The sins of the father: collective punishment

[IndigoChild5559]

Exodus 20:5
“You shall not bow down to them [idols] 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.”

Ezekiel 18:20
"The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

How do we explain these two passages saying opposite things?

The idea of collective punishment, aka the punishing of an entire family or an entire group for the offenses of some, goes deep into human history. In its most simple form, it might be the social exclusion of the brother or sister of a child who is disliked. In its most grievous form, it is genocide, the deliberate attempt to kill every single last member of a group.

The ancient world took collective punishment for granted, so we should really not be surprised at all that it is described in the Torah.

Ezekiel is the oldest known person to have spoken out against collective punishment. Indeed, he is eerily prophetic in this regard. It would be millenia before significant progress was made on this. It was during the enlightenment that the value of the individual became a common thought in Western Civilization.

Today, there are still some individuals, and some cultures, who still hang on to collective punishment. One well-known example occurred in Myanmar following the military coup in 2021. In response to widespread protests against the military government, the military conducted violent crackdowns, targeting not only protesters but also entire communities believed to support the opposition.

But the flip side is that a huge portion of the world now stands against this practice. It's why there are national and international laws against it. Today, what happened in Myanmar is considered a War Crime by most of the world.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Exodus 20:5
“You shall not bow down to them [idols] 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.”

Ezekiel 18:20
"The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

How do we explain these two passages saying opposite things?

well, the punishments don't seem to do the same thing, and maybe aren't punishing exactly the same thing. Iniquity might be a reaction in the 2nd verse , to what happens in the 1st.. and the first verse shows that the something is made harder in the context of familial generations: it seems like it punishes by raising the standard for how hard life gets in more of a general way. The son could respond to that with iniquity, in the 2nd verse, and get punished on more of an individual level in that verse. It's confusing the way I'm trying to explain it, but I sense that there is something to it

So together, both verses are saying that you are responsible for acting good, but the first makes conditions worse, and the 2nd makes the individual pay for his reaction to the conditions getting worse.. I don't know, I would have to think it through more

But I think that exodus 20:5 doesn't really need God to punish children for the sins of the parents, if the parents sin bad enough, because the punishment would naturally follow without God involved - though I'm curious on how that can be explained away by religious followers, if they don't believe in that particular. Or how they blend

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The idea of collective punishment, aka the punishing of an entire family or an entire group for the offenses of some, goes deep into human history. In its most simple form, it might be the social exclusion of the brother or sister of a child who is disliked. In its most grievous form, it is genocide, the deliberate attempt to kill every single last member of a group.

The opposite might happen as well I thought, where a brother or sister might get a boost if their sibling is a black sheep. I'm not saying that's a great thing, but it seems like that can happen in a family dynamic. As for genocide, I think maybe that goes beyond the concept of punishment

Ezekiel is the oldest known person to have spoken out against collective punishment. Indeed, he is eerily prophetic in this regard. It would be millenia before significant progress was made on this. It was during the enlightenment that the value of the individual became a common thought in Western Civilization.

What key verse from him was about this? As to individuals, if they only serve themselves enough, does that bring a kind of punishment to the collective they are embedded in?

Today, there are still some individuals, and some cultures, who still hang on to collective punishment. One well-known example occurred in Myanmar following the military coup in 2021. In response to widespread protests against the military government, the military conducted violent crackdowns, targeting not only protesters but also entire communities believed to support the opposition.

But the flip side is that a huge portion of the world now stands against this practice. It's why there are national and international laws against it. Today, what happened in Myanmar is considered a War Crime by most of the world.

That's extreme, but it seems like what happens to the collective based on individual or collective choices in unavoidable, and has gradations. I'm not saying that that should have happened to them, as that is obviously an extreme example of this.

Every choice that the collective or the individual makes, in any context, probably has an externality of some kind. And while I would say that crackdowns are not called for, it seems like everything we do is an input into a greater system of energy that either comes back to bite us, as a collective or as individuals, or rewards us. It seems like dealing with all of this is a matter of education or intelligence, or something like that

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What key verse from him was about this?

I quoted it at the very beginning of my opening post:

Ezekiel 18:20
"The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I quoted it at the very beginning of my opening post:

Ezekiel 18:20
"The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Alright yeah, sometimes my focus is a little stretched, sorry

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Alright yeah, sometimes my focus is a little stretched, sorry

It's nice to know I'm not the only one this happens to LOL.

 

[Yokefellow]

How do we explain these two passages saying opposite things?

The only way to resolve the above is to understand that the Bible teaches Reincarnation from Genesis to Revelation.

If you can handle it, fast forward to 5:35 in this video for the REAL answer, handed to you on a Silver Platter...

Those that are not able to accept Biblical Reincarnation will be doomed to ignorance for the rest of their lives.

Countless verses, themes concepts, etc. will always be a Mystery to them.

This is fact.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The only way to resolve the above is to understand that the Bible teaches Reincarnation from Genesis to Revelation.

I have a much easier explanation that doesn't even need to bring the supernatural into it.

It's simply the result of two different authors writing at two different times with two different views.

 

[Yokefellow]

I have a much easier explanation that doesn't even need to bring the supernatural into it.

It's simply the result of two different authors writing at two different times with two different views.

Of course you would give the most ignorant answer possible. Why wouldn't you?

I was hoping by some miracle you would actually reply with something intelligent to say.

Nope. Same ol same ol around here.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Of course you would give the most ignorant answer possible. Why wouldn't you?

How is giving a perfectly workable explanation that has the beauty of simplicity "ignorant"? Are you saying that the definition of "ignorant" is anyone who doesn't agree with you?

 

[1213]

Exodus 20:5
“You shall not bow down to them [idols] 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.”

Ezekiel 18:20
"The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

How do we explain these two passages saying opposite things?

I think the important part of Exodus 20:5 is the "sin of the parents" and "of those who hate me". I think it means, those who hate Him are punished in every generation, if they do the same sin. If you Fathers sin was to hate God, and you also do your Fathers sin, also you will be punished. That is how I understand it.

 

[Colt]

Exodus 20:5
“You shall not bow down to them [idols] 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.”

Ezekiel 18:20
"The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

How do we explain these two passages saying opposite things?

The idea of collective punishment, aka the punishing of an entire family or an entire group for the offenses of some, goes deep into human history. In its most simple form, it might be the social exclusion of the brother or sister of a child who is disliked. In its most grievous form, it is genocide, the deliberate attempt to kill every single last member of a group.

The ancient world took collective punishment for granted, so we should really not be surprised at all that it is described in the Torah.

Ezekiel is the oldest known person to have spoken out against collective punishment. Indeed, he is eerily prophetic in this regard. It would be millenia before significant progress was made on this. It was during the enlightenment that the value of the individual became a common thought in Western Civilization.

Today, there are still some individuals, and some cultures, who still hang on to collective punishment. One well-known example occurred in Myanmar following the military coup in 2021. In response to widespread protests against the military government, the military conducted violent crackdowns, targeting not only protesters but also entire communities believed to support the opposition.

But the flip side is that a huge portion of the world now stands against this practice. It's why there are national and international laws against it. Today, what happened in Myanmar is considered a War Crime by most of the world.

Because the scriptures are human in origin! There are NO books on earth written by God!!!! NONE!

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Exodus 20:5
“You shall not bow down to them [idols] 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.”

Ezekiel 18:20
"The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

How do we explain these two passages saying opposite things?

The idea of collective punishment, aka the punishing of an entire family or an entire group for the offenses of some, goes deep into human history. In its most simple form, it might be the social exclusion of the brother or sister of a child who is disliked. In its most grievous form, it is genocide, the deliberate attempt to kill every single last member of a group.

The ancient world took collective punishment for granted, so we should really not be surprised at all that it is described in the Torah.

Ezekiel is the oldest known person to have spoken out against collective punishment. Indeed, he is eerily prophetic in this regard. It would be millenia before significant progress was made on this. It was during the enlightenment that the value of the individual became a common thought in Western Civilization.

Today, there are still some individuals, and some cultures, who still hang on to collective punishment. One well-known example occurred in Myanmar following the military coup in 2021. In response to widespread protests against the military government, the military conducted violent crackdowns, targeting not only protesters but also entire communities believed to support the opposition.

But the flip side is that a huge portion of the world now stands against this practice. It's why there are national and international laws against it. Today, what happened in Myanmar is considered a War Crime by most of the world.

Notice that the "son shall not bear the iniquity of the father", and vice versa. You cannot inherit another person's sin, because you didn't do it.

If your mother is an alcoholic, and gives birth to you, those sins are not in any way imputed to the child. The child is 100% innocent, and therefore does not personally bear the iniquity of their parents.

However, does that baby suffer as a result of his mother's wickedness? Yes. Is her iniquity being visited on him? Yes.

For one, that baby might have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or some other defect, from his mother's drinking. So too if he has bad parents, he will suffer by missing out on good parenting. The sin of bad parenting, then, is being visited on him. This is just one of many examples we could use - you can probably think of more.

God has built in these punishments as a way of making sure a certain group of people cannot thrive with bad habits. Unfortunately, the children are often collateral damage. The innocent always suffer at the hands of the wicked, and the Lord understands this and has differing expectations for different people (Luke 12:48).

Do Exodus 20:5 and 34:7 Contradict Ezekiel 18:20? Does God Punish People for Other's Sins? | FaithAlone.net

 

[ChatwithGod]

Exodus 20:5
“You shall not bow down to them [idols] 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.”

Ezekiel 18:20
"The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

How do we explain these two passages saying opposite things?

The idea of collective punishment, aka the punishing of an entire family or an entire group for the offenses of some, goes deep into human history. In its most simple form, it might be the social exclusion of the brother or sister of a child who is disliked. In its most grievous form, it is genocide, the deliberate attempt to kill every single last member of a group.

The ancient world took collective punishment for granted, so we should really not be surprised at all that it is described in the Torah.

Ezekiel is the oldest known person to have spoken out against collective punishment. Indeed, he is eerily prophetic in this regard. It would be millenia before significant progress was made on this. It was during the enlightenment that the value of the individual became a common thought in Western Civilization.

Today, there are still some individuals, and some cultures, who still hang on to collective punishment. One well-known example occurred in Myanmar following the military coup in 2021. In response to widespread protests against the military government, the military conducted violent crackdowns, targeting not only protesters but also entire communities believed to support the opposition.

But the flip side is that a huge portion of the world now stands against this practice. It's why there are national and international laws against it. Today, what happened in Myanmar is considered a War Crime by most of the world.

These verses highlight God's evolving relationship with humanity. Exodus shows us early teachings where consequences extended through generations, emphasizing the seriousness of sin and idolatry. By Ezekiel's time, the understanding had deepened: each person is responsible for their own actions. This shift reflects a more personal accountability.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

However, does that baby suffer as a result of his mother's wickedness? Yes. Is her iniquity being visited on him? Yes.

We are often harmed by the sins of others. In indeed it is the very capacity of certain actions to inflict harm that makes them sins. But we don't say the person who is harmed is to blame, or is worthy of punishment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exodus 20:5
“You shall not bow down to them [idols] 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.”

Ezekiel 18:20
"The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

How do we explain these two passages saying opposite things?

How many believers of which sects believe this still?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

We are often harmed by the sins of others. In indeed it is the very capacity of certain actions to inflict harm that makes them sins. But we don't say the person who is harmed is to blame, or is worthy of punishment.

I don’t believe that is what the Bible is saying.

It’s describing the effects of sins on others as you mentioned.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exodus 20:5
“You shall not bow down to them [idols] 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.”

Ezekiel 18:20
"The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

How do we explain these two passages saying opposite things?

The idea of collective punishment, aka the punishing of an entire family or an entire group for the offenses of some, goes deep into human history. In its most simple form, it might be the social exclusion of the brother or sister of a child who is disliked. In its most grievous form, it is genocide, the deliberate attempt to kill every single last member of a group.

The ancient world took collective punishment for granted, so we should really not be surprised at all that it is described in the Torah.

Ezekiel is the oldest known person to have spoken out against collective punishment. Indeed, he is eerily prophetic in this regard. It would be millenia before significant progress was made on this. It was during the enlightenment that the value of the individual became a common thought in Western Civilization.

Today, there are still some individuals, and some cultures, who still hang on to collective punishment. One well-known example occurred in Myanmar following the military coup in 2021. In response to widespread protests against the military government, the military conducted violent crackdowns, targeting not only protesters but also entire communities believed to support the opposition.

But the flip side is that a huge portion of the world now stands against this practice. It's why there are national and international laws against it. Today, what happened in Myanmar is considered a War Crime by most of the world.

Collective punishment is a strategy for authoritarian leaders with scarce resources.

If you can't afford to pay for police across your whole realm - or if the logistics are beyond your organizational capabilities - collective punishment can be an effective way to get the different parts of your realm to police themselves.

I think this is why we see less of it not only in democratic countries but also in authoritarian but wealthy countries: collective punishment is a stopgap for weak, poorer rulers; individualized punishment is a display of power and wealth.

Edit: in this light, I think it makes sense that ancient countries had collective punishment, but it's also strange - or telling - that these cultures attribute collective punishment to their gods. On the one hand, it's indicative of how religion is used to reinforce a society's social order, but on the other hand, these leaders are declaring their gods to be weak like them.