A False Proverb Refuted

[Mr. M]

A False Proverb Refuted
Ezekiel 18
1 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying,
2 What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:
The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, says the Lord God, you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.

This is a scriptural example of a traditional belief undermining the Word of God.

Deuteronomy 24:16. Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall
children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.

This statute clearly refers to grown children who can be held accountable for committing
a sin that is "unto death", not children too young to be held accountable.

This same proverb was rebuked through Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 31:
29 In those days they shall say no more:
The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge.
30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes,
his teeth shall be set on edge.

Such thoughts persisted until the time of Christ.
John 9:
1 Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth.
2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents,
that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God
should be revealed in him.

Traditional beliefs about sin, death, and the afterlife can continue to influence sound
understanding of these topics. This is further complicated by the fact that due to
their nature, certain Bible verses taken out of context can support the belief, requiring
extra care in seeking to rightly divide the word of Truth.

 

[Noxot]

Then Adam as my ancient ancestor has no effect on me.

 

[Mr. M]

Then Adam as my ancient ancestor has no effect on me.

If you are born again.
1 Peter 1:23. having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through
the word of God which lives and abides forever.

 

[Noxot]

If you are born again.
1 Peter 1:23. having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through
the word of God which lives and abides forever.

Adam is the father of us all. If his sins set his teeth on edge then why would they set mine on edge? I guess there are various ways to handle this problem.

Exodus 34:7 how do you handle this problem?

 

[Mr. M]

Adam is the father of us all. If his sins set his teeth on edge then why would they set mine on edge?

I have no idea.

 

[Mr. M]

how do you handle this problem?

I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Noxot]

I don't have a problem with that.

That might be because you have a way around the contradiction. It could mean that you're just ignoring it. Perhaps you interpret it differently than me.

I interpret it like I interpret children of Wrath. children of Wrath are also vessels of Destruction. They are elements in a person that will be burnt up and destroyed. Sin begets sin and what is Incorruptible begets what is incorruptible. I try to interpret everything according to spiritual states of being rather than legalistic conditions.

I therefore have to think that the sour grapes of the father setting the childs teeth on edge was partially caused by a misunderstanding of Exodus 34:7 maybe that's why Ezekiel 18 mentioned the soul of the father and the soul of the son, to distinguish it from the children of our own soul.

 

[Mr. M]

That might be because you have a way around the contradiction. It could mean that you're just ignoring it. Perhaps you interpret it differently than me.

I interpret it like I interpret children of Wrath. children of Wrath are also vessels of Destruction. They are elements in a person that will be burnt up and destroyed. Sin begets sin and what is Incorruptible begets what is incorruptible. I try to interpret everything according to spiritual states of being rather than legalistic conditions.

I therefore have to think that the sour grapes of the father setting the childs teeth on edge was partially caused by a misunderstanding of Exodus 34:7 maybe that's why Ezekiel 18 mentioned the soul of the father and the soul of the son, to distinguish it from the children of our own soul.

Jeremiah 31:30. But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes,
his teeth shall be set on edge.
I agree that some misinterpretation of Exodus 34:7 may have been involved, but as I included
in the OP, the proverb seems to contradict Deuteronomy 24:16.
Perhaps because Exodus 34:7 deals with "generations", whereas Deuteronomy 24:16 deals with
a living father and his son.
When you compare the proverb to the devarim of Moses, there is a clear reason for the
rebuke. "The problem", if it exists, is bringing Exodus 34:7 in to the discussion.
I am not ignoring it by saying I have no problem with it.
I have already presented my interpretation in the OP.

 

[Noxot]

I'm a little bit tired but I think this is important. I think some people mentioned it a bit in other threads here. You seem to be mentioning the topic in the op, so I start to talk about it and then you told me it has no meaning.

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Exodus 34:7 keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation


It makes no sense to ignore the scriptures though. there is no point in talking about any of the scriptures if you want to cherry pick only a few. I thought we were talking about correct Doctrine. The son is the next generation after the father. What does "generation" signify that would make it any different? This is why I said that the generations is talking about children of the Soul. all the scriptures have to be looked at together so that we can correctly identify doctrine as accurately as possible. Exodus 34 even States that unrepentant sin does not get forgiven. That's why the iniquities of the father go on to the children.

All of this has to do with different interpretations of the Bible. Adam is a spiritual reality, we don't inherit his sin historically because in my interpretations of the scriptures it does not allow for it. If it were true that would mean that there is a contradiction in a perception about what a person thinks the scriptures mean.

So humans can't be legalistically condemned. God judges what they are like as a just judge would do. This means that the 1st and second Adam is a spiritual condition and not a legalistic condition like very many Christians make it out to be. That means having a name of Christian doesn't mean they're saved and not going by the name of Christian doesn't condemn those people. But people's legalese has everyone being automatically condemned, as if they are nothing but children of Wrath and vessels of Destruction.

Basically since God judges our soul outer conditions don't matter. If outer conditions of the Soul mattered then we could be guilty of the sin of Adam as a historical human being. Instead the Bible says every man shall be put to death for his own sin. So Adam is not some deterministic reality but rather something that happens to us that causes us to sin and which the second Adam does not do.

This all has to do with Christianity being universal truth about reality.

