Ezekiel 18:20- What it Asserts

[newton3005]

Ezekiel 18:20 says, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son...” That Verse isn’t finished here, but it is not inconceivable that when some people encounter this Verse in their reading, they stop where I left off. They may think the father is immune from the iniquitous, or sinful, actions of the son, and vice versa under any circumstances.

Certain members of the press, though, try to lay on a politician the wrongdoings of his son. Are they justified in doing so? Can they be? The second part of Ezekiel 18:20 says as follows: “...The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” Well, yes, it appears only the wicked bear their wickedness. So, it would appear that the wickedness of the son will only be upon the son, and this is justified IN PART by the first part of this Verse. But is that true under any circumstances?

Considering what 2 Timothy 3: 16-17, all scripture has equal standing and must be considered depending on the issues. We need look no further than Ezekiel 18:10-13 to get clarity on Verse 20. Those Verses say, “If [a man] fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood, who does any of these things (though he himself did none of these things), who even eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor’s wife, oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.”

Taken together, Verses 16-20 imply that each of us are accountable for our own behavior, good or bad, and under God we cannot lay any part or our accountability onto others. Suppose the father DID do the sinful things that the son has also done? Can the father be blamed for what the son has done? Can society blame the father?

At first glance, it appears the father cannot be held accountable for his son’s actions; his son’s actions are his alone. But suppose the father, through neglect, does not take precautions that would prevent the son from committing certain sins? Suppose the father hasn’t gone far enough in ensuring that his son knows right and wrong enough so as not to commit the sins that can harm others. Can the sins of that son be visited upon the father? Those Verses above say they cannot be. But it seems there would be a cry out from society for the father to be held accountable in some manner. How under God could he be held accountable?

Two Proverbs come to mind. Proverbs 22:6 says to train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. Proverbs 23:13-14 says to not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol. What then? Can a father be exonerated if despite the things he has taught his son, his son engages in sinful behavior that harms others? The cry from some quarters of society might still remain. There is an urge to hold the father accountable for something in connection with what his son has done. More questions arise: Has the father done enough in raising his son? As part of the father’s responsibility in raising the son, should the father have known that his son might be prone to certain behavior that would be harmful to others? Could be that the father, who has lived in righteousness, had done all he could in raising his son, but that hasn’t stopped the son from doing harm.

Consider this scenario: A father of a 14 year-old boy is going through a divorce from his wife. By all accounts, the father has lived a respectable life. Until his son turned 14, there were no apparent problems to the father. The father gives his son an AR-15 style rifle for Christmas. Where the family lived, there was apparently no law prohibiting a 14 year-old child from having a rifle, so you can’t say the father ignored society’s laws dealing with the safety of the public. A short time later the son kills four people at the school he attends, using that rifle.

Seems that all society can do in this scenario is to say that something is not right, but what? It isn’t against the law to give a firearm to a child, is there? The father does not work in the field of mental health, so how would he be expected to make any connections between his divorce proceedings and the mental state of the son? Seems that at the end of the day, you could wonder if society is making a scapegoat of the father for his son’s heinous action.

 

[jamiec]

"Consider this scenario: A father of a 14 year-old boy is going through a divorce from his wife. By all accounts, the father has lived a respectable life. Until his son turned 14, there were no apparent problems to the father. The father gives his son an AR-15 style rifle for Christmas. Where the family lived, there was apparently no law prohibiting a 14 year-old child from having a rifle, so you can’t say the father ignored society’s laws dealing with the safety of the public. A short time later the son kills four people at the school he attends, using that rifle."

STM that no responsible father, with two braincells to rub together & a functioning conscience, would do anything so idiotic & irresponsible. It also STM, that any such father would be, in large part, morally responsible for those deaths.

The passage in Ezekiel does not address complex questions of moral responsibility, but only very straightforward ones. It is probably to be seen as a development from the (morally rather dubious) doctrine of corporate responsibilty, in which many suffer for the sin of one, to a more ethically adequate & just doctrine of individual responsibility, in which people suffer for their own sins, and not for those of folk of whom they may know nothing, & of whose sins they may well disapprove. This development may be a result of the catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the (not unreasonable) inference that the gods of Babylon had trounced the god of the Jews.

 

[newton3005]

"Consider this scenario: A father of a 14 year-old boy is going through a divorce from his wife. By all accounts, the father has lived a respectable life. Until his son turned 14, there were no apparent problems to the father. The father gives his son an AR-15 style rifle for Christmas. Where the family lived, there was apparently no law prohibiting a 14 year-old child from having a rifle, so you can’t say the father ignored society’s laws dealing with the safety of the public. A short time later the son kills four people at the school he attends, using that rifle."

STM that no responsible father, with two braincells to rub together & a functioning conscience, would do anything so idiotic & irresponsible. It also STM, that any such father would be, in large part, morally responsible for those deaths.

The passage in Ezekiel does not address complex questions of moral responsibility, but only very straightforward ones. It is probably to be seen as a development from the (morally rather dubious) doctrine of corporate responsibilty, in which many suffer for the sin of one, to a more ethically adequate & just doctrine of individual responsibility, in which people suffer for their own sins, and not for those of folk of whom they may know nothing, & of whose sins they may well disapprove. This development may be a result of the catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the (not unreasonable) inference that the gods of Babylon had trounced the god of the Jews.

STM=Seems To Me? If so, got it.