Verses 10-13 give the second example of individual responsibility. They describe a man who is quite the opposite of the good man in the first example.

If he begets a son …: The man in the second example is a son of the good man in the first example. This close familial relationship ties this example in closely with the proverb in verse 2. As in the first example, the conjunction If indicates a hypothetical case, as is clear in Good News Translation, which renders this clause as “Then suppose this man has a son.” Bible en français courant is similar with “Let’s suppose that this man has a son.” Translators should express this clause in a way that is natural in their language.

Who is a robber, a shedder of blood: The son is a robber. The Hebrew word rendered robber is not the usual word for “thief” (see the comments on 7.22), but it has the sense of “violent” (New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, New American Standard Bible), “wild” (New Century Version), or “ruffian” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). He is also a shedder of blood, that is, a “murderer” (New Living Translation; similarly New Century Version), someone who disregards the value of human life and kills people. Translators may render this whole clause as “who is a violent robber and murderer.”

Footnotes in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation alert readers to a textual problem in verse 10. The Hebrew text has a clause at the end of this verse, the meaning of which is unclear. Revised Standard Version omits this clause, but most translations retain it and try to make some sense of it. The Hebrew seems to say literally “and a brother does from one of these things,” but some scholars claim that it can also be interpreted “and he does only one of these things” (so Hebrew Old Testament Text Project) or “and alas, he does any one of these things.” Most translations follow the last of these interpretations (so Good News Translation), although they do not include the interjection “alas,” which shows God’s disappointment and distress at the son’s life of sin. Good News Translation provides a good model for this clause, saying “who does any of these things.” But if translators include this clause (which says that the son does all of the things that his father did not do), it may conflict with the next clause, who does none of these duties (which means the son does not follow the good life his father led). King James Version and New King James Version try to overcome this possible conflict by differentiating between the evil “things” that the son does and the “duties” that he does not do. Both words are in italics in King James Version and New King James Version , which shows that they are not in the Hebrew. Their rendering is very confusing. Most translations understand the clause at the beginning of verse 11 (which is literally “but he did not do all these things”) to refer back to the father; for example, Good News Translation renders this clause and the previous one as “who [the son] does any of these things that the father never did,” and New International Version has “[the son] does any of these other things (though the father has done none of them).” This is the best interpretation.

Models for verse 10 and the first clause of verse 11 are:

• 10 “Now suppose this man has a son, who becomes a lawless man, and murders people, and unfortunately does any of these things, 11 which his father did not do.

• 10 “Now suppose this man has a son, who becomes a lawless man and murderer, and who does what his father did not do, 11 and does not do what his father did.

But eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor’s wife, oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, lends at interest, and takes increase: The things that the lawless son does are exactly the opposite of what his father did. God lists here eight wicked things that he does. He describes them in almost exactly the same words as he used to describe the actions of his father (see numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 10 in the comments on verses 5-9). The main difference is the lack of the negative in these verses—whereas the father did not do these things, the son does them. There is a minor difference in the clause oppresses the poor and needy (compare number 5 above). Here God is more specific. The poor and needy are people who do not have enough to live on (see the comments on 16.49). This phrase may be rendered “those who are weak and pitiful,” “those who live far from the chief’s compound,” “those who don’t have things,” “those who own only one small pig,” or “those who do not have enough to live on.” Commits abomination is the only action that does not have a parallel in the list of the father’s actions. The Hebrew word for abomination usually refers to the worship of pagan idols (see the comments on 5.9), so Good News Translation renders this clause as “worships disgusting idols.” Here it also seems to be a summary statement that shows that the son’s social sins are just as bad as apostasy and unfaithfulness to God, so Contemporary English Version says “does disgusting things,” and New Century Version has “He does things which I hate.”

At the end of the list of the son’s actions, God asks the rhetorical question shall he then live? Immediately he answers his own question, saying He shall not live (compare Good News Translation “No, he will not”). This is a very vivid and forceful preaching style, but if necessary, it is acceptable to combine these two clauses to avoid the question; for example, Contemporary English Version says “An evil man like that will certainly not live.”

He has done all these abominable things is the reason for God’s judgment. This clause may be rendered “He has done all these things God hates” (similarly New Century Version).

He shall surely die repeats the certainty of God’s judgment. He leaves his audience in no doubt about the fate of this sinful man.

His blood shall be upon himself is a legal expression that places the blame for a person’s death on that person, not on the person who kills him. This principle is important for the execution of a criminal or the death of someone in war (compare Lev 20.9-27; Josh 2.19). Helpful models for this clause are “it’s his own fault that he will be put to death” (Contemporary English Version), “He will be to blame for his own death” (Good News Translation), and “He will be responsible for his own death” (New Century Version).

Quoted with permission from Gross, Carl & Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on Ezekiel. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .