Is Ezekiel 18:20 a proof text refuting original sin and imputed guilt?

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The Text: "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."

Here are some quotations I have gathered from Credobaptists concerning this verse:

• So are you saying we inherit Adam's sin even though God says we don't inherit our parents sins?
• If I cannot inherit my father’s sin, how can I inherit Adam’s sin? I cannot.
• The idea that human beings are born already guilty of someone else’s sin is not only false doctrine, it does dishonor to the God of the Bible. Ezekiel 18:19-20 says that the son does not inherit the sin of the father and the father does not inherit the sin of the son.
• I believe it would be unjust to punish you for my sin, or me for Adam’s sin. I am not morally culpable for the actions of others, but for my own, and that is plenty. Ezekiel 18 seems like a strong argument for this view.
• Ezekiel 18:20 says the son does not bear the guilt of the father but total depravity says all the descendants of Adam inherit the guilt of his sin. Sin is not something which comes by birth but is something one decides to engage in.

*********

Ezekiel 18 is a complex chapter. This chapter deals with the deported second and third generation Israelites who are suffering enslavement in the midst of the Babylonian captivity. The cause of this captivity was idolatry against God Himself.

With the destruction of the Temple and the deportations, a very real crisis emerged. Prior to that event, it was held that the Temple in Jerusalem was God’s exclusive dwelling place on the earth, and that only in the Temple was it possible to commune with God. Furthermore, this communing was only through the Zadokite priesthood. So when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and exiled the Temple priests and seized the holy relics, there was a very real crisis. With the Temple gone and the priests unable to perform sacrifice there, how could the Jewish people commune with their God and follow his commandments?

We now see a drift into fatalism with the recurrent theme of complaining or murmuring against God by shifting-the-blame to the sins of their fathers instead of the exiles understanding their own sin. For those born in captivity, a smug self-righteousness overcomes them and an accusation will be leveled against God Himself…He is unjust (vs. 25-29). The exiles are blind to their own sin. It is not God who is unjust. God then rails down the condemnation….the exiles themselves are unjust (vs. 29).

The answer and comfort Ezekiel gives those in exile foreshadows the New Testament especially in the person of John the Baptist. God will tabernacle with his people wherever they are at in captivity. Through repentance and the preaching of Ezekiel (and Jeremiah in Judea), God will give them a new heart and spirit to commune with God himself (vs. 31). This is regeneration in the truest sense.

********
Chapter 18 begins with the exiles using an extra biblical proverb is a challenge to God’s fairness. “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” In essence, the proverb seeks to place the blame elsewhere for their captivity. The gist of the proverbs seems to be a comparison to a situation in which a child is born deformed, on account of the father eating bad grapes before conceiving the child. Thus, the child is punished with bad teeth because of the father’s bad judgment, or perhaps even his simple mistake. As stated before, Israel seemed to place the blame of exile at the feet of their fathers who had sinned and walked contrary to God. In doing so, they had failed to recognize the sinfulness of their own sin, were guilty of blame-shifting. God then commands that use of the proverb cease.

Ezekiel answers this false proverb and the exile’s own self righteousness by calling for repentance with his three generation illustration. The prophet uses civil transgressions with the judgment and penalties associated of Torah as analogous to moral transgressions. Therefore, the context of the second set of verses is dealing with the legality aspect within the Jewish court system.

• The third generation: The sinful but repentant grandfather is considered righteous (vs 5-9).
• The second generation:The sinful wicked unrepentant father (who commits capital offenses) as is worthy of death (vs. 10-13).
• The first generation: The sinful but repentant adult son is considered righteous(vs. 14-18).

God is not addressing here the issue of sin as related to spiritual death but as to one sinning unto a capital crime that will lead to them being put to physical death, such as by stoning. The unrepentant father is a robber, murderer and has committed adultery which are capital sins in the Torah. This does not have original sin in its cross hairs, rather we may add, the consequences of original sin’s corrupting influence.

In order for the exiles to stop blame-shifting the prophet states in vs. 20 “The son will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the son....” In other words, the Jewish legal system does not allow “guilt sharing” in its punishments, so neither should the exiles believe they are sharing in their forefathers guilt and blaming them for it. The exiles have true moral guilt because they are sinners and repentance is its only cure.

Perhaps Duet 24:16 as a parallel passages adds clarity here. “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Deuteronomy 24 is talking about how things should operate in civil society. It's not talking about God's dealings with man whether though the Law or Gospel; Duet. 24 and Ez. 18 are talking about capital punishment in the context of civil society. And in the context of society, sons ought not be put to death for the sins of their fathers. The right way to preserve justice in civil society is to punish those alone who have committed crimes worthy of punishment. So, this passage isn't dealing with imputation at all, it's dealing with capital punishment as it relates to civil society.

CONCLUSION:

1. Contextually, Ezekiel 18:20 has nothing to do with the fall, original sin or the imputation of guilt concerning Adam’s descendants. It is not a parallel text to Genesis 3. So it is a stretch for credobaptists to interpret it as such even though it is nearly uniformly believed to be about imputation by Credobaptists. This verse is part of a larger rhetorical message of the whole chapter, namely, if you repent, you will be saved – regardless of the sins of your parents or children.

2. Contextually, there is no mention of repentance during the Fall of mankind. Adam endures God’s pronouncements and suffers the curse mediated to him. Adam is comforted with the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15. On the other hand, the exiles themselves are going to commune with God in a new and different way….through repentance: “Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. (vs. 30-31) Repentance is not a matter of bearing guilt as a burden, neither is it the cultivation of remorse or regret. Instead, is the first step toward transformation — what Ezekiel calls getting a new heart and a new spirit. Repentance is an active, deliberate step in a new direction. It is a step into the future, into life itself.

3. If the context dealt specifically with the imputation of Adam's sin, why would the passage be dealing with actual sin? The passage actually deals with the idea that the unrepentant sin of the father should not be charged to the repentant children. The doctrine of original sin does not deal with repentance at all, but rather the guilt we have in Adam. The passage assumes both guilt and pollution since the subject is a wicked man who needs to repent.

