Rizpah’s Torment: When God Punishes The Children For The Sin Of The Father

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

[Robert B. Chisholm Jr. is Chair and Senior Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Abstract

In the Old Testament, God warned his enemies that their sin would have negative consequences for their families, and punishment for sin at times included the sinner’s children. However, the law of God says that a child must not be punished for a parent’s sin. Close readings of narratives where sinners’ children are punished reveal that the sins in question constitute blatant rebellion against God’s authority. Since children are a blessing from the Lord, he may withdraw this blessing as he exacts retribution. However, God does not allow human judges to follow this principle, since they do not share God’s rights as Creator. Ezekiel 18 describes God’s merciful response to a specific situation, not a universal principle.

Introduction

According to the Old Testament, God sometimes punishes children because of their father’s sin(s). The Lord warned his enemies that their sin would have negative consequences in their families throughout their lifetimes (Exod 20:5; 34:7; Num 14:18). In several incidents, God’s punishment included the sinner’s children. For example, the earth swallowed up the children of Dathan and Abiram when God judged their rebellious parents (Num 16:27, 32). Achan’s children were executed along with their disobedient father (Josh 7:24). In accordance with David’s self-imposed punishment, the Lord took the lives of four of his children because of his sin against Uriah (2 Sam 12:5–6, 10; see 12:14–15; 13:28–29; 18:15; 1 Kgs 2:25). With the Lord’s approval, David turned seven of Saul’s descendants over to the Gibeonites for execution because of Saul’s sins against that city (2 Sam 21:1–9).

However, divine punishment upon the sinner’s children appears to go contrary to the law of God itself, which says that a child must not be punished for a parent’s sin(s) (Deut 24:16; see 2 Kgs 14:6). Furthermore, Ezekiel 18 seems to indicate that God follows this legal principle of individual responsibility and judges people on the basis of their own personal behavior, not that of their father.

This article proposes a resolution to this tension and offers an explanation for why when implementing justice God sometimes uses the principle of corporate, rather than individual, punishment. Examining pertinent texts, it argues that:

1. In accordance with the principle of corporate solidarity, God does sometimes punish a sinner’s children when the sinner rebels against him in a way that blatantly mocks his authority. God is not bound to some supposed universal principle that limits punishment strictly to the individual sinner. On the contrary, since children are a blessing that the Lord bestows, he sometimes chooses to withdraw this blessing as he exacts retribution upon those who have forfeited divine favor.
2. God does not allow human judges to follow this corporate principle when implementing justice. It is restricted to situations where God himself is the offended party or is the guarantor of a treaty agreement.
3. Ezekiel 18 describes God’s merciful response to his people’s sin in a specific situation. It does not state a universal principle that he is always bound to follow. The generalized statements made in Ezekiel 18 are limited by their context.

Children As A Blessing From God

Before looking at the problematic passages mentioned above, we must establish a theological foundation for the discussion. Only then will we have the necessary framework within which to address the problem and propose a solution. From the very beginning, God “blessed” man and woman, giving them the capacity and mandate to reproduce (Gen 1:28). In this context the verb ברך has the nuance “endue with reproductive power,” as the mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number” (NIV 1984) indicates. This mandate was repeated after the Flood, as God blessed Noah and his sons (9:1). Offspring are a key element in the Abrahamic promise, and Jacob, in his blessing upon Joseph, spoke of “blessings of the breast and womb” bestowed by God (49:25). What is clear from Genesis is that God’s blessing gives human beings the capacity to bear children. Those children are in turn a blessing that originates with him. Abundant offspring (“the fruit of your womb”) is one of the blessings of the Mosaic covenant (Deut 28:11), granted as a reward for obedience (vv. 11–12, 13–14). Psalm 127:3 affirms that “sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him.” In the first line יְהוָה is best understood as a genitive of source. He is the one who grants children. Psalm 128 also views children as a blessing from God, granted to those who fear him (vv. 1–4).

