A question about Numbers 31.

[Sammy-San]

How do you explain and make sense of Numbers 31, from a moral and ethical perspective?

In Numbers, God wanted the Midianites punished for leading Israel into Baal worship. Also, the Israelites went to war with the Midianite solders and wiped them out, because of the fact that the Midianites attacked them before and were a threat to them. But what happened at Numbers 31 confuses me a lot.

And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive? Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.

Numbers further explains there were 32,000 virgin girls that the Israelties kept. I'm not sure what the male-female birth rate ratio was, but there were thousands, probably even tens of thousands of Midianite boys, the brothers and family of those girls, who Moses told the Israelite soldiers to slay.

The Midianite adults tempted the Israelites to sin-not the children-boys or girls. They were innocent. So, assuming Moses was acting on God's command and wasnt making a mistake by doing what he did (one possible explanation), why would God want thousands of boys slain for their parents sins, while the girls not? In Exodus, it's mentioned that the innocent are not punished with the guilty.

It doesnt confuse me at all that God told Moses to go to war with Midian, nor does it confuse me that Moses had the women guilty of making Israel sin, be punished. What confuses me is that the Midianite girls were singled out by their gender to live, while the boys were all killed-both were equally innocent. How do you explain this?

Some explanations have been that the male children were a threat to israel because they would wage war on them when they grew up to be adults, as vengeance for going to war with Midian. That makes some sense, but it fails to make sense when you take other bible verses into consideration.

Deuteronomy 20 says that if a nation doesnt surrender in war, to take all the women and children in. God didnt tell the Israelites to kill the male children to prevent them from going to war with Israel for revenge.

So what are the explanations for this verse?

 

[Bobinator]

I feel that your assumption is correct when you say the male children will grow up to war against Israel, resulting in the deaths of many Israelites. I must admit that life really sucked back then, and there was really not much choice.

I'm sure the Midianites did a lot more to antagonize The Lord and cause serious problems that threatened the continuity of Israel's testimony that would eventually lead to us here thousands of years later. The stakes were higher than you or I can imagine.

Spiritually speaking, Midianites wives were tainted, but young virgin girls are yet pure and can assimilate. Life as a slave to Israelites could be harsh. But better that than be a slave or worse to another country that had no moral code under the God of Heaven.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

There is much not explicit in the immediate text.

Consider, God knows all - omniscience. God is the source from which all humans receive their basic idea of 'fair'. So God is the ultimate source of 'fairness'.

So, for whatever reasons, God actions and commands were 'fair'.

Please note in Numbers 22, Moab was the nation who attempted to bribe Balaam to curse the nation of Israel. Moab (the nation) were determined to 'defeat' Israel. This word 'defeat' can also be translated 'eat' or 'devour'; consequently it strikes me the Moabites were not just interested in 'running them off', but in wiping them out.

Obviously, God thought a strong reaction was indicated.

Another thought. To remove all the males from the possibility of reproducing was to end the 'bloodline' or society. God thought elimination of Moab was appropriate. Perhaps this was the Lord's way of announcing He would not tolerate attacks on His people. (Look back at the plagues of Egypt.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

**How do you explain and make sense of Numbers 31, from a moral and ethical perspective?

From a practical standpoint, we could deliberate all day as to specifically what a moral and/or ethical perspective might be in relation to Numbers 31. So, as Christians, I think the best approach in explaining this passage is to evaluate it from within a Biblical framework rather than one relying mostly on a secular or philosophical one.

**In Numbers, God wanted the Midianites punished for leading Israel into Baal worship. Also, the Israelites went to war with the Midianite solders and wiped them out, because of the fact that the Midianites attacked them before and were a threat to them. But what happened at Numbers 31 confuses me a lot.
**Numbers further explains there were 32,000 virgin girls that the Israelties kept. I'm not sure what the male-female birth rate ratio was, but there were thousands, probably even tens of thousands of Midianite boys, the brothers and family of those girls, who Moses told the Israelite soldiers to slay.

Good summation of the passage, so I won’t elaborate upon it.