4. Ezekiel 18 does not address the origin of sin or how sin is contracted.

5. There are no innocent individuals in Ez. 18. All are above the Age of Accountability even the son, who is considered an adult as he doesn’t require a pledge for a loan (vs. 16).

6. If one insists that the Ezekiel passage is a universal principle or law that states that no one can justly suffer for the sins of another, then it directly violates the gospel message that Jesus Christ suffered on the cross for the sins of human beings. And Christians are to affirm that Jesus suffered in the place of others. In other words, apart from Christ's imputed righteousness, the repentance in Ezek. 18 by itself is not able to cover our sins.

Apart from Christ's imputed righteousness, our sins-- even a single sin-- would outweigh any good that we did and there could not be forgiveness. The prophet can say that "none of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him" because of Christ’s substitutionary atonement.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Text: "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."

Here are some quotations I have gathered from Credobaptists concerning this verse:

• So are you saying we inherit Adam's sin even though God says we don't inherit our parents sins?
• If I cannot inherit my father’s sin, how can I inherit Adam’s sin? I cannot.
• The idea that human beings are born already guilty of someone else’s sin is not only false doctrine, it does dishonor to the God of the Bible. Ezekiel 18:19-20 says that the son does not inherit the sin of the father and the father does not inherit the sin of the son.
• I believe it would be unjust to punish you for my sin, or me for Adam’s sin. I am not morally culpable for the actions of others, but for my own, and that is plenty. Ezekiel 18 seems like a strong argument for this view.
• Ezekiel 18:20 says the son does not bear the guilt of the father but total depravity says all the descendants of Adam inherit the guilt of his sin. Sin is not something which comes by birth but is something one decides to engage in.

*********

Ezekiel 18 is a complex chapter. This chapter deals with the deported second and third generation Israelites who are suffering enslavement in the midst of the Babylonian captivity. The cause of this captivity was idolatry against God Himself.

With the destruction of the Temple and the deportations, a very real crisis emerged. Prior to that event, it was held that the Temple in Jerusalem was God’s exclusive dwelling place on the earth, and that only in the Temple was it possible to commune with God. Furthermore, this communing was only through the Zadokite priesthood. So when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and exiled the Temple priests and seized the holy relics, there was a very real crisis. With the Temple gone and the priests unable to perform sacrifice there, how could the Jewish people commune with their God and follow his commandments?

We now see a drift into fatalism with the recurrent theme of complaining or murmuring against God by shifting-the-blame to the sins of their fathers instead of the exiles understanding their own sin. For those born in captivity, a smug self-righteousness overcomes them and an accusation will be leveled against God Himself…He is unjust (vs. 25-29). The exiles are blind to their own sin. It is not God who is unjust. God then rails down the condemnation….the exiles themselves are unjust (vs. 29).

The answer and comfort Ezekiel gives those in exile foreshadows the New Testament especially in the person of John the Baptist. God will tabernacle with his people wherever they are at in captivity. Through repentance and the preaching of Ezekiel (and Jeremiah in Judea), God will give them a new heart and spirit to commune with God himself (vs. 31). This is regeneration in the truest sense.

********
Chapter 18 begins with the exiles using an extra biblical proverb is a challenge to God’s fairness. “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” In essence, the proverb seeks to place the blame elsewhere for their captivity. The gist of the proverbs seems to be a comparison to a situation in which a child is born deformed, on account of the father eating bad grapes before conceiving the child. Thus, the child is punished with bad teeth because of the father’s bad judgment, or perhaps even his simple mistake. As stated before, Israel seemed to place the blame of exile at the feet of their fathers who had sinned and walked contrary to God. In doing so, they had failed to recognize the sinfulness of their own sin, were guilty of blame-shifting. God then commands that use of the proverb cease.

Ezekiel answers this false proverb and the exile’s own self righteousness by calling for repentance with his three generation illustration. The prophet uses civil transgressions with the judgment and penalties associated of Torah as analogous to moral transgressions. Therefore, the context of the second set of verses is dealing with the legality aspect within the Jewish court system.

• The third generation: The sinful but repentant grandfather is considered righteous (vs 5-9).
• The second generation:The sinful wicked unrepentant father (who commits capital offenses) as is worthy of death (vs. 10-13).
• The first generation: The sinful but repentant adult son is considered righteous(vs. 14-18).

God is not addressing here the issue of sin as related to spiritual death but as to one sinning unto a capital crime that will lead to them being put to physical death, such as by stoning. The unrepentant father is a robber, murderer and has committed adultery which are capital sins in the Torah. This does not have original sin in its cross hairs, rather we may add, the consequences of original sin’s corrupting influence.

In order for the exiles to stop blame-shifting the prophet states in vs. 20 “The son will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the son....” In other words, the Jewish legal system does not allow “guilt sharing” in its punishments, so neither should the exiles believe they are sharing in their forefathers guilt and blaming them for it. The exiles have true moral guilt because they are sinners and repentance is its only cure.

Perhaps Duet 24:16 as a parallel passages adds clarity here. “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Deuteronomy 24 is talking about how things should operate in civil society. It's not talking about God's dealings with man whether though the Law or Gospel; Duet. 24 and Ez. 18 are talking about capital punishment in the context of civil society. And in the context of society, sons ought not be put to death for the sins of their fathers. The right way to preserve justice in civil society is to punish those alone who have committed crimes worthy of punishment. So, this passage isn't dealing with imputation at all, it's dealing with capital punishment as it relates to civil society.

CONCLUSION:

1. Contextually, Ezekiel 18:20 has nothing to do with the fall, original sin or the imputation of guilt concerning Adam’s descendants. It is not a parallel text to Genesis 3. So it is a stretch for credobaptists to interpret it as such even though it is nearly uniformly believed to be about imputation by Credobaptists. This verse is part of a larger rhetorical message of the whole chapter, namely, if you repent, you will be saved – regardless of the sins of your parents or children.

