If one searches the writings of those who think that the imputation of Adam's sin to his descendants is unjust, he will read such statements as these;
"And in the ultimate injustice, God punishes everyone for someone else's sin, and then saves them all by killing an innocent victim."
However, this is begging the question. It is also, as we will see, against what the bible teaches. It teaches that God is just and yet he has constituted the human race in such a manner that Adam is appointed by God as the head and representative of the race and ordained that his disobedience or obedience be put to the account of his descendants. We also see numerous examples in the old testament where descendants were liable for the errors of their ancestors, though not to the degree of Adam's sin upon his descendants. Concerning that affirmation we will begin first with what the old testament demonstrates to us about this principle.
Old Testament Examples
God punishes children for things that their fathers or ancestors did.
"I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Exo. 20:5)
"Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and to the fourth generation." (Deut. 5: 9)
"Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Exo. 34: 7)
"Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name." (Jer. 32: 18)
On the other hand, we have these scriptures that seem to directly contradict the above verses. The following texts seem to say that God doesn't punish people for the actions of others.
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16)
"But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (II Kings 14: 6; II Chron. 25: 4)
"In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity." (Jer. 31: 29-30)
"The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, "What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge'? "As I live," says the Lord God, "you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel. "Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die." (Eze. 18: 1-4 nkjv)
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Eze. 18: 20)
A superficial reading of these passages would force us to say that there is a contradiction in the bible. One set of verses say that the children suffer adverse consequences for the iniquity of their fathers and the other set says that they do not. So, how do we reconcile these texts?
First, let me call attention to the words highlighted in red above and the words "no more" from the text in Jeremiah. Those words tell us that at one time it was accurately said that the children suffer for the iniquity of their fathers but that some time in the future it would not be said, or would no longer be true. I pointed this out to my debate opponents when we debated original sin and I don't recall that they ever responded to the argument. It seems clear to me that by "those days" reference is to the days when Israel is fully enjoying the blessings of the new covenant, which for individuals is going on now in the church age to some extent, and yet in a greater corporate way when the new heavens and earth are created, a time when there will be "no more curse." (Rev. 22: 3) The context of that chapter shows this to be the case. That age will see the promise completely fulfilled and no one will be suffering the adverse consequences of an ancestor's sins or be held responsible for them.
Also, in some of the verses above it is the death penalty that is the focus. In all the passages above, with the exception of the Jeremiah passage and the passage from Ezekiel chapter eighteen, I have highlighted the words in red that demonstrate this fact. No child will be put to death for the sin of a father. But, that does not mean that they will no longer be subject to other curses or responsibility for a father's iniquity. An example is seen in God's cursing of the son of Ham for the sin of Ham.
"And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." (Gen. 9: 21-25)
Notice the word "cursed." Notice that God did not curse Ham alone for his sin, but cursed his son Canaan. But, as we have seen, there is a day coming when there will be "no more curse," and when the children will no longer he held responsible for the sin of their ancestors. That day has not yet come, although many bible commentators think differently. That day will come when Christ returns and brings in a new age of new heavens and earth, as we have seen from Jeremiah chapter thirty one. Notice this text:
"that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar." (Matt. 23: 35 nkjv)
Obviously, the promise that children will no longer suffer the consequences or liability for a father's iniquity had not yet been annulled or abrogated in the time of Christ for here he affirms that the nation Israel will suffer punishment for the sins of their fathers, going all the way back to the murder of Abel. Israel in the time of Christ would suffer vengeance for having killed Abel? Yes, and therefore we see how the promise of "no more" from Jeremiah chapter thirty one had not yet come in the time of Christ.
So, the promise that the children will "no more" be adversely affected or responsible for the sins of their fathers is not yet fully realized. That is one point of rebuttal in attempting to reconcile the texts above. The next point is probably more forceful however.