**The Midianite adults tempted the Israelites to sin-not the children-boys or girls. They were innocent.

From a Biblical standpoint, we can’t really say that the children were innocent. Sure, technically, they were innocent, if by this we view it through the lens of modern, secular human rights. But, since we are instead applying the bible as our conceptual framework, we can’t say that the children were innocent. It seems to me that what we see in this passage is the ramification of a ‘national sin’ on the part of Midian, one which invokes the penalty of God’s wrath upon all of the offending people, as seen in the 1st Commandment, “…for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me” (Exodus 20:5 NASB). Here we see that God may apply His penalty for idolatry upon an inter-generational set of people.

**So, assuming Moses was acting on God's command and wasnt making a mistake by doing what he did (one possible explanation), why would God want thousands of boys slain for their parents sins, while the girls not?

What we also need to see here is that the girls did not receive differential treatment simply because they were girls, or even because they were virgins, but that even though they were ALSO under the death penalty, they could be spared willfully by Israelite men for the purpose of becoming sexually untainted wives. Otherwise, they too were under ‘the ban.’

** In Exodus, it's mentioned that the innocent are not punished with the guilty.

Actually, you may be thinking of Deuteronomy 24:16, specifically, a verse that reflects the penal code for ‘personal sins’ of parents wherein children are not to be inculcated along with the parents. However, in looking at Midian, we should remember that what Midian did as a nation by pulling Israel into idolatry and sexual sin was not done at merely a personal level, so everyone in Moab was subject to the penalty of the transgression. (We should keep in mind also that men of Israel who consorted with the women of Midian and Moab were also subject to the death penalty.)

**It doesnt confuse me at all that God told Moses to go to war with Midian, nor does it confuse me that Moses had the women guilty of making Israel sin, be punished. What confuses me is that the Midianite girls were singled out by their gender to live, while the boys were all killed-both were equally innocent. How do you explain this?

Same as above, Sam. I know that from today’s perspective, it seems really harsh and/or inconsistent ethically, but God still today has and expresses a personal trait of Holiness, and as a derivative of that, there also exists a Holiness code over His creation. We don’t see that code applied very often in Christianity because, for the most part, Jesus absorbed those penalties for us, as long as we are walking in the New Covenant faith.

**Some explanations have been that the male children were a threat to Israel because they would wage war on them when they grew up to be adults, as vengeance for going to war with Midian. That makes some sense, but it fails to make sense when you take other bible verses into consideration.

It is one explanation, but I think the ongoing presence of God’s Holy Being and His Holy code over creation is what explains the intensity and the extent of this passage the best. The young girls simply got a second chance because they had utility, which sounds crass, but their sexual purity was the *only* thing that made them valuable.

**Deuteronomy 20 says that if a nation doesnt surrender in war, to take all the women and children in. God didnt tell the Israelites to kill the male children to prevent them from going to war with Israel for revenge.
So what are the explanations for this verse?

Actually, Deuteronomy 20 refers specifically to warfare limitations which Israel was to abide by when going to war with people of “far off” nations, and not the peoples belonging to one of the SEVEN nations nearby which God had specifically delineated for complete elimination (see Deut. 20:14-18).


Again, I agree that all of this is tragic and sad, particularly since in our modern times we’ve been able to articulate what seem to be “superior” ethics. But we should be aware that today’s ethical systems are ‘founded’ on principles that are either not self-evident to all, or on highly contested ideologies.


Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Sammy-San]

There is much not explicit in the immediate text.

Consider, God knows all - omniscience. God is the source from which all humans receive their basic idea of 'fair'. So God is the ultimate source of 'fairness'.

So, for whatever reasons, God actions and commands were 'fair'.

Please note in Numbers 22, Moab was the nation who attempted to bribe Balaam to curse the nation of Israel. Moab (the nation) were determined to 'defeat' Israel. This word 'defeat' can also be translated 'eat' or 'devour'; consequently it strikes me the Moabites were not just interested in 'running them off', but in wiping them out.

Obviously, God thought a strong reaction was indicated.