2. Contextually, there is no mention of repentance during the Fall of mankind. Adam endures God’s pronouncements and suffers the curse mediated to him. Adam is comforted with the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15. On the other hand, the exiles themselves are going to commune with God in a new and different way….through repentance: “Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. (vs. 30-31) Repentance is not a matter of bearing guilt as a burden, neither is it the cultivation of remorse or regret. Instead, is the first step toward transformation — what Ezekiel calls getting a new heart and a new spirit. Repentance is an active, deliberate step in a new direction. It is a step into the future, into life itself.

3. If the context dealt specifically with the imputation of Adam's sin, why would the passage be dealing with actual sin? The passage actually deals with the idea that the unrepentant sin of the father should not be charged to the repentant children. The doctrine of original sin does not deal with repentance at all, but rather the guilt we have in Adam. The passage assumes both guilt and pollution since the subject is a wicked man who needs to repent.

4. Ezekiel 18 does not address the origin of sin or how sin is contracted.

5. There are no innocent individuals in Ez. 18. All are above the Age of Accountability even the son, who is considered an adult as he doesn’t require a pledge for a loan (vs. 16).

6. If one insists that the Ezekiel passage is a universal principle or law that states that no one can justly suffer for the sins of another, then it directly violates the gospel message that Jesus Christ suffered on the cross for the sins of human beings. And Christians are to affirm that Jesus suffered in the place of others. In other words, apart from Christ's imputed righteousness, the repentance in Ezek. 18 by itself is not able to cover our sins.

Apart from Christ's imputed righteousness, our sins-- even a single sin-- would outweigh any good that we did and there could not be forgiveness. The prophet can say that "none of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him" because of Christ’s substitutionary atonement.

If anyone is interpreting the passage according to the six principles you laid out, that would be classically Pelagian. I would be shocked to see such an interpretation from any Calvinist Baptist such as Dr. Albert Mohler, given how Calvinists seek to be as anti-Pelagian as possible (and perhaps overdo it just a bit). However, clearly, we do inherit the sins of Adam, otherwise we would be able to save ourselves and behave righteously and we would not experience death. This is either via the model proposed by St. Augustine of original sin or the model proposed by John Cassian of hereditary sin, which was historically favored by the Roman Catholic Church until their theology became dominated by what we now call Scholasticism; the model of St. John Cassian remains the preferred model among the Orthodox churches (and also I believe the Church of the East also uses the model of St. John Cassian, if they consciously think about it; to a large extent Assyrian theology was on autopilot for several centuries following the massive genocide against the Church of the East waged by the Mongol-Turkic warlord Tamerlane and his sons starting in the 12th century AD.

 

[B Griffin]

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Ge 2:16–17 NKJV)​

Did they die that day? Surely they did. And it is not conceivable that their offspring would be born with life since they no longer possessed it. How may life be restored to dead people and to their dead offspring? Jesus possesses and gives life to everyone He wishes (John 5:21, 26).

17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. (Ro 5:17 NKJV)​

It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The Text: "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."

Here are some quotations I have gathered from Credobaptists concerning this verse:

• So are you saying we inherit Adam's sin even though God says we don't inherit our parents sins?
• If I cannot inherit my father’s sin, how can I inherit Adam’s sin? I cannot.
• The idea that human beings are born already guilty of someone else’s sin is not only false doctrine, it does dishonor to the God of the Bible. Ezekiel 18:19-20 says that the son does not inherit the sin of the father and the father does not inherit the sin of the son.
• I believe it would be unjust to punish you for my sin, or me for Adam’s sin. I am not morally culpable for the actions of others, but for my own, and that is plenty. Ezekiel 18 seems like a strong argument for this view.
• Ezekiel 18:20 says the son does not bear the guilt of the father but total depravity says all the descendants of Adam inherit the guilt of his sin. Sin is not something which comes by birth but is something one decides to engage in.

*********

Ezekiel 18 is a complex chapter. This chapter deals with the deported second and third generation Israelites who are suffering enslavement in the midst of the Babylonian captivity. The cause of this captivity was idolatry against God Himself.

With the destruction of the Temple and the deportations, a very real crisis emerged. Prior to that event, it was held that the Temple in Jerusalem was God’s exclusive dwelling place on the earth, and that only in the Temple was it possible to commune with God. Furthermore, this communing was only through the Zadokite priesthood. So when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and exiled the Temple priests and seized the holy relics, there was a very real crisis. With the Temple gone and the priests unable to perform sacrifice there, how could the Jewish people commune with their God and follow his commandments?

We now see a drift into fatalism with the recurrent theme of complaining or murmuring against God by shifting-the-blame to the sins of their fathers instead of the exiles understanding their own sin. For those born in captivity, a smug self-righteousness overcomes them and an accusation will be leveled against God Himself…He is unjust (vs. 25-29). The exiles are blind to their own sin. It is not God who is unjust. God then rails down the condemnation….the exiles themselves are unjust (vs. 29).

The answer and comfort Ezekiel gives those in exile foreshadows the New Testament especially in the person of John the Baptist. God will tabernacle with his people wherever they are at in captivity. Through repentance and the preaching of Ezekiel (and Jeremiah in Judea), God will give them a new heart and spirit to commune with God himself (vs. 31). This is regeneration in the truest sense.

********
Chapter 18 begins with the exiles using an extra biblical proverb is a challenge to God’s fairness. “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” In essence, the proverb seeks to place the blame elsewhere for their captivity. The gist of the proverbs seems to be a comparison to a situation in which a child is born deformed, on account of the father eating bad grapes before conceiving the child. Thus, the child is punished with bad teeth because of the father’s bad judgment, or perhaps even his simple mistake. As stated before, Israel seemed to place the blame of exile at the feet of their fathers who had sinned and walked contrary to God. In doing so, they had failed to recognize the sinfulness of their own sin, were guilty of blame-shifting. God then commands that use of the proverb cease.

Ezekiel answers this false proverb and the exile’s own self righteousness by calling for repentance with his three generation illustration. The prophet uses civil transgressions with the judgment and penalties associated of Torah as analogous to moral transgressions. Therefore, the context of the second set of verses is dealing with the legality aspect within the Jewish court system.

