www.ArgumentCenter.org - Where hard questions are answered

< STRONG Children aren't punished in the eternal for the sins of the parent.

The verses not indicating the passing of sin to the children appear to show a contradiction with the ones that do, however they are actually concerning eternal, not earthly or physical, punishment. Eternal punishment and guilt are not inherited from our parents (as seen in Ezek 18:20, 2 Cor 5:10). We are guilty according to our own behaviour (James 1:14, Rom 1:32, 2:6, 6:16). Going along with these scriptures, it would be wrong for us to execute someone because of his father’s guilt (Deut 24:16). Each of us is responsible for our own sins; we cannot share or project our guilt onto another.

< Sometimes; it depends on the situation. The “punishment” actually refers to earthly consequences resulting from the parents’ sins.

“Iniquity” in Ex 20:5 (Hebrew: Avon) is translated “punishment” at least 8 times elsewhere in the KJV Bible. “Visiting” is translated into “punishing” in the NIV and a footnote in the NKJV. The verse deals with consequences for this life. This means that the children weren’t inherently guilty of sin and wouldn’t be punished in hell--only that they would suffer consequences in this life for the sins of their parents. This is often seen today with children who suffer for their parents’ mistakes/sins (i.e. An abusive parent can physically, mentally, and emotionally affect a child, leaving a lasting impact on the child’s psyche and subsequent relationships). (http://gospelway.com/topics/salvation/parent-sins-child.php)

The children in example above are presumed innocent of any sin in and of themselves, but instead suffer because of their parents’ sins. The verses convey consequences for this life.

>> Children may suffer for their parents’ mistakes, but this talks about it being passed to the third and fourth generation.

Why would my great-grandparents’ sin affect me? I could see having messed up parents and having to deal with their mistakes, but it’s unlikely to be passed on to the third and fourth generations. It’s unrealistic, and definitely not fair.

<  The “third and fourth generation of those who hate me” is likely an expression.

It’s most likely an expression of God’s longsuffering over the generations of sin. Take these verses for example:

“The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation].” Ex 34:6-7

< It refers only to one person’s life.

“‘Four generations’ in Deut. 5:9 and elsewhere refers to the normal lifespan of a human being, so that essentially, the verse means that punishment will be meted out over the lifetime a person alone.”

- http://www.tektonics.org/lp/paydaddy.html

< The third and fourth generations were punished because they continued the sins of the parent.

See argument below.

< STRONG No, the children may suffer earthly consequences because of their own sin, not merely their fathers’.

If one generation hated God, He would rebuke, but not destroy the nation. If repentance occurred in a future generation, he would spare them. If three or four generations in a row hated God, He would send them into captivity. This again shows how the punishment is referencing earthly punishment/consequences. Further, the punishment only occurs if the future generations continue to hate God, for He keeps “mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,” NOT clearing “the guilty” (Ex 34:7). (http://gospelway.com/topics/salvation/parent-sins-child.php)

In Jeremiah 16:1-6, God warns Jeremiah not to have a child in the land of Israel because those born there, including their parents, “shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither shall they be buried...” Then in verses 10-12 we see the reason for this great punishment, “Because your fathers have forsaken me...and not kept my law. And ye have done worse than your fathers.” We see the generations continuing the sins of the fathers- and paying for it.

Concerning the verses where whole families or children were punished, John MacArthur writes: “Probably the most notable [instance] is Achan. You remember that Achan stole and he hid, and when God came, they punished his whole family. And the best answer to that, and I think, that the answer that is the correct one, is that there was complicity...God is going to be faithful to His own word. We can assume, then, that that family was involved to some degree in what was going on. There was some level of complicity at that point. In other words, they were engaged somehow as partners in the crime.” [Emphasis added] (http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-24-6.htm)

Gotquestions.org writes that the verse Ex 20:5, “is speaking not so much of punishment, but of consequences. It is saying that the consequences of a man’s sins can be felt generations later. God was telling the Israelites that their children would feel the impact of their parents’ generation as a natural consequence of their disobedience and hatred of God. Children raised in such an environment would practice similar idolatry, thus falling into the established pattern of disobedience. The effect of a disobedient generation was to plant wickedness so deeply that it took several generations to reverse. God does not hold us accountable for the sins of our parents, but we sometimes suffer as a result of the sins our parents committed, as Exodus 20:5 illustrates.” [Emphasis added] (http://www.gotquestions.org/parents-sin.html)

< STRONG Yes, sometimes children and families suffered corporate punishment.

Ex 20:5 and 2 Sa 12:14 are “cases of corporate punishment (though the setting and purpose of each was different and would have to be discussed individually). Let it be indicated that objections to such punishment are grounded in the mutation of individualism which is unique to modern, Western nations. The ancients as collectivists considered it neither immoral nor wrong that a family or a people as a whole would or could suffer collectively for the error of one who led the group, or that any "innocents" within their borders (young or old) would suffer collectively. Indeed they expected punishment to be corporate for sins committed by kings or by the group as a whole, or where a sin was committed that affronted the majesty of the group's deity, thereby requiring a public response that was visible to the group as a whole.

Of course, we do have a form of such punishment even today -- e.g., legal human versions of corporate responsibility: if you sue Ford Motor Company owing to the incompetence of its CEO, the whole company pays; and there are international applications (nation goes to war, and the peaceful farmer's field may be trod to lifeless muck or his son drafted and killed). The Nuremberg trials provide another sort of example. Many of the Germans accused of war crimes insisted that they were merely following orders. As individuals, they claimed to be doing the right thing despite whatever transgressions were laid at the feet of the German state. What law could they follow that was higher than German law?

The point is this: Judgments against the corporate entity must have consequences for whatever (or whomever) constitutes that entity. Corporate benefit is the other side of the coin, but few Skeptics seem to wish to concentrate on the fact that God dispenses grace to a far greater number of generations than the number of generations who suffer owing to the iniquities of their forefathers.”
(http://www.tektonics.org/lp/paydaddy.html)

>> STRONG This doesn’t agree with God being a God of justice.

By the definition of justice, it is not fair to punish the innocent for something he or she did not do.

< Perhaps it does agree.

See the argument above on children being punished for their sins.

>> STRONG Unborn babies and young children don’t fit that category.

They are too young to purposefully sin. They don’t know right from wrong and so they aren’t intentionally involved in their parent’s sins.

< These children are taken to be with God. How is that punishment for them?

 >> Are children really taken to be with God?

Where does it say that in the Bible?  

< This is a modern individualist worldview.

The collectivistic societies from the past would disagree on this being an injustice. Throughout history, the majority believed that “all who associate themselves with the corporate entity share in the responsibility of that entity.” Further, the ancient world wasn’t filled with “tax-supported social services, nor…individualists who thought a marginal life better than death….

On the subject of David and Bathsheba, David was king, and set an example for his nation. A visible judgment was required to set against any idea that others could blithely follow in David's steps in sinning. We can hear the rising whine at once: "Who cares? Is God an egotist?" No, God is holy, and God is concerned that the greatest number of people will come to Him for their eternal salvation. Skeptics who tend to think only of the moment have no conception of the out working ripple effect of individual actions (or inaction).

If having no effect at all meant that thousands who otherwise would have come to God and found eternal life instead went to eternal condemnation, is that worth the physical (not eternal) life of one person? For Christians this is a simple matter: The death of one man paid for the salvation of billions.”

-http://www.tektonics.org/lp/paydaddy.html