Ezekiel 18:10-13

The Wicked Son.

The purpose of the comparison is to refute the idea that a man suffers or benefits as far as God is concerned because of his family connections. A man may naturally benefit, or otherwise, as a result of his family environment, behaviour and wealth, but in the end God's dealings with him will be solely on the basis of his own moral behaviour and attitude towards God.

“If he beget a son who is a robber, a shedder of blood, and who does any one of these things (i.e. those about to be described), and does not any of those (i.e those previously described), but has even eaten on the mountains, and defiled his neighbour's wife, has wronged the poor and needy, has spoiled by violence, has not restored the pledge, and has lifted up his eyes to the idols, has committed abomination, has given forth on usury and has taken increase. Shall he then live? He will not live. He has done all these abominations. He will surely die. His blood will be on him.”

A son may turn out to be the exact opposite of his father. He may steal or obtain by false means, he may use unnecessary violence, he may partake in idolatry, he may misuse his neighbour's wife, wrong the poor and needy, receive gain by violence, misuse his debtors, demand high interest, and so on. And what will be the result? He will not be protected in God's eyes by the goodness of his father, or the uprightness of his family. Because of his own behaviour God will judge him, and he will suffer accordingly.

This was why Israel's religion was unique in its day. Yahweh was concerned with, and required, right moral behaviour. Other religions were concerned with doing what the gods required, satisfying them with gifts and sacrifices and subservience, and persuading them to give some assistance in matters of life with which they were concerned. Moral behaviour was not seen as required by the gods, and indeed the gods were often seen as worse behaved than men. But Yahweh was different. His covenant regulated men's behaviour as well as their religious activity.

Note the close connection between eating on the mountains and defiling the neighbour's wife. The two were regularly connected as men and women got drunk and behaved licentiously in fertility rites under the guise of religious activity. Note also ‘all these abominations'. Idolatry was ‘abominable' because of the attitudes it encouraged and the fruit that it produced. Almost any evil behaviour could be justified from the behaviour of the gods. So when God condemned ‘abominations' it included all these things.

‘Shall he then live? He will not live. He has done all these abominations. He will surely die. His blood will be on him.' There is a clear indication here of a difference between death and punitive death. In some way he comes under punishment. Nothing is spelt out, but the impression is that in some way he will be positively punished. He will forfeit all that is good, and his death will be final.