• The third generation: The sinful but repentant grandfather is considered righteous (vs 5-9).
• The second generation:The sinful wicked unrepentant father (who commits capital offenses) as is worthy of death (vs. 10-13).
• The first generation: The sinful but repentant adult son is considered righteous(vs. 14-18).

God is not addressing here the issue of sin as related to spiritual death but as to one sinning unto a capital crime that will lead to them being put to physical death, such as by stoning. The unrepentant father is a robber, murderer and has committed adultery which are capital sins in the Torah. This does not have original sin in its cross hairs, rather we may add, the consequences of original sin’s corrupting influence.

In order for the exiles to stop blame-shifting the prophet states in vs. 20 “The son will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the son....” In other words, the Jewish legal system does not allow “guilt sharing” in its punishments, so neither should the exiles believe they are sharing in their forefathers guilt and blaming them for it. The exiles have true moral guilt because they are sinners and repentance is its only cure.

Perhaps Duet 24:16 as a parallel passages adds clarity here. “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Deuteronomy 24 is talking about how things should operate in civil society. It's not talking about God's dealings with man whether though the Law or Gospel; Duet. 24 and Ez. 18 are talking about capital punishment in the context of civil society. And in the context of society, sons ought not be put to death for the sins of their fathers. The right way to preserve justice in civil society is to punish those alone who have committed crimes worthy of punishment. So, this passage isn't dealing with imputation at all, it's dealing with capital punishment as it relates to civil society.

CONCLUSION:

1. Contextually, Ezekiel 18:20 has nothing to do with the fall, original sin or the imputation of guilt concerning Adam’s descendants. It is not a parallel text to Genesis 3. So it is a stretch for credobaptists to interpret it as such even though it is nearly uniformly believed to be about imputation by Credobaptists. This verse is part of a larger rhetorical message of the whole chapter, namely, if you repent, you will be saved – regardless of the sins of your parents or children.

2. Contextually, there is no mention of repentance during the Fall of mankind. Adam endures God’s pronouncements and suffers the curse mediated to him. Adam is comforted with the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15. On the other hand, the exiles themselves are going to commune with God in a new and different way….through repentance: “Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. (vs. 30-31) Repentance is not a matter of bearing guilt as a burden, neither is it the cultivation of remorse or regret. Instead, is the first step toward transformation — what Ezekiel calls getting a new heart and a new spirit. Repentance is an active, deliberate step in a new direction. It is a step into the future, into life itself.

3. If the context dealt specifically with the imputation of Adam's sin, why would the passage be dealing with actual sin? The passage actually deals with the idea that the unrepentant sin of the father should not be charged to the repentant children. The doctrine of original sin does not deal with repentance at all, but rather the guilt we have in Adam. The passage assumes both guilt and pollution since the subject is a wicked man who needs to repent.

4. Ezekiel 18 does not address the origin of sin or how sin is contracted.

5. There are no innocent individuals in Ez. 18. All are above the Age of Accountability even the son, who is considered an adult as he doesn’t require a pledge for a loan (vs. 16).

6. If one insists that the Ezekiel passage is a universal principle or law that states that no one can justly suffer for the sins of another, then it directly violates the gospel message that Jesus Christ suffered on the cross for the sins of human beings. And Christians are to affirm that Jesus suffered in the place of others. In other words, apart from Christ's imputed righteousness, the repentance in Ezek. 18 by itself is not able to cover our sins.

Apart from Christ's imputed righteousness, our sins-- even a single sin-- would outweigh any good that we did and there could not be forgiveness. The prophet can say that "none of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him" because of Christ’s substitutionary atonement.

I agree Ezekiel has nothing to do with the Augustinian view of original sin.
It is simple to untangle his interpretation if one took a moment to understand that Adam was already created with the ability to sin. God gave him free will. So rather than impute his sin on the entire human race, we can simply say that he invited sin into the world through disobedience. This is precisely what Paul spoke of, death through sin by invitation
( introduction) not by impututing.

Romans 5:12: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all have sinned—."

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

This is precisely what Paul spoke of, death through sin by invitation not by impututing.

Death though invitation? Never heard of that before. Is this something you made up or is there textual evidence of this "invitation?"

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Death though invitation? Never heard of that before. Is this something you made up or is there textual evidence of this "invitation?"

Spiritual death is caused by those who reject God. Adam invited sin into the world by rejecting God through his disobedience. Not made up.
Blessings.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Death though invitation? Never heard of that before. Is this something you made up or is there textual evidence of this "invitation?"

Maybe swap " invitation" and use " introduction". Clearer.
Blessings

 

[Clare73]

The Text: "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."

Here are some quotations I have gathered from Credobaptists concerning this verse:

• So are you saying we inherit Adam's sin even though God says we don't inherit our parents sins?
• If I cannot inherit my father’s sin, how can I inherit Adam’s sin? I cannot.
• The idea that human beings are born already guilty of someone else’s sin is not only false doctrine, it does dishonor to the God of the Bible. Ezekiel 18:19-20 says that the son does not inherit the sin of the father and the father does not inherit the sin of the son.
• I believe it would be unjust to punish you for my sin, or me for Adam’s sin. I am not morally culpable for the actions of others, but for my own, and that is plenty. Ezekiel 18 seems like a strong argument for this view.
• Ezekiel 18:20 says the son does not bear the guilt of the father but total depravity says all the descendants of Adam inherit the guilt of his sin. Sin is not something which comes by birth but is something one decides to engage in.

*********

Ezekiel 18 is a complex chapter. This chapter deals with the deported second and third generation Israelites who are suffering enslavement in the midst of the Babylonian captivity. The cause of this captivity was idolatry against God Himself.

With the destruction of the Temple and the deportations, a very real crisis emerged. Prior to that event, it was held that the Temple in Jerusalem was God’s exclusive dwelling place on the earth, and that only in the Temple was it possible to commune with God. Furthermore, this communing was only through the Zadokite priesthood. So when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and exiled the Temple priests and seized the holy relics, there was a very real crisis. With the Temple gone and the priests unable to perform sacrifice there, how could the Jewish people commune with their God and follow his commandments?