 

[Mr. M]

Personally, I do not think that the proverb or the statute in Deuteronomy are dealing with "Adam's transgression".
A man has a son, he commits murder. The Father cannot be put to death
for what his son has done, or the reverse.
You are bringing Exodus 34:7 into the discussion. Apply your concerns to the proverb, which is the topic, but you cannot insist that I do so. I do not believe that is what is being dealt with in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
It is not dealing with Adam's transgression and imputing sin upon all.
The OP also mentions John 9, and something Jesus taught. There is much to be discussed, you want to make it about Paul's teaching on Adam in Romans. I feel that discussion is better served in another thread.

 

[Mr. M]

Turn and Live
Ezekiel 18:
19 Yet you say, Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father? Because the son has done
what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear
the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

21 But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My
statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because
of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live.
23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? says the Lord God, and not that he
should turn from his ways and live?

24 But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity,
and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live?
All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of
them he shall die.

25 Yet you say, The way of the Lord is not fair. Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which
is fair, and your ways which are not fair?
26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies
in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies.
27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and
does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive.
28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed,
he shall surely live; he shall not die.
29 Yet the house of Israel says, The way of the Lord is not fair. O house of Israel, is it not My ways
which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?

 

[JAL]

Personally, I do not think that the proverb or the statute in Deuteronomy are dealing with "Adam's transgression".

Sure it is.
Here's why I don't think you can justify such distinctions: if you asked anyone on the planet what true justice means - even atheists - they would generally be inclined to define it this way:

"Each person pays a price for his own wrong-doing (i.e. unlawfully harming others). That alone is fair. For example sons should not be forced to pay for the crimes of their fathers, and vice versa."

And any judge who failed to comply with this definition would universally be recognized unjust.

You're trying to say that Adam's scenario is "different", perhaps because you've possibly bought into a theory of imputation. And what I'm trying to tell you is that you should never have bought into an unjust theory of imputation to begin with. Any reading of Romans 5 that violates the above definition of justice is, in fact, unjust. I don't need Ezekiel 18 to so confirm (but glad that it does).

 

[Mr. M]

Sure it is.
Here's why I don't think you can justify such distinctions: if you asked anyone on the planet what true justice means - even atheists - they would generally be inclined to define it this way:

"Each person pays a price for his own wrong-doing (i.e. unlawfully harming others). That alone is fair. For example sons should not be forced to pay for the crimes of their fathers, and vice versa."

And any judge who failed to comply with this definition would universally be recognized unjust.

You're trying to say that Adam's scenario is "different", perhaps because you've possibly bought into a theory of imputation. And what I'm trying to tell you is that you should never have bought into an unjust theory of imputation to begin with. Any reading of Romans 5 that violates the above definition of justice is, in fact, unjust. I don't need Ezekiel 18 to so confirm (but glad that it does).

The proverb was false, Ezekiel 18 refutes the proverb, while laying out clearly God's view of justice,
which supports Deuteronomy 24:16.
Ezekiel 18 also elaborates extensively on repentance unto righteousness, and also falling away, which
are quite different from what would be employed by any judge.
The ruling via the prophet is summarized:
Ezekiel 18:20. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness
of the wicked shall be upon himself.

If Paul is referencing Ezekiel 18, or Deuteronomy 24:16 when he writes Romans 5, could you please
cite the reference. Where exactly in Romans 5 is Paul dealing with the justice described in Ezekiel 18?
And why exactly do I need your explanation of justice, when I have Ezekiel 18?

 

[mlepfitjw]

What was the false proverb?

 

[Mr. M]

What was the false proverb?

It is in post #1, where the OP topic is presented.

 

[JAL]

The proverb was false, Ezekiel 18 refutes the proverb, while laying out clearly God's view of justice,
which supports Deuteronomy 24:16.
Ezekiel 18 also elaborates extensively on repentance unto righteousness, and also falling away, which
are quite different from what would be employed by any judge.
The ruling via the prophet is summarized:
Ezekiel 18:20. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness
of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Right. Thanks for corroborating my point - which was that our unanimous concept of justice, as I spelled it out, is ALSO spelled out in those verses. In essence, those verses don't even need to exist because they rehash what we already know.

That is the DEFINITION of justice. If your specific interpretation of Romans 5 allows for any OTHER system of jurisprudence, that would be INJUSTICE (meaning it's time for you to re-interpret Rom 5). That was my point.

If Paul is referencing Ezekiel 18, or Deuteronomy 24:16 when he writes Romans 5, could you please
cite the reference. Where exactly in Romans 5 is Paul dealing with the justice described in Ezekiel 18?
And why exactly do I need your explanation of justice, when I have Ezekiel 18?

Does honesty have multiple contradicting definitions? No. Same with justice. There is but one definition, and any judge who deviates from it is unjust.

 

[JAL]

deleted

 

[Mr. M]

That is the DEFINITION of justice. If your specific interpretation of Romans 5 allows for any OTHER system of jurisprudence, that would be INJUSTICE (meaning it's time for you to re-interpret Rom 5). That was my point.

What specific interpretation of Romans 5 did I make? Another member wanted to bring Paul's teaching
on Adam into the discussion. I have only held to the topic as it is laid out in the OP#1, which I wrote.
If you follow through the discussion, the other member felt that Exodus 34:7 and Romans 5 established
contradictions that must be resolved. Maybe you could discuss this with him. I made no reference to
Romans 5 in the OP, much less offered a specific interpretation. Thanks.

 

[JAL]

What was the false proverb?

It was the false allegation that God is so unjust as to let children suffer for the sins of their parents.

 

[JAL]

What specific interpretation of Romans 5 did I make?

In your last post, for example, you intimated that Romans 5 speaks of a "justice" other than the "justice" of Ezekiel 18.