If God is the one who grants children as a blessing, then it stands to reason that he has the sovereign right to withhold or even take away children. It is no surprise that the Deuteronomic curses, which threaten Israel with loss of blessing, include loss of children as one of the forms of judgment (Deut 28:18, 32, 41). Hosea 9:10–14 is enlightening in this regard. The Lord threatened to make sinful Israel barren and to take away their children. In this case the punishment was poetic justice, for the people were worshiping a Canaanite fertility god (Baal) in an effort to acquire a blessing that only the one true God can give.

This brief survey shows that (1) God is the source of human fertility, and (2) children are a blessing that he grants. God’s status as the sovereign Lord and source of life implies that he can take away life if and when he deems it appropriate.[1] The problem then is not really that God sometimes takes away his blessings (children). The real interpretive challenge raised by the problematic texts cited initially is this: Under what conditions does God, at least sometimes, decide that punishment of sinners will include removing the blessing of children? Furthermore, why does God exempt children from punishment in some cases, but not others?

The Principle Of Corporate Punishment Stated In The Pentateuch

After warning Israel not to worship idols, the Lord reminded the people that he is “a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me” (Exod 20:5). See as well (1) Exodus 34:7: “He punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.” (2) Numbers 14:18: “He punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.” (3) Deuteronomy 5:9: “Punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” It is specifically stated in Exodus 20:5 and Deuteronomy 5:9 that the punishment comes upon those who “hate” the Lord, associated in both contexts with idolatry (Exod 20:3–5; Deut 5:7–9). “Hate” appears to have the metonymic connotation “despise, reject.” The term is omitted in Exodus 34:7, but it is implied there in light of 20:5 and in the aftermath of the golden calf fiasco (chap. 32) that precipitated the need for the new tablets described in chapter 34 (see 32:19; 34:1). Numbers 14:18 also omits “hate,” but it is implied, for the immediate context speaks of the people despising (נאץ) the Lord (vv. 11, 23).[2] The important point here is that the punishment of the children occurs in a context where someone has committed a serious offense against God, one that can be referred to as “hating” or “despising” him.

Incidents Where Children Were Punished For The Father’s Sin Rebellion Against Moses (Num 16)

Numbers 16 tells how the Lord vindicated Moses and Aaron when Korah, Dathan, and Abiram challenged their leadership. The rebels accused Moses and Aaron of having “gone too far” in asserting their authority (v. 3). The Lord’s judgment upon the rebels was swift and violent. The earth opened up and swallowed the offenders alive, along with their families and possessions. Dathan’s and Abiram’s sons, including their infants, were swallowed up along with them (vv. 27, 32).

The punishment may seem extreme since this appears to be strictly a human conflict between competing parties. But Moses clarified the situation, making it clear that the malcontents had overstepped their boundaries and banded together against the Lord himself (v. 11). For this act of rebellion against his authority, the Lord was ready to destroy the entire congregation, but Moses persuaded the Lord to show mercy, appealing to the principle of individual responsibility (v. 22). However, the ringleaders, whom Moses called “wicked” (רְשָׁעִים, v. 26), did not escape. From Moses’s perspective, which the Lord validated through his swift intervention, the culprits had “treated the Lord with contempt” (נאץ, v. 30) and they paid a severe price for their insolence.

The expression used in 16:11 to describe the rebels’ offense (“band together against,” niphal of יעד collocated with preposition עַל) also appears in Numbers 14:35, where it refers to the sin of the entire wicked generation that rejected the report of Joshua and Caleb and even threatened to kill them (14:10). The piel of נאץ, “treat with contempt,” used in 16:30 with the Lord as object, appears in 14:11, where the Lord accused the people of despising him by not trusting in his revealed power (cf. v. 23). On that earlier occasion the Lord threatened to wipe them out (v. 12, cf. v. 15), but Moses persuaded him to extend mercy and forgiveness (vv. 13–19). Yet the Lord announced that the adults would wander about and die in the wilderness; only their children would enter the Promised Land (vv. 20–38).