We now see a drift into fatalism with the recurrent theme of complaining or murmuring against God by shifting-the-blame to the sins of their fathers instead of the exiles understanding their own sin. For those born in captivity, a smug self-righteousness overcomes them and an accusation will be leveled against God Himself…He is unjust (vs. 25-29). The exiles are blind to their own sin. It is not God who is unjust. God then rails down the condemnation….the exiles themselves are unjust (vs. 29).

The answer and comfort Ezekiel gives those in exile foreshadows the New Testament especially in the person of John the Baptist. God will tabernacle with his people wherever they are at in captivity. Through repentance and the preaching of Ezekiel (and Jeremiah in Judea), God will give them a new heart and spirit to commune with God himself (vs. 31). This is regeneration in the truest sense.

********
Chapter 18 begins with the exiles using an extra biblical proverb is a challenge to God’s fairness. “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” In essence, the proverb seeks to place the blame elsewhere for their captivity. The gist of the proverbs seems to be a comparison to a situation in which a child is born deformed, on account of the father eating bad grapes before conceiving the child. Thus, the child is punished with bad teeth because of the father’s bad judgment, or perhaps even his simple mistake. As stated before, Israel seemed to place the blame of exile at the feet of their fathers who had sinned and walked contrary to God. In doing so, they had failed to recognize the sinfulness of their own sin, were guilty of blame-shifting. God then commands that use of the proverb cease.

Ezekiel answers this false proverb and the exile’s own self righteousness by calling for repentance with his three generation illustration. The prophet uses civil transgressions with the judgment and penalties associated of Torah as analogous to moral transgressions. Therefore, the context of the second set of verses is dealing with the legality aspect within the Jewish court system.

• The third generation: The sinful but repentant grandfather is considered righteous (vs 5-9).
• The second generation:The sinful wicked unrepentant father (who commits capital offenses) as is worthy of death (vs. 10-13).
• The first generation: The sinful but repentant adult son is considered righteous(vs. 14-18).

God is not addressing here the issue of sin as related to spiritual death but as to one sinning unto a capital crime that will lead to them being put to physical death, such as by stoning. The unrepentant father is a robber, murderer and has committed adultery which are capital sins in the Torah. This does not have original sin in its cross hairs, rather we may add, the consequences of original sin’s corrupting influence.

In order for the exiles to stop blame-shifting the prophet states in vs. 20 “The son will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the son....” In other words, the Jewish legal system does not allow “guilt sharing” in its punishments, so neither should the exiles believe they are sharing in their forefathers guilt and blaming them for it. The exiles have true moral guilt because they are sinners and repentance is its only cure.

Perhaps Duet 24:16 as a parallel passages adds clarity here. “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Deuteronomy 24 is talking about how things should operate in civil society. It's not talking about God's dealings with man whether though the Law or Gospel; Duet. 24 and Ez. 18 are talking about capital punishment in the context of civil society. And in the context of society, sons ought not be put to death for the sins of their fathers. The right way to preserve justice in civil society is to punish those alone who have committed crimes worthy of punishment. So, this passage isn't dealing with imputation at all, it's dealing with capital punishment as it relates to civil society.

CONCLUSION:

1. Contextually, Ezekiel 18:20 has nothing to do with the fall, original sin or the imputation of guilt concerning Adam’s descendants. It is not a parallel text to Genesis 3. So it is a stretch for credobaptists to interpret it as such even though it is nearly uniformly believed to be about imputation by Credobaptists. This verse is part of a larger rhetorical message of the whole chapter, namely, if you repent, you will be saved – regardless of the sins of your parents or children.

2. Contextually, there is no mention of repentance during the Fall of mankind. Adam endures God’s pronouncements and suffers the curse mediated to him. Adam is comforted with the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15. On the other hand, the exiles themselves are going to commune with God in a new and different way….through repentance: “Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. (vs. 30-31) Repentance is not a matter of bearing guilt as a burden, neither is it the cultivation of remorse or regret. Instead, is the first step toward transformation — what Ezekiel calls getting a new heart and a new spirit. Repentance is an active, deliberate step in a new direction. It is a step into the future, into life itself.

3. If the context dealt specifically with the imputation of Adam's sin, why would the passage be dealing with actual sin? The passage actually deals with the idea that the unrepentant sin of the father should not be charged to the repentant children. The doctrine of original sin does not deal with repentance at all, but rather the guilt we have in Adam. The passage assumes both guilt and pollution since the subject is a wicked man who needs to repent.

4. Ezekiel 18 does not address the origin of sin or how sin is contracted.

5. There are no innocent individuals in Ez. 18. All are above the Age of Accountability even the son, who is considered an adult as he doesn’t require a pledge for a loan (vs. 16).

6. If one insists that the Ezekiel passage is a universal principle or law that states that no one can justly suffer for the sins of another, then it directly violates the gospel message that Jesus Christ suffered on the cross for the sins of human beings. And Christians are to affirm that Jesus suffered in the place of others. In other words, apart from Christ's imputed righteousness, the repentance in Ezek. 18 by itself is not able to cover our sins.

Apart from Christ's imputed righteousness, our sins-- even a single sin-- would outweigh any good that we did and there could not be forgiveness. The prophet can say that "none of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him" because of Christ’s substitutionary atonement.

So sin is treated here as temporal guilt for civil law-breaking deserving physical death.
Sin is not a spiritual matter here, resulting in spiritual death?

 

[johansen]

So sin is treated here as temporal guilt for civil law-breaking deserving physical death.
Sin is not a spiritual matter here, resulting in spiritual death?

when you read paul's letters, specifically romans like 4-8, you see that he treats the knowledge of good and evil, and the "law" which brought knowledge of sin, as if they are the same thing.

they aren't.

