Exodus 20:5-6

[JohnCR]

"5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

I've heard different interpretations of this. What does it mean? Is it nullified by the Resurrection (i.e.-forgiveness of sins), or is it the case that those who are the immediate descendants of non-Christians have no chance with God? It also seems like passage six could be in conflict with passage 5 if someone was the descendant of a believer and a nonbeliever. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[JasperJackson]

Don't assume that showing love and punishing sin are mutually exclusive. Then you'll see the verses are not in conflict.

The principle here can be easily demonstrated. If you're a deadbeat parent, who's always drunk and neglecting your children then by definition your kids are being punished because of your sins.

As a child I don't need my parents sins forgiven for me to be forgiven through Christ (only my own sins). So I'm a Christian but I am still adversely affected by their sins. Remember Jesus doesn't promise a perfect hassle-free life if we become Christians. Since Adam we live in a fallen world and everyone is affected by sin.

 

[drich0150]

"5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

I've heard different interpretations of this. What does it mean? Is it nullified by the Resurrection (i.e.-forgiveness of sins), or is it the case that those who are the immediate descendants of non-Christians have no chance with God? It also seems like passage six could be in conflict with passage 5 if someone was the descendant of a believer and a nonbeliever. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Why do you assume this passage speaks to Christians? These precepts were written specifically to OT Jews. This age all changed at the resurrection.

 

[JohnCR]

Why do you assume this passage speaks to Christians? These precepts were written specifically to OT Jews. This age all changed at the resurrection.

You're right. I should say "followers of the Old Testament" or "believers in the Judeo-Christian God."

 

[JohnCR]

Don't assume that showing love and punishing sin are mutually exclusive. Then you'll see the verses are not in conflict.

The principle here can be easily demonstrated. If you're a deadbeat parent, who's always drunk and neglecting your children then by definition your kids are being punished because of your sins.

As a child I don't need my parents sins forgiven for me to be forgiven through Christ (only my own sins). So I'm a Christian but I am still adversely affected by their sins. Remember Jesus doesn't promise a perfect hassle-free life if we become Christians. Since Adam we live in a fallen world and everyone is affected by sin.

I read it as God doing the punishing to be honest.

 

[Jpark]

"5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

I've heard different interpretations of this. What does it mean? Is it nullified by the Resurrection (i.e.-forgiveness of sins), or is it the case that those who are the immediate descendants of non-Christians have no chance with God? It also seems like passage six could be in conflict with passage 5 if someone was the descendant of a believer and a nonbeliever. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Deut. 24:16 "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.

The resolution to this problem is that God does not punish people for their parent's sins.

John 9:2-3 and Luke 13:1-5 reveal that suffering is not the result of the sins of the parents. In these two Scriptures, Jesus refutes a popular retribution theology in those days, which was probably based on Scripture like Exodus 20:5-6 and which was (apparently) held by His disciples. The point of Jesus in Luke 13:1-5 is that man has to take responsibility for his own sins or he will die. What appears to be the case in those days is that people were not taking responsibility for their sins since they believed that they were suffering because of their parents.

Then what is original sin? A misconception.

Gen. 3:21 implies forgiveness. Gen. 3:9-13 shows God initiating repentance for Adam and Eve. He gets them to confess their sins (although they place blame rather than take responsibility) yet He shows mercy on them by clothing them rather than cursing them. Gen. 3:17 says God cursed the ground instead of Adam.

What does all this indicate?

How can original sin be reconciled with Deut. 24:16?

To put it simply, creation was subjected to futility in the place of Adam and Eve, not because of their sins.

So all these passages indicate substitution.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

I've heard different interpretations of this. What does it mean? Is it nullified by the Resurrection (i.e.-forgiveness of sins), or is it the case that those who are the immediate descendants of non-Christians have no chance with God? It also seems like passage six could be in conflict with passage 5 if someone was the descendant of a believer and a nonbeliever. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

JohnCR,

First, we need to look at the overall context of the verses you are citing. These verses are a portion of the 2nd Commandment, which follows on the heels of the 1st Commandment, so they should not be separated from that linkage.