Another thought. To remove all the males from the possibility of reproducing was to end the 'bloodline' or society. God thought elimination of Moab was appropriate. Perhaps this was the Lord's way of announcing He would not tolerate attacks on His people. (Look back at the plagues of Egypt.)

But if the Midianite boys were adopted and lived among Israelite society, they could have been members of Israelite rather than Midianite society.

 

[Sammy-San]

From a practical standpoint, we could deliberate all day as to specifically what a moral and/or ethical perspective might be in relation to Numbers 31. So, as Christians, I think the best approach in explaining this passage is to evaluate it from within a Biblical framework rather than one relying mostly on a secular or philosophical one.

Good summation of the passage, so I won’t elaborate upon it.

From a Biblical standpoint, we can’t really say that the children were innocent. Sure, technically, they were innocent, if by this we view it through the lens of modern, secular human rights. But, since we are instead applying the bible as our conceptual framework, we can’t say that the children were innocent. It seems to me that what we see in this passage is the ramification of a ‘national sin’ on the part of Midian, one which invokes the penalty of God’s wrath upon all of the offending people, as seen in the 1st Commandment, “…for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me” (Exodus 20:5 NASB). Here we see that God may apply His penalty for idolatry upon an inter-generational set of people.

What we also need to see here is that the girls did not receive differential treatment simply because they were girls, or even because they were virgins, but that even though they were ALSO under the death penalty, they could be spared willfully by Israelite men for the purpose of becoming sexually untainted wives. Otherwise, they too were under ‘the ban.’

Actually, you may be thinking of Deuteronomy 24:16, specifically, a verse that reflects the penal code for ‘personal sins’ of parents wherein children are not to be inculcated along with the parents. However, in looking at Midian, we should remember that what Midian did as a nation by pulling Israel into idolatry and sexual sin was not done at merely a personal level, so everyone in Moab was subject to the penalty of the transgression. (We should keep in mind also that men of Israel who consorted with the women of Midian and Moab were also subject to the death penalty.)

Same as above, Sam. I know that from today’s perspective, it seems really harsh and/or inconsistent ethically, but God still today has and expresses a personal trait of Holiness, and as a derivative of that, there also exists a Holiness code over His creation. We don’t see that code applied very often in Christianity because, for the most part, Jesus absorbed those penalties for us, as long as we are walking in the New Covenant faith.

It is one explanation, but I think the ongoing presence of God’s Holy Being and His Holy code over creation is what explains the intensity and the extent of this passage the best. The young girls simply got a second chance because they had utility, which sounds crass, but their sexual purity was the *only* thing that made them valuable.


Actually, Deuteronomy 20 refers specifically to warfare limitations which Israel was to abide by when going to war with people of “far off” nations, and not the peoples belonging to one of the SEVEN nations nearby which God had specifically delineated for complete elimination (see Deut. 20:14-18).


Again, I agree that all of this is tragic and sad, particularly since in our modern times we’ve been able to articulate what seem to be “superior” ethics. But we should be aware that today’s ethical systems are ‘founded’ on principles that are either not self-evident to all, or on highly contested ideologies.


Peace
2PhiloVoid

Why were the children in Moab/Midian punished and held responsible for the sins that other people in their nation (their parents) committed? The thousands of boys who lived in Midian werent responsible for their mothers sins. It probably was horrible for the thousands of girls to watch their brothers be killed because of what others in the nation did. By your logic, the atomic bombings of Japan in WW2 were morally justified because the Japanese nation did atrocities, and therefore even innocent people were deserving of the wrath and punishment for the evils that their soldiers committed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why were the children in Moab/Midian punished and held responsible for the sins that other people in their nation (their parents) committed? The thousands of boys who lived in Midian werent responsible for their mothers sins. It probably was horrible for the thousands of girls to watch their brothers be killed because of what others in the nation did. By your logic, the atomic bombings of Japan in WW2 were morally justified because the Japanese nation did atrocities, and therefore even innocent people were deserving of the wrath and punishment for the evils that their soldiers committed.