To the jew in the OT, breaking the law of moses is what defined sin. that's it, and paul upholds this in romans. -they had no self reliance on their conscience. you weren't guilty of anything unless you broke one of the rules written down.

now to those in the OT who weren't spiritually dead, they knew of course that God had higher standards. a former friend of mine studied these matters for a long time and he found some rabbies who were around the time of christ who were like.. so close, to being able to preach the sermon on the mount.. but then they upheld no fault divorce.. because.. tradition...

paul then later tries to rectify the obvious problems in his letter by attempting to explain that people who don't have the law of moses will be judged by their conscience, not by the law, and their own thoughts may absolve them on the day of judgement. well.. uh, no, they had the knowledge of good and evil like everyone else did.

 

[Clare73]

when you read paul's letters, specifically romans like 4-8, you see that he treats the knowledge of good and evil, and the "law" which brought knowledge of sin, as if they are the same thing.

they aren't.

So Paul got it wrong?

 

[johansen]

So Paul got it wrong?

unfortunately its not that simple.

everyone since the tree of knowledge of good and evil has had this guilt weighing down on them. this is generally accepted by most people as a true statement: your conscience condemns you. Earnest beckert argues in his book the denial of death, that we are aware that we will die as early as age 3, and it gives us a collective PTSD. we then embark on our immortality project to create something that will survive after we die. for most, this is their blood line. their children and grandchildren. for others its power, they go onto create nations, social structures that will stick around after them.

the Jews treated the law of moses as if it was a legal covenant that now defined what sin was.
and, i don't really fault them. when a "biblical prophet" who delivers you and creates a nation for you: declares that breaking his law is sin.. you end up so focused on his law that you declare anything not in the law isn't sin. this was/is foolishness and Jesus called them out on it when he said "moses out of the hardness of your heart allowed you to write your wife a certificate of divorce" but in the beginning it was not so!

by saying that, he was technically breaking the law of moses.

now some argue that just because Jesus said something doesn't mean you have to follow it.. and i have met Christians who say everything from Matt to a certain chapter in romans is not applicable to life today until after Jesus returns again.

the best i can make sense of paul is that he's trying to hold onto this mythical idea that the law of moses brought about sin, but he doesn't know how to explain the fact that everyone on the planet has a conscience and was guilty of sin from as early as the first time they sin against their conscience. basically, he's trying to uphold the idea that the jews are special because of the law.. but they aren't and then later he admits this and says there is neither jew nor greek, male nor female.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

So sin is treated here as temporal guilt for civil law-breaking deserving physical death.
Sin is not a spiritual matter here, resulting in spiritual death?

Death has three meanings in Scripture: physical, spiritual and eternal.

Contextually, Ezekiel 18 refers only to physical death (via capital offense) in vs. 5-18....as an narrow and specific illustration to get the exiles from blaming others for their captivity. OT eschatology is vague about spiritual and eternal death.

 

[Clare73]

when you read paul's letters, specifically romans like 4-8, you see that he treats the knowledge of good and evil, and the "law" which brought knowledge of sin, as if they are the same thing.
they aren't.

To be sure we are on the same page, let's start with you demonstrating your assertion above so I will know precisely what we are dealing with.

unfortunately its not that simple.

Actually it is when you accuse the word of God written in Ro 4-8 to be in error.

everyone since the tree of knowledge of good and evil has had this guilt weighing down on them. this is generally accepted by most people as a true statement: your conscience condemns you. Earnest beckert argues in his book the denial of death, that we are aware that we will die as early as age 3, and it gives us a collective PTSD. we then embark on our immortality project to create something that will survive after we die. for most, this is their blood line. their children and grandchildren. for others its power, they go onto create nations, social structures that will stick around after them.

the Jews treated the law of moses as if it was a legal covenant that now defined what sin was.
and, i don't really fault them. when a "biblical prophet" who delivers you and creates a nation for you: declares that breaking his law is sin.. you end up so focused on his law that you declare anything not in the law isn't sin. this was/is foolishness and Jesus called them out on it when he said "moses out of the hardness of your heart allowed you to write your wife a certificate of divorce" but in the beginning it was not so!

by saying that, he was technically breaking the law of moses.

now some argue that just because Jesus said something doesn't mean you have to follow it.. and i have met Christians who say everything from Matt to a certain chapter in romans is not applicable to life today until after Jesus returns again.

the best i can make sense of paul is that he's trying to hold onto this mythical idea that the law of moses brought about sin, but he doesn't know how to explain the fact that everyone on the planet has a conscience and was guilty of sin from as early as the first time they sin against their conscience. basically, he's trying to uphold the idea that the jews are special because of the law.. but they aren't and then later he admits this and says there is neither jew nor greek, male nor female.

 

[johansen]

first off, God didn't write paul's letters. paul did.

lets start with:
"What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God."

a little while later:
"10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God."

-this is actually not true. its a prophets lament he is quoting out of context. there were righteous people in the OT, moses, daniel, job, noah for instance, and God seems to imply many others were counted righteous, men who did seek God, take elijah and enoch for example, who did not die.

followed by:
"19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

-Which law? your conscience? or moses? -this was my point earlier. he mixes up the two.

"21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,... "

-this is where he starts his mystery religion and contradicts his claim that the jews have an advantage.
The law and the prophets testified of JESUS. not of a new righteousness by faith, which was always the case anyway, as he explains so many times elsewhere that the law does not justify, does not save. of course it doesn't.. but the jews at the time believed it did.

"31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."

-sorry paul but 99% of your followers nullified the law and didn't keep an ounce of it, otherwise James wouldn't have needed to write his letter of rebuttal!

moving on to chapter 5 where things really go wrong:

"12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man [adam], and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given*, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come."

-death reigned over mankind from adam to Jesus. not moses.
(Does anyone want to make an argument it wasn't sin for Cain to kill Able? -because paul just did. If sin was in the world through adam, before the law was given, and in the same sentence he says sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law.. then yes, he really did just say no one was held accountable for sin before hearing moses' law***. yes.. really. absolutely insane.
***this is a legal matter, not a spiritual one, moses law states that ignorance of the law was no excuse, and upon hearing the law, then the person is guilty. -otherwise ignorance is bliss.