So the incident recorded in chapter 16 should not be seen in isolation. It essentially repeats the more widespread rebellion of chapter 14 and once more threatens to activate judgment against the entire community. Earlier the people had escaped wholesale judgment; their lives were spared for the time being, and their children were allowed to inherit the promise. On this second occasion the Lord was again ready to destroy the community, but Moses once more persuaded the Lord to relent to some degree. Yet the perpetrators of this second offense forfeited divine mercy. The punishment threatened earlier was activated against them, including their children. However, before we side with Moses in 16:22, thinking that he was right and God was overreacting, we need to read on. In 16:41 (Heb. 17:6) the congregation accused Moses of killing the Lord’s people! It turns out after all that the Lord had a better understanding of the heart of the community than Moses did. Moses’s argument had implied that the community was innocent and that only the ringleaders of the rebellion deserved punishment. But the people’s response shows that the entire community, which identified with the victims against Moses, was corrupt. Again the Lord was ready to wipe them out (v. 45 [Heb. 17:10]); in fact, he sent a plague that killed a large number. Yet once again Moses intervened to prevent the total destruction of the community. But what is especially pertinent for this study is that the death of the sinners’ children took place in a context where corporate guilt was assumed and more widespread corporate punishment was threatened, though averted in its totality.

Does the text offer any clues about why the punishment of the culprits included their children? The use of the verb ספה, “sweep away,” in 16:26 points to severe judgment that devastates whatever is near to or associated with its target (cf. Gen 19:15), even if it does not share the guilt of the target (cf. Jer 12:4). This may suggest that the sin was so grave that it unleashed a torrent of divine wrath so severe that collateral damage was inevitable. But the exhortation in verse 26, where the rest of the community is urged not to touch the belongings of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, may indicate that their sin had a contaminating effect on all who were in their households.[3] In this case, the children, rather than being simply collateral damage, are viewed as tainted by moral contagion by reason of contact with their sinful parents. However, perhaps the real key to understanding the severity of the judgment lies in the use of the verb נאץ, “treat with contempt” (v. 30). Only rarely does this verb appear with the Lord/God as object (Num 14:11, 23; 16:30; Deut 31:20; 2 Sam 12:14;[4] Ps 10:3, 13; Isa 1:4).[5] In each of the three narrative texts where the collocation appears, judgment upon sinners includes their children (though not specifically stated, judgment upon the children is implied in Numbers 14:11). So one may reasonably conclude that treating the Lord with contempt is an especially serious offense capable of prompting severe judgment of a corporate nature. The judgment described in Numbers 16 can be viewed as an outworking of the principle stated by the Lord in the Decalogue (Exod 20:5 = Deut 5:9; cf. Num 14:18). Treating the Lord with contempt is tantamount to “hating” him (cf. Prov 5:12, where “treat with contempt” and “hate” are used in synonymous parallelism), a crime that apparently causes one to forfeit God’s blessings, including life and offspring.[6]

Numbers 14 may provide a further clue about why Dathan’s and Abiram’s children were punished for their fathers’ sins. In that earlier incident the people were concerned about what would happen to their children (14:3). The Lord addressed this concern later (v. 31) and, ironically, told them that he would preserve their children. Even though they must suffer the consequences of the parents’ sin to some degree (v. 32), they would eventually enter the land (v. 31). But in chapter 16, where the sin of rebellion is repeated (cf. 17:10 [Heb. v. 25] with the Deuteronomic version of the event [Deut 1:26, 43]), the Lord decided, at least in the case of the ringleaders, to eliminate the children along with the sinners and in so doing erase his blessings. When one views the second incident as an extension of the first, the reason for the punishment of the children comes into sharper focus. An initial rebellion motivated by a desire to maintain possession of blessings given by God threatened to bring forfeiture of those blessings. But God’s mercy, in response to Moses’s prophetic intercession, averted the disaster. However, when rebellion surfaced again so quickly, those blessings were removed along with the rebels who had forfeited them.