Good question, Sam. But, in effect, you are challenging the contents of the 1st commandment.

The reasoning in the Bible is this (it is not MY reasoning, specifically. Again, my attempt to answer your questions was to do so within the paradigm of Biblical concepts. If you want to bring the issue instead under the gaze of modern sensibilities and assumed rights, we can do that separately. )

Basically, from a biblical point of view, God looks down upon the nations (and their attending cultures) to see if there is any 'good' within the societies. If he sees none, implying that the cultures are completely corrupt and by proxy, permeate the minds, instructions, and upbringing of all future generations, then the nation in question forfeits it right to occupy it's land, and it is to be 'given' to another people. This basic rule, with a few caveats or degrees of application, applied to all nations, including Israel itself. This general approach to accountability before God is seen in Leviticus 18:3, 24-30; 20:22-24; 22:24-25, all of which condenses the overall contexts of other portions of the Bible.

Does this make sense? I know it flies in the face of what we assume today by way of our ethical thinking. Perhaps what bothers us about all of this is an extension of our assumption that, with enough effort, each individual can be redeemed, even if from his/her own corrupting culture. However, the extent of the truth of this assumption most likely depends on a great many factors.

 

[Sammy-San]

Good question, Sam. But, in effect, you are challenging the contents of the 1st commandment.

The reasoning in the Bible is this (it is not MY reasoning, specifically. Again, my attempt to answer your questions was to do so within the paradigm of Biblical concepts. If you want to bring the issue instead under the gaze of modern sensibilities and assumed rights, we can do that separately. )

Basically, from a biblical point of view, God looks down upon the nations (and their attending cultures) to see if there is any 'good' within the societies. If he sees none, implying that the cultures are completely corrupt and by proxy, permeate the minds, instructions, and upbringing of all future generations, then the nation in question forfeits it right to occupy it's land, and it is to be 'given' to another people. This basic rule, with a few caveats or degrees of application, applied to all nations, including Israel itself. This general approach to accountability before God is seen in Leviticus 18:3, 24-30; 20:22-24; 22:24-25, all of which condenses the overall contexts of other portions of the Bible.

Does this make sense? I know it flies in the face of what we assume today by way of our ethical thinking. Perhaps what bothers us about all of this is an extension of our assumption that, with enough effort, each individual can be redeemed, even if from his/her own corrupting culture. However, the extent of the truth of this assumption most likely depends on a great many factors.

1-Do you think the atomic bombings of Japan in WW2 were justified even though they affected innocent people, because of the fact that the nation did many acts of evil?

2-That's true, but why did all of the children from the Midianite nation have to be killed? Why couldnt Israel just adopt all of them? They couldve been adopted and assimilated into Israelite society.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Superhero Sam

Do you think the atomic bombings of Japan in WW2 were justified even though they affected innocent people, because of the fact that the nation did many acts of evil?

While I appreciate your ethical sensitivity to the egregious tragedies of our world, such as that brought about by the bombing of Japan by the U.S., I don’t really see how it is morally analogous. To infer that it is morally analogous, we would have to establish that Japan was indeed fully in the wrong on all counts for its actions, and we would have to establish that the U.S. in some way is indeed a nation under the blessings of God and under the Lordship of Christ (neither of which is conclusive). Otherwise, I think that making an argumentative move to move a discussion of the U.S./Japan issue, in comparison to the Israel/Midian issue, is a red-herring.

2-That's true, but why did all of the children from the Midianite nation have to be killed? Why couldnt Israel just adopt all of them? They couldve been adopted and assimilated into Israelite society.