In the first set of texts above we see that it is God, and God alone, who curses the children for the sins of their fathers. In the second set of texts, God is forbidding the nation of Israel, or its courts, to act as God in this cursing and charging of responsibility. Therefore, what is forbidden is not what God does, but what the people through their government may be permitted to do. Further, as stated, the chief thing forbidden is the death penalty. No child is to be put to death in Israel by the leadership of Israel for a sin of a father. The prohibitions of these texts do not apply to God. God retains his prerogative to say that children will bear the adverse consequences or liability for the sins of their fathers. Many commentators fail to see this. Even I failed to see it for many years until I saw the light.
Not only Christ, but the Jews still recognized the principle that God may, if he so chooses, cause children to be held responsible for the sins of their fathers, for we read where they exclaimed, in voting to have Christ crucified, “His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matt. 27: 25 nkjv)
So, just because God tells Israel that they cannot put to death a person for the sins of their fathers, that does not mean that he cannot do so. In fact, we have examples of where he did in fact do this. Let us call attention to the case of David's sin of adultery and in the death of Bathsheba's husband. We also read this witness from Samuel the prophet:
"Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die...And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick...on the seventh day, that the child died." (II Sam. 12: 14-18)
Here the child died because of the sin of David. In spite of what this text says, many will have cognitive dissonance over the fact and some will try to explain away what the text obviously says. Some will say that children may suffer the consequences of a father's sinful behavior but not be held responsible for it, like when a father is an alcoholic and brings evils upon his family because of it, and yet the children are not responsible for it. It is true that children suffer evil consequences for the sins of their parents, but these verses go much farther than that. In the above text the child is killed by the Lord for the sin of David. Many people will never accept that God had a just right to do such a thing. Samuel also wrote this about the matter of David's sin:
"Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." (II Sam. 12: 9-10)
So, God also said he would see to it that the sword would never depart from his "house," meaning from his descendants.
"If you fail to follow all of God's commandments, God will curse your children. If thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day...Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body." (Deut. 23: 2)
Again, God has this prerogative and actually exercises it when it pleases him. We saw that this was true with regard to God cursing Canaan, the son, for the sin of his father Ham. Here are some other examples.
"Wherefore hath the LORD pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against the LORD our God? Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the LORD, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law." (Deut. 28: 15-18)
That seems pretty clear. So, we cannot pit the verses that say Israel should not punish children for the sins of their fathers against others that say that God does that very thing. It is the job of the bible apologist to show how both sets of scriptures are true and not just to accept what one set says and disregard the others, as if one set cancels out the other set.
"And it shall come to pass, when thou shalt shew this people all these words, and they shall say unto thee, Wherefore hath the Lord pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against the Lord our God? Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the Lord, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law." (Jer. 16: 10-11)
Now, many will think that God is being unjust to do these things. But, God is just and what he is doing is not unjust. But, we will elaborate on that later in this section. God says that he pronounced evil against the children for the sins of their fathers.
"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD." (Isa. 14:21-22)
Notice that God does not call upon Israel to do the killing nor to judge who was to be killed for the sins of fathers, for this he forbids. Yet, he does not relinquish that right for himself.
Notice one other example from the old testament.
"In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end. For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not." (1 Sam. 3: 12-13)
This text reminds me of the words of Christ to many of the Jews in his day who rejected him.
"In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs." (Luke 11: 48 nkjv)
It may be therefore a case where the Lord in many cases visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children when the children approve of those iniquitous deeds. That would not be true in all cases, as we have seen, because in cases like David's sins, his child was killed by the Lord before the child was old enough to acquiesce to the sins of David.
Some think that children only inadvertently suffer the consequences of the sins of their parents as we have previously stated. However, if one looks at the texts above, it is obvious that it is God in his providence who causes those consequences to occur. He "visits" the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. He curses those children.
In the next chapter we will look into what the bible says about original sin and the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. Following that we will have some things to say about the debate over whether this imputation is mediate or immediate.
No comments:
Post a Comment