Chapt 7
"7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”[b] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. "

-Again, declaring that apart from the law of moses, there was no sin. (why would God have flooded the earth???)

"21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin."

-a double minded man, unstable in all his ways.

moving on to chapt 11

"4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”[b] 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace."

-this is a typical supporting text that doesn't actually make the point he is trying to make. God reserved those 7000 not by grace, but by the fact that they didn't sin via child sacrifice to baal.

"11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious"

-I should not have to remind spiritual men, that God does not tempt mankind. nor the nations.

"13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them."

- I should not need to point out this is an unrighteous motive.
-but let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the LORD.

"25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved. As it is written:

“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”[g]
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

and.. now for the saved but not saved at the same time, for the sake of the fathers.

I tend to give paul a C+ for this. He actually thought Jesus would return in time for all the people he is speaking of time to repent.
But they didn't. they died and went to hell, and the city was sacked.
I do believe God gave Jerusalem 40 years to repent, in accordance with righteousness. but, they didn't, and the city was destroyed about 40 years to the day Jesus rose.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

first off, God didn't write paul's letters. paul did.

lets start with:
"What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God."

a little while later:
"10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God."

-this is actually not true. its a prophets lament he is quoting out of context. there were righteous people in the OT, moses, daniel, job, noah for instance, and God seems to imply many others were counted righteous, men who did seek God, take elijah and enoch for example, who did not die.

followed by:
"19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."

-Which law? your conscience? or moses? -this was my point earlier. he mixes up the two.

"21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,... "

-this is where he starts his mystery religion and contradicts his claim that the jews have an advantage.
The law and the prophets testified of JESUS. not of a new righteousness by faith, which was always the case anyway, as he explains so many times elsewhere that the law does not justify, does not save. of course it doesn't.. but the jews at the time believed it did.

"31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."

-sorry paul but 99% of your followers nullified the law and didn't keep an ounce of it, otherwise James wouldn't have needed to write his letter of rebuttal!

moving on to chapter 5 where things really go wrong:

"12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man [adam], and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given*, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come."

-death reigned over mankind from adam to Jesus. not moses.
(Does anyone want to make an argument it wasn't sin for Cain to kill Able? -because paul just did. If sin was in the world through adam, before the law was given, and in the same sentence he says sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law.. then yes, he really did just say no one was held accountable for sin before hearing moses' law***. yes.. really. absolutely insane.
***this is a legal matter, not a spiritual one, moses law states that ignorance of the law was no excuse, and upon hearing the law, then the person is guilty. -otherwise ignorance is bliss.

Chapt 7
"7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”[b] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. "

-Again, declaring that apart from the law of moses, there was no sin. (why would God have flooded the earth???)

"21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin."

-a double minded man, unstable in all his ways.

moving on to chapt 11

"4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”[b] 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace."

-this is a typical supporting text that doesn't actually make the point he is trying to make. God reserved those 7000 not by grace, but by the fact that they didn't sin via child sacrifice to baal.

"11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious"

-I should not have to remind spiritual men, that God does not tempt mankind. nor the nations.

"13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them."

- I should not need to point out this is an unrighteous motive.
-but let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the LORD.

"25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved. As it is written:

“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”[g]
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

and.. now for the saved but not saved at the same time, for the sake of the fathers.

I tend to give paul a C+ for this. He actually thought Jesus would return in time for all the people he is speaking of time to repent.
But they didn't. they died and went to hell, and the city was sacked.
I do believe God gave Jerusalem 40 years to repent, in accordance with righteousness. but, they didn't, and the city was destroyed about 40 years to the day Jesus rose.

I haven't read a emotional-nonsensical rant like this in a very long time. I hope it will be a "longer" time when I read one again. Geez, talk about turbo charged!

 

[fhansen]

The Text: "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."

Here are some quotations I have gathered from Credobaptists concerning this verse:

• So are you saying we inherit Adam's sin even though God says we don't inherit our parents sins?
• If I cannot inherit my father’s sin, how can I inherit Adam’s sin? I cannot.
• The idea that human beings are born already guilty of someone else’s sin is not only false doctrine, it does dishonor to the God of the Bible. Ezekiel 18:19-20 says that the son does not inherit the sin of the father and the father does not inherit the sin of the son.
• I believe it would be unjust to punish you for my sin, or me for Adam’s sin. I am not morally culpable for the actions of others, but for my own, and that is plenty. Ezekiel 18 seems like a strong argument for this view.
• Ezekiel 18:20 says the son does not bear the guilt of the father but total depravity says all the descendants of Adam inherit the guilt of his sin. Sin is not something which comes by birth but is something one decides to engage in.

*********

Ezekiel 18 is a complex chapter. This chapter deals with the deported second and third generation Israelites who are suffering enslavement in the midst of the Babylonian captivity. The cause of this captivity was idolatry against God Himself.

With the destruction of the Temple and the deportations, a very real crisis emerged. Prior to that event, it was held that the Temple in Jerusalem was God’s exclusive dwelling place on the earth, and that only in the Temple was it possible to commune with God. Furthermore, this communing was only through the Zadokite priesthood. So when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and exiled the Temple priests and seized the holy relics, there was a very real crisis. With the Temple gone and the priests unable to perform sacrifice there, how could the Jewish people commune with their God and follow his commandments?

We now see a drift into fatalism with the recurrent theme of complaining or murmuring against God by shifting-the-blame to the sins of their fathers instead of the exiles understanding their own sin. For those born in captivity, a smug self-righteousness overcomes them and an accusation will be leveled against God Himself…He is unjust (vs. 25-29). The exiles are blind to their own sin. It is not God who is unjust. God then rails down the condemnation….the exiles themselves are unjust (vs. 29).

The answer and comfort Ezekiel gives those in exile foreshadows the New Testament especially in the person of John the Baptist. God will tabernacle with his people wherever they are at in captivity. Through repentance and the preaching of Ezekiel (and Jeremiah in Judea), God will give them a new heart and spirit to commune with God himself (vs. 31). This is regeneration in the truest sense.