Achan’s Theft (Josh 7)

Achan’s sin at Jericho clearly had corporate repercussions. Though Achan was the only person who took any of the devoted items (Josh 7:1), the text attributes his sin to the community. Verse 1 says that “the Israelites acted unfaithfully” and that “the Lord’s anger burned against Israel.” Later, in response to Joshua’s complaint, the Lord declared: “Israel has sinned; they have violated my covenant, which I commanded them to keep. They have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen, they have lied, they have put them with their own possessions” (v. 11). The Lord then required the entire community to stand before him as Achan was identified, and “all Israel” (vv. 24, 26) participated in his execution. This is not surprising when one recalls the scene in chapter 6. As commanded by the Lord, the people marched in unison around the city. On the seventh day, Joshua commanded the entire nation not to take the devoted things and warned them of the corporate consequences of disobedience (vv. 18–19). The text emphasizes the united action of “the people” (v. 20). Israel was acting as a unified corporate entity; the actions of each individual would impact the group.[7]

In the end, the community was released from punishment, but Achan’s sons, daughters, and livestock were executed with him (vv. 24–25), even though, as far as we can tell, they did not conspire with him in his theft.[8] As in Numbers 16, the death of the sinner’s children occurred in a context where corporate guilt was assumed and more widespread corporate punishment was threatened and implemented to a degree (in the death of the thirty-six men at Ai), though ultimately averted on a broader scale.

As in Numbers 16, the severity of the punishment can perhaps be attributed to the gravity of Achan’s crime. From the Lord’s perspective, his action was a breach of the covenant (vv. 11, 15) and a violation of the eighth commandment of the Decalogue (v. 11; cf. Exod 20:15 = Deut 5:19). His theft of the devoted items is characterized as “outrageous” (v. 15). The term נְבָלָה is used elsewhere of heinous acts, including rape (Gen 34:7; Judg 19:23–24; 20:6, 10; 2 Sam 13:12), adultery (Deut 22:21; Jer 29:23), and insolent disrespect for the Lord’s anointed king (1 Sam 25:25). In most cases the perpetrators of such deeds meet their demise (see also Isa 9:17 [Heb. v. 16]; 32:6), Job’s “friends” being a notable exception (Job 42:8). Achan himself confessed that he had “sinned against” the Lord (Josh 7:20). The collocation of the verb חטא with the preposition לְ– followed by יְהוָה is a frequent one, especially in Deuteronomy (1:41; 9:16; 20:18) and the Former Prophets (Josh 7:20; 1 Sam 2:25; 7:6; 12:23; 14:33–34; 2 Sam 12:13; 2 Kgs 17:7).

Granted the gravity of the crime and the corresponding severity of the punishment, we are still forced to ask, Why did Achan’s punishment include his innocent children and, for that matter, livestock? A typical explanation is that Achan’s sin had a contaminating effect on those around him, for the devoted things had taboo status (Josh 7:12–13).[9] Even if this is true, we must probe deeper. Achan sought to enhance his wealth by appropriating items that belonged to God. As a penalty God eliminated along with Achan the wealth that he had given to him. In this regard it is noteworthy that the stolen loot is listed along with all of Achan’s legitimate possessions in 7:24. Achan’s theft of what belonged to God caused him to forfeit the gifts God had granted him. The underlying principle appears as early as Genesis 3, where the woman and man, not satisfied with their status and access to the tree of life, seized for themselves the off-limits fruit in an attempt to gain wisdom and become “gods.”[10] The end result was forfeiture of the blessing they had been given—access to the other trees of the garden, including the tree of life. Achan’s children were a blessing from God, who had the right to remove that blessing along with the rebel who had forfeited God’s favor.

David’s Sons (2 Sam 13–20; 1 Kgs 1–2)

Following David’s sin with Bathsheba, Nathan told him a story about a rich man who stole a poor man’s sheep and cooked it for dinner. Not realizing the story was about him, the infuriated David said the culprit must pay fourfold for his crime. This was consistent with the Law, which demanded fourfold restitution in such a case (Exod 22:1). But suddenly Nathan identified David as the culprit and announced that divine judgment would fall upon him. David’s self-imposed punishment was realized as he lost four sons: the baby conceived in adultery, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah.

The implementation of divine justice differs in this story, however. After taking the baby’s life (2 Sam 12:15), God did not bring sudden supernatural punishment upon David’s children, as he had in the case of Dathan and Abiram, nor did he require a formal execution of David’s sons, as he had in the case of Achan. Instead God worked out his justice providentially, allowing David’s sons to self-destruct as they mirrored their father’s quest for power and resorted to the same lust, deceit, and violence that David had exhibited. Amnon, after raping his half-sister Tamar, was murdered by Absalom, Tamar’s full brother. Absalom was killed by his cousin Joab, and Adonijah was executed by his half-brother Solomon.[11]

The principle of justice is clearly evident as one reads the interchange between David and Nathan and then sees what amounts to a self-fulfilling prophecy playing itself out in the royal family. But does the text provide clues as to why the Lord held David to his word and implemented such a harsh punishment upon David’s children? As in the case of the incidents recorded in Numbers 16 and Joshua 7, several features indicate that David’s crime was especially heinous in the sight of God. David characterizes the sin as pitiless (12:6). He despised (בזה) the Lord’s word by doing what was evil in his eyes (v. 9). In Numbers 15:31 despising the Lord’s word is punished by being “cut off.” The execution of the Sabbath wood-gatherer then becomes an illustration of the penalty (vv. 32–36). The expression “doing evil in the eyes of the Lord” appears frequently in Deuteronomy (4:25; 9:18; 17:2; 31:29) and the Former Prophets (Judg 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1; 1 Sam 15:29). The intertextual linking with the framework of Judges and with Saul places David in a very precarious position.[12] The charge becomes more severe in verse 10 as the Lord says to David: “You have despised me.” Prior to this in the Former Prophets, the verb בזה is used with the Lord as object only once, in the case of Eli and his sons (1 Sam 2:30). The focus in the judgment speech (vv. 27–36) is Eli himself, the punishment of whom impacts his offspring (see especially vv. 31–36). David’s confession in 2 Samuel 12:13 (“I have sinned against the Lord”) is identical to Achan’s (Josh 7:20), an intertextual link that does not bode well for him. To make matters worse, Nathan accuses David in verse 14 of treating the Lord with contempt (נאץ), a verbal link with those who rebelled against Moses (Num 16:30).[13] As noted above, in the three narratival examples where the Lord is the object of this verb, punishment is corporate and encompasses offspring. Given the severity of the language used and the intertextual links just noted, it is no surprise to see the punishment for David’s crimes include his children. As noted above, God has every right to take away his blessings from those who forfeit them by despising him and treating him with contempt.

But there is another contextual factor that explains why David’s children suffered for his sin. As one reads through the David narrative, one detects David’s growing fascination with the trappings of royalty. It begins in a subtle manner, in 1 Samuel 18:26, where we read of David’s thoughts for the first time: “He was pleased to become the king’s son-in-law.”[14] We then see his royal harem grow from two wives (1 Sam 25:43; 30:5; excluding Michal, see 1 Sam 25:44) to six (2 Sam 3:2–5). As he adds even more wives (5:13), more royal sons are born, enhancing, in typical ancient Near Eastern fashion, David’s royal reputation and power, but clearly violating the Deuteronomic law about accumulating wives (Deut 17:17). Though physical lust was an obvious motivating factor in David’s seizure of Bathsheba, more fundamentally it was an expression of royal power. The very existence of his sons epitomized his capitulation to the cultural model of kingship and the abuse of power it encouraged. How appropriate then that the punishment struck down four of these sons, three of whom (the infant being the obvious exception) displayed the same abuse of power and excessive ambition as their father. In punishing David’s sons, the Lord brought judgment on the corrupt royal court David had created, an institution that violated at a fundamental level the principles of kingship given in the covenant (Deut 17:14–20).

Rizpah’s Mourning (2 Sam 21:1–14)

During David’s reign, a famine overtook the land of Israel for three years. When David finally asked the Lord why, the answer was straightforward. The famine was punishment for Saul’s crimes against the Gibeonites that had stained his house with blood.[15] It is noteworthy that the first mention of the crime introduces a corporate dimension. Saul’s action had covered his “house” with bloodguilt. Likewise, the Gibeonites’ description of Saul’s atrocities has a corporate flavor (2 Sam 21:5; note their use of three first person common plural forms). At this point, we are predisposed to think that this crime, from its very nature, will be punished corporately.

Verse 2 makes it clear that Saul’s actions violated the ancient promise Israel had made to the Gibeonites, which is viewed as an oath (note שׁבע). The background for this is found in Joshua 9, which tells how the Israelites swore an oath to the Gibeonites “by the Lord, the God of Israel” (vv. 18–19). This means that the Lord was the guarantor of the treaty, the one who would implement punishment if it were violated. The Israelites were well aware that they would experience “wrath” (קצף), if they broke their promise to preserve the lives of the Gibeonites (v. 20). This noun refers to the Lord’s anger in 25 of its 28 uses.[16] The description of the execution of Saul’s seven descendants is consistent with this (note ליהוה, “before the Lord,” in 2 Sam 21:6, 9).[17] To summarize, Saul’s crime was not simply against the Gibeonites, but against the Lord himself, the guarantor of the Israelite-Gibeonite treaty.[18]

When David asked the Gibeonites how they might be placated, they demanded that seven (the symbolism is apparent) of Saul’s descendants be handed over for execution (v. 6). David did so; the Gibeonites executed them and left their corpses exposed (v. 9), setting the stage for the heart-wrenching scene in which Rizpah protects the corpses of her two sons from being devoured by scavengers (v. 10).[19] Rizpah’s concern for the exposed corpses prompted David to give the bones of Saul and Jonathan a proper burial (vv. 11–13). Only then, it seems, was God’s favor finally restored (v. 14).[20]

Granted the severity of Saul’s crime, why did the punishment include his offspring? A closer look at the Gibeonites’ charge against Saul provides a clue. Their use of the niphal of שׁמד (v. 5) indicates that Saul attempted to exterminate them (see, for example, Gen 34:30; Judg 21:6). The continuation of their line was jeopardized, so much so that their standing in Israel was threatened. It makes sense that the punishment for such an action would in turn diminish Saul’s line. Chavel observes that the punishment of Saul is “a mirror image of the ban” that Saul had sought to implement against the Gibeonites. As such, “the Gibeonites get to destroy Saul’s family directly in ritual execution. Only after this process plays itself out can nature return to its proper and prospering course.”[21]

Deuteronomy 24:16 And Prohibition Of Corporate Punishment

In Deuteronomy 24:16 Moses states a basic principle of Israelite law: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” We see this principle implemented when Ahaziah assumed the throne of Judah. He executed the officials who had assassinated his father Joash (2 Kgs 14:5; see 12:20–21), but he did not execute their sons (14:6), because this would have violated the law found in Deuteronomy 24:16, which is cited in 2 Kings 14:6. So what are we to make of this? God specifically forbids corporate punishment of a wrongdoer’s children, though he himself sometimes punishes children for their parent’s sin, seemingly in violation of his own law.

The apparent contradiction is a problem only if we assume that Deuteronomy 24:16 states a universal principle of justice. But it clearly does not. It pertains to situations, like the assassination of Joash, where we have human on human crime. As heinous as the act may seem, it is not framed in the same category as the blatant rebellion against God described in the narratives surveyed above. In instances of strictly human on human crime, the (human) court has no right to execute the children of the criminal because they did not grant the blessing of offspring in the first place. To eliminate the offspring would be a gross usurpation of the Lord’s authority, which is delegated to them only for the purpose of punishing the criminal himself.

We find a parallel to this in Hittite laws pertaining to sacrilege, indicating that what is proposed above is not unique in the ancient Near Eastern world. Milgrom explains that Hittite laws dealing with “misappropriation of sanctums” involve three forms of punishment: (1) “death by the gods (collective—the family),” (2) “death by humans (collective),” and (3) “death by humans (criminal only).”[22] After discussing the conditions for each, he concludes, “If the Hittite gods are doing the punishing, then not only the offender but also his or her household are killed.” In contrast, if “the juridical authorities convict the offender, they will execute the criminal alone and will not include his family.” However, there is an exception to the latter: “The authorities may execute an offender together with his family, but only if the culprit has been convicted by the gods (by ordeal or by oracle).”[23] Using Milgrom’s categories, we would place the judgment upon Dathan and Abiram, as well as the punishment of David, under category one, and the punishment of Achan and Saul under category two (note the lot casting in Achan’s case [Josh 7:16–18] and the oracle in Saul’s case [2 Sam 21:1], not to mention the famine!).[24] The execution of Joash’s assassins is an example of category three. Milgrom states that “Israelite law operates with two postulates: (1) sins against God are not punishable by human beings; and (2) collective punishment is a divine right that may not be usurped by humans.”[25]