The point being made here is that God is stating that He is against ungodly cultures and forms of worship. So, when it says that He visits the iniquity upon the subsequent generations, we need to notice that the qualifier is "of those who hate Me." That is, it is typical during the time these commandments were written for people to be raised in static societies. If your father hates the Jewish God, you the child will hate that god too. In other words, there is nothing redeemable in the society that will halt the social transfer; the father sins and leaves a legacy for his children.

This kind of thing is expressed by Jesus when He dealt with the Pharisees. See Matthew 23:28-36.

This is just a basic principle. It is a directive given by God, originally given to the Jewish people, to show them that it is imperative that they 'keep the faith' and not fall into idolatry, because faithlessness of that sort does not just affect one's self, but has repercussions for one's posterity. Remember, we are talking about spiritual dynamics of static societies from the past here, not so much about the variations and consequences of belief that we find among subsequent generations in today's pluralistic, democratic, non-static society.

If an atheist father 'sins,' but has a child that becomes a Christian, that chain is broken since the child does not carry on the tradition and ideology of the father.

 

[Harry3142]

JohnCR-

If we went back to the time period in which this was written, we would be horrified at what societies were doing that were all around the OT Jews. Archeologists have excavated homes in the region we know was Canaan at that time, and have found the remains of children that were sealed up in one of the walls of a family home. This was done as a deliberate sacrifice to a pagan god. One of the 613 laws is a specific injunction against the Hebrews doing as the Canaanites had done, namely, send their children to Molech through the flames.

So rather than the attitude that is prevalent today in which even those who are nonbelievers still have the basic respect for the welfare of those around them, the attitude of the idol-worshippers was that they were to commit what we would call abominations in order to appease their idols. There could be no 'middle ground' with those people. Those who worshipped the idols of that region also taught those of their children who survived to adulthood to worship those idols in the same manner, including human sacrifice. Not only was God their enemy, but they were God's enemy.

 

[JohnCR]

JohnCR,

First, we need to look at the overall context of the verses you are citing. These verses are a portion of the 2nd Commandment, which follows on the heels of the 1st Commandment, so they should not be separated from that linkage.

The point being made here is that God is stating that He is against ungodly cultures and forms of worship. So, when it says that He visits the iniquity upon the subsequent generations, we need to notice that the qualifier is "of those who hate Me." That is, it is typical during the time these commandments were written for people to be raised in static societies. If your father hates the Jewish God, you the child will hate that god too. In other words, there is nothing redeemable in the society that will halt the social transfer; the father sins and leaves a legacy for his children.

This kind of thing is expressed by Jesus when He dealt with the Pharisees. See Matthew 23:28-36.

This is just a basic principle. It is a directive given by God, originally given to the Jewish people, to show them that it is imperative that they 'keep the faith' and not fall into idolatry, because faithlessness of that sort does not just affect one's self, but has repercussions for one's posterity. Remember, we are talking about spiritual dynamics of static societies from the past here, not so much about the variations and consequences of belief that we find among subsequent generations in today's pluralistic, democratic, non-static society.

If an atheist father 'sins,' but has a child that becomes a Christian, that chain is broken since the child does not carry on the tradition and ideology of the father.

Good explanation. Thanks for clarifying.

JohnCR-

If we went back to the time period in which this was written, we would be horrified at what societies were doing that were all around the OT Jews. Archeologists have excavated homes in the region we know was Canaan at that time, and have found the remains of children that were sealed up in one of the walls of a family home. This was done as a deliberate sacrifice to a pagan god. One of the 613 laws is a specific injunction against the Hebrews doing as the Canaanites had done, namely, send their children to Molech through the flames.

So rather than the attitude that is prevalent today in which even those who are nonbelievers still have the basic respect for the welfare of those around them, the attitude of the idol-worshippers was that they were to commit what we would call abominations in order to appease their idols. There could be no 'middle ground' with those people. Those who worshipped the idols of that region also taught those of their children who survived to adulthood to worship those idols in the same manner, including human sacrifice. Not only was God their enemy, but they were God's enemy.

So you are basically saying that this passage no longer applies?


I was just confused by this passage because it seemed to indicate that evangelism was pointless if the person you convert has recent non-believing ancestors.