Well, Sam. We can’t assume that the children of Midian could just “be adopted” by the Israelites. I hate to say it like this, but the idea of adopting what would possibly amount to some “60,000-plus” children is a somewhat naïve inference to make considering the social and psychological logistics that would be involved in such an endeavor, not to mention the possibility might have existed that the children were somehow also seriously corrupted by the very culture in which they had thus far been raised. I mean, how do we define "adoptable children" in this case, anyway? Those under 18 (which seems to be a quite arbitrary designation in this case)? Of those children, how many would remember, and vehemently detest the fact, that they saw their parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, older siblings ALL killed in front of their eyes? Can we really say that some 60,000 plus children could actually be “adopted”—even if we assumed that the Israelites would implement the same socially minded care we would give today, perhaps—and can we really say that all of those children could be passively assimilated into what these children would most likely view as simply a tyrannical political presence and over-lordship of Israel. Although it’s tragic to say otherwise, I just don’t see it happening, Sam.


Although I very much respect your sentiments, and the presence of them shows that you have Christ’s compassion in your heart, I also have to take seriously: 1) the problematic logistics in Numbers 31, and 2) the will, omniscience, commands, and holiness of God as expressed through His Word.

 

[Sammy-San]

Superhero Sam
While I appreciate your ethical sensitivity to the egregious tragedies of our world, such as that brought about by the bombing of Japan by the U.S., I don’t really see how it is morally analogous. To infer that it is morally analogous, we would have to establish that Japan was indeed fully in the wrong on all counts for its actions, and we would have to establish that the U.S. in some way is indeed a nation under the blessings of God and under the Lordship of Christ (neither of which is conclusive). Otherwise, I think that making an argumentative move to move a discussion of the U.S./Japan issue, in comparison to the Israel/Midian issue, is a red-herring.


Well, Sam. We can’t assume that the children of Midian could just “be adopted” by the Israelites. I hate to say it like this, but the idea of adopting what would possibly amount to some “60,000-plus” children is a somewhat naïve inference to make considering the social and psychological logistics that would be involved in such an endeavor, not to mention the possibility might have existed that the children were somehow also seriously corrupted by the very culture in which they had thus far been raised. I mean, how do we define "adoptable children" in this case, anyway? Those under 18 (which seems to be a quite arbitrary designation in this case)? Of those children, how many would remember, and vehemently detest the fact, that they saw their parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, older siblings ALL killed in front of their eyes? Can we really say that some 60,000 plus children could actually be “adopted”—even if we assumed that the Israelites would implement the same socially minded care we would give today, perhaps—and can we really say that all of those children could be passively assimilated into what these children would most likely view as simply a tyrannical political presence and over-lordship of Israel. Although it’s tragic to say otherwise, I just don’t see it happening, Sam.


Although I very much respect your sentiments, and the presence of them shows that you have Christ’s compassion in your heart, I also have to take seriously: 1) the problematic logistics in Numbers 31, and 2) the will, omniscience, commands, and holiness of God as expressed through His Word.

Then did Israel adopt women and children from the nations they fought in wars? In Deuteronomy it is said that when Israel went to war with nations, they were to take their women and children.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

But if the Midianite boys were adopted and lived among Israelite society, they could have been members of Israelite rather than Midianite society.

So God was wrong about the whole matter. I would double check my math if that thought occurred to me.

 

[Sammy-San]

So God was wrong about the whole matter. I would double check my math if that thought occurred to me.

What makes you think God approved of Moses actions? God told him to go to war with Midian, but he didnt tell him to kill all of the male children.

 

[NannaNae]

Why were the children in Moab/Midian punished and held responsible for the sins that other people in their nation (their parents) committed? The thousands of boys who lived in Midian werent responsible for their mothers sins. It probably was horrible for the thousands of girls to watch their brothers be killed because of what others in the nation did. By your logic, the atomic bombings of Japan in WW2 were morally justified because the Japanese nation did atrocities, and therefore even innocent people were deserving of the wrath and punishment for the evils that their soldiers committed.

that is the one of the major aspects of Jesus death on the cross is that each man and each child is now held responsible for their own sins..
This was not so at the fall.. all were under sin and all were judged with their parents and nation. it is all about legalities of sins ownership.
Unless a person escaped their lands and went directly to Israel and confessed their sins , there wasn't much hope for the individuals.

That is why like with Jonah the whole city of Ninevah had to be converted.
It has to do with ownership in a legal since.
Those children were being given to other God's and our God had no legal right to them. He had no legal right to protect or save them.