********
Chapter 18 begins with the exiles using an extra biblical proverb is a challenge to God’s fairness. “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” In essence, the proverb seeks to place the blame elsewhere for their captivity. The gist of the proverbs seems to be a comparison to a situation in which a child is born deformed, on account of the father eating bad grapes before conceiving the child. Thus, the child is punished with bad teeth because of the father’s bad judgment, or perhaps even his simple mistake. As stated before, Israel seemed to place the blame of exile at the feet of their fathers who had sinned and walked contrary to God. In doing so, they had failed to recognize the sinfulness of their own sin, were guilty of blame-shifting. God then commands that use of the proverb cease.

Ezekiel answers this false proverb and the exile’s own self righteousness by calling for repentance with his three generation illustration. The prophet uses civil transgressions with the judgment and penalties associated of Torah as analogous to moral transgressions. Therefore, the context of the second set of verses is dealing with the legality aspect within the Jewish court system.

• The third generation: The sinful but repentant grandfather is considered righteous (vs 5-9).
• The second generation:The sinful wicked unrepentant father (who commits capital offenses) as is worthy of death (vs. 10-13).
• The first generation: The sinful but repentant adult son is considered righteous(vs. 14-18).

God is not addressing here the issue of sin as related to spiritual death but as to one sinning unto a capital crime that will lead to them being put to physical death, such as by stoning. The unrepentant father is a robber, murderer and has committed adultery which are capital sins in the Torah. This does not have original sin in its cross hairs, rather we may add, the consequences of original sin’s corrupting influence.

In order for the exiles to stop blame-shifting the prophet states in vs. 20 “The son will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the son....” In other words, the Jewish legal system does not allow “guilt sharing” in its punishments, so neither should the exiles believe they are sharing in their forefathers guilt and blaming them for it. The exiles have true moral guilt because they are sinners and repentance is its only cure.

Perhaps Duet 24:16 as a parallel passages adds clarity here. “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Deuteronomy 24 is talking about how things should operate in civil society. It's not talking about God's dealings with man whether though the Law or Gospel; Duet. 24 and Ez. 18 are talking about capital punishment in the context of civil society. And in the context of society, sons ought not be put to death for the sins of their fathers. The right way to preserve justice in civil society is to punish those alone who have committed crimes worthy of punishment. So, this passage isn't dealing with imputation at all, it's dealing with capital punishment as it relates to civil society.

CONCLUSION:

1. Contextually, Ezekiel 18:20 has nothing to do with the fall, original sin or the imputation of guilt concerning Adam’s descendants. It is not a parallel text to Genesis 3. So it is a stretch for credobaptists to interpret it as such even though it is nearly uniformly believed to be about imputation by Credobaptists. This verse is part of a larger rhetorical message of the whole chapter, namely, if you repent, you will be saved – regardless of the sins of your parents or children.

2. Contextually, there is no mention of repentance during the Fall of mankind. Adam endures God’s pronouncements and suffers the curse mediated to him. Adam is comforted with the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15. On the other hand, the exiles themselves are going to commune with God in a new and different way….through repentance: “Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. (vs. 30-31) Repentance is not a matter of bearing guilt as a burden, neither is it the cultivation of remorse or regret. Instead, is the first step toward transformation — what Ezekiel calls getting a new heart and a new spirit. Repentance is an active, deliberate step in a new direction. It is a step into the future, into life itself.

3. If the context dealt specifically with the imputation of Adam's sin, why would the passage be dealing with actual sin? The passage actually deals with the idea that the unrepentant sin of the father should not be charged to the repentant children. The doctrine of original sin does not deal with repentance at all, but rather the guilt we have in Adam. The passage assumes both guilt and pollution since the subject is a wicked man who needs to repent.

4. Ezekiel 18 does not address the origin of sin or how sin is contracted.

5. There are no innocent individuals in Ez. 18. All are above the Age of Accountability even the son, who is considered an adult as he doesn’t require a pledge for a loan (vs. 16).

6. If one insists that the Ezekiel passage is a universal principle or law that states that no one can justly suffer for the sins of another, then it directly violates the gospel message that Jesus Christ suffered on the cross for the sins of human beings. And Christians are to affirm that Jesus suffered in the place of others. In other words, apart from Christ's imputed righteousness, the repentance in Ezek. 18 by itself is not able to cover our sins.

Apart from Christ's imputed righteousness, our sins-- even a single sin-- would outweigh any good that we did and there could not be forgiveness. The prophet can say that "none of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him" because of Christ’s substitutionary atonement.

The state referred to as original sin is common to all, as it consists of the unjust state of man being alienated from God. That's the way it is here. Look around and look inside to find this division. Or read the news.

We're each responsible for our own sins nonetheless as God gives us the grace to seek and be reconciled with Him now. To the extent that we love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves, sin is excluded.

It's a journey, to Him, one that is to begin here in this life and be fully consummated or completed only in the next.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Spiritual death is caused by those who reject God. Adam invited sin into the world by rejecting God through his disobedience. Not made up.
Blessings.

What do you think about the vast majority of non-Christians who never consciously reject God simply because they don't have the slightest clue that the Christian God even exists?

 

[The Liturgist]

What do you think about the vast majority of non-Christians who never consciously reject God simply because they don't have the slightest clue that the Christian God even exists?

Invincible ignorance applies, surely.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Invincible ignorance applies, surely.

Possibly. One thing we do know is that they do not consciously reject God, as Maria Billingsley stated. I would like to have an answer from here. For the record, I lean strongly to the idea of invincible ignorance, if, indeed, God is loving and unwilling that any should be lost - especially through ignorance.

 

[johansen]

What do you think about the vast majority of non-Christians who never consciously reject God simply because they don't have the slightest clue that the Christian God even exists?

All they need to do is ask God to forgive them.
A far larger percentage of the population does, and will do this, than i have ever previously imagined, i have learned this slowly over the last 20 years..

Now if they want to be born again, live a holy life, be baptized, and do good public works such as heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out demons.. yeah, they only make up maybe 1%.

But works aren't needed scream the masses of christians in name only...