathers of the generation existing In Ezelclel's time walked in the same steps of apostasy as the generation in the wilderness. Yet in this—Not content with past rebellions, and not moved with gratitude for God's goodness, "yet In this" dJikr-;" not for their merits (a rebuke to their national pride). Got 's " name" means the sum-total of His perfections; to niii'iifest these, His gratuitous mercy abounding above tlieirsins, yet without wrong to His Justice, and so to set fortli His glory, was and is the ultimate end of His dealings (i-. 14, 22; 2 Samuel 7. 23; Isaiah 63. 12; Romans 9.
17). IX. wliicli if a man do, he shall , , . live in them —not " by them," as thougli they could justify a man, seeing that man cannot render the faultless obedience required (Leviticus 18. 5; Galatians 3. 12). "By them" is the expression indeed in Romans 10. 5; but there the design is to show that, if man could obey all God's laws, he would be justified " by them" (Galatians 3. 21); but he cannot; he therefore needs to have justification by "the Lord our rigliteousness" (Jeremiah 23. 6); then, having thus received life, lie " lives," t. e., maintains, enjoys, and'exercises this life only in so far as he walks "in." the laws of God. So Deuteronomy 30. 15, 16. The Israelites, flw a nation, had life already freely given to them by God's covenant of promise; the laws of God were designed to be the means of the outward expression of their spiritual life. As the natural life has its healthy manifestation In the full exercise of
Its powers, .so their spiritual being as a nation was to be developed in vigour, or else decay, according as they did, or did not, walk in God's laws. 13. Sabbaths ... a sign between me and them—a kind of sacramental pledge of llie covenant of adoption between God and His people. The Sabljath is specified as a sample of the whole law, to show tliat the law is not merely precepts, but privileges, of which tlie Sabbath is one of the highest. Not that the Kabl)ath was first Instituted at Sinai, as if it were an exclusively Jewish ordinance (Genesis 2. 2, 3), but it was then more formally enacted, when, owing to the apostasy of the world from the original revelation, one people was called out (Deuteronomy 5. 15) to be the covenant people of God. sanctify them—The observance of the Sabbath contemplated by God was not a mere outward rest, but a uplritunl dedication of the day to the glory of God and the good of man. Otherwise it would not be, as it is made, the pledge of u.iiversal sanctification (Exodus 31. 13-17; Isaiah .5«. 13, 14) Virtually It is said, all sanctity will flourish or decay, according as this ordinance is observed In Its full spirituality or not. 13. in the wilderness—