 

[Sammy-San]

that is the one of the major aspects of Jesus death on the cross is that each man and each child is now held responsible for their own sins..
This was not so at the fall.. all were under sin and all were judged with their parents and nation. it is all about legalities of sins ownership.
Unless a person escaped their lands and went directly to Israel and confessed their sins , there wasn't much hope for the individuals.

That is why like with Jonah the whole city of Ninevah had to be converted.
It has to do with ownership in a legal since.
Those children were being given to other God's and our God had no legal right to them. He had no legal right to protect or save them.

1-Where does the Bible say that?

2-Where does the Bible say that after the Cross, people arent punished for the sins of their parents?

 

[NannaNae]

YOU ASKED!

HERE IS THE PROMISE OF IT TO ALL OF ISRAEL IN THE OLD TESTAMENT! THEN HE DID IT!


Jer 31:29
In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

Jer 31:30
But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Jer 31:31
¶
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Jer 31:32
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Eze 18:2
What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?

Num 14:18
‘The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.

ALSO IN TERMS LIKE "SINS OF THE FATHERS"

Psa 109:14
May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD; may the sin of his mother never be blotted out.

1Ki 14:22
And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done.

2Ki 15:9
And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, as his fathers had done: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.

Neh 9:2
And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers.

Dan 9:16
O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us.


HERE IS THE FULFILLMENT OF CHRIST'S GIFT


Gal 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.( NOT HIS CHILDREN JUST HIM)


Rom 8:38
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

Eph 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places( THESE BOTH DEMONIC AND OF LAWS IN THE HEAVENS AND ETERNAL) might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Eph 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Col 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Col 2:15
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Tit 3:1
Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers(THESE ARE NOT DEMONIC BUT THEY ARE AUTHORITIES OF A SOCIETY) , to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,

 

[NannaNae]

SO NOW CHRISTIANS CAN SAY " for me and my house we will serve the Lord " and mean it. because he broke the bondage of sin and guilt from our fathers . though they influence us more than we can know..
only our sin is held against us, not our fathers sins or are we subjected to their authorities spiritually .
and only what we submit ourselves to are we subjected to or judged with, not the children .
like Akiana was not subjected to her parents choices jesus Could and did put another tree in her garden so that she had two also.. by introducing himself to her .

 

[Sammy-San]

SO NOW CHRISTIANS CAN SAY " for me and my house we will serve the Lord " and mean it. because he broke the bondage of sin and guilt from our fathers . though they influence us more than we can know..
only our sin is held against us, not our fathers sins or are we subjected to their authorities spiritually .
and only what we submit ourselves to are we subjected to or judge with, not the children .
like Akiana was not subjected to her parents choices.

When the Bible says children bear guilt of parents sins, does it mean they are morally responsible for what their parents did, or does it mean they bear the consequences of their sins? Im not trying to sound stupid-its just that I dont understand the meaning of those verses.

 

[NannaNae]

When the Bible says children bear guilt of parents sins, does it mean they are morally responsible for what their parents did, or does it mean they bear the consequences of their sins? Im not trying to sound stupid-its just that I dont understand the meaning of those verses.

well it used to mean both .
now no, not really ..

but it all , I mean everything hinges on authority though .
you need to blue letter bible those words and really study it.
it is very important to know what our battle is and has always really been about .

 

[Sammy-San]

well it used to mean both .
now no, not really ..

but it all , I mean everything hinges on authority though .
you need to blue letter bible those words and really study it.
it is very important to know what our battle is and has always really been about .

Then how do you explain Ezekiel 18:20?

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.

 

[NannaNae]

Then how do you explain Ezekiel 18:20?

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.

I already showed you that , it is the promise fulfilled in christ sacrifice that is the GOOD NEWS !! in EZ it will be ! IT is a promise of the new way.. it is not the old way which was in effect during Numbers 31 . if someone is going to try and answer your questions. you should really read the scriptures posted probably understand their roots and their context too.
well I hope that helps. good bye!