Does Ezekiel 18 Contradict Or Change The Principle Of Corporate Punishment? [26]

The exiles quoted a proverb suggesting they were unfairly suffering the consequences of their parents’ sins (Ezek 18:1–2; cf. Jer 31:29). The Lord responded that he held each individual responsible for his own sin (Ezek 18:3–4). He explained that a righteous man who obeys God’s moral standards will live (vv. 5–9), but if he has a sinful son, that son will die (vv. 10–13). However, if this sinful man has an obedient son, the son will live (vv. 14–17). The conclusion is clear: God judges a person on an individual basis, based on his own character and actions, not his father’s actions (vv. 18–20). This does not mean the wicked have no hope. If a sinner repents, he will live (vv. 21–23). On the other hand, if a righteous man turns to sin, he will die (v. 24).

The exiles accused God of injustice, but they were the ones who were guilty of injustice (vv. 25, 29). The exiles were the wicked son in the Lord’s illustration (v. 30). They were not innocent victims of God’s judgment on their fathers; they were like their fathers and needed to take responsibility for their own sin. God had mercifully spared them and was offering them an opportunity to repent and do what was right (v. 31). The Lord did not want them to persist in sin and die; he wanted them to turn from sin and live (v. 32).

Is the principle articulated here a universal truth? Does God always judge on an individual basis? The texts we examined above clearly show this is not the case. These texts demonstrate that God can and does sometimes punish the children for the parent’s sin(s).

So how does one resolve the tension? We could argue that there were competing theologies of retribution in ancient Israel (individual accountability vs. corporate responsibility), but this is a pedestrian approach typical of the ponderous thinking that characterizes diachronic critical methods. Another option is to appeal to contextualization: God followed the corporate concept of retribution for a time but then decided to institute the new (more enlightened?) individual principle in Ezekiel’s time. However, this proposal is problematic when one considers that Ezekiel describes God’s judgment as corporate in other places (9:5–6; 21:3–4 [Heb. vv. 8–9]) and one then encounters Jesus’s statements about corporate punishment (Matt 23:34–36; Luke 23:27–31).

A better solution is to hold both concepts in balance and understand the Lord’s declaration in Ezekiel 18 as a contextualized generalization, not a universal truth. According to the Pentateuchal warnings discussed above, children would experience the negative consequences of their parents’ idolatry. As the narratives examined illustrate, God even directly punished children when a parent blatantly rebelled against his authority and he deemed such corporate punishment just. But sometimes, as in the case of the exiles in Ezekiel’s day, God mercifully did not destroy the children along with the parents, but instead preserved their lives. The exiles, however, protested that they were unfairly experiencing God’s judgment for their parents’ idolatry. But the matter was more complicated than this, as God explained through his prophet. As noted above, the exiles, too, were guilty of sin! God was giving them an opportunity to repent, and he promised them that he would evaluate them on the basis of their response as individuals.

Joel Kaminsky observes that Ezekiel “is not a systematic theologian . . . rather he is driven by pastoral necessity.” He concludes:

This passage is not signaling an evolution from older corporate concepts to newer individualistic concerns. Because the theology of divine retribution found in Ezekiel 18 is not a systematic doctrinal statement about how God always operates, one should not read it as an utter rejection of the older, more corporate model of divine retribution. Rather, one should see it as providing a new vision that attempts to challenge and qualify the older corporate ideas. Ultimately, the two conceptions function in a complementary, rather than in a contradictory fashion.[27]

Conclusion

To summarize, God sometimes punished the children for the sin(s) of the parent in situations where the offender blatantly rebelled against his authority. In each narrative where this occurred, there are clear textual indicators of the nature and gravity of the crime. A close reading also reveals contextual reasons for punishment encompassing the children. In each case one detects poetic justice in the penalty. Furthermore, God, as the sole creator of human life and the one who grants the gift of children as a blessing, has the right to end life and remove his blessings when he deems it just.

As for Deuteronomy 24:16, this is a law given by God to regulate human on human crime, not a universal principle that he himself must follow, especially when he is the offended party. Likewise, Ezekiel 18 does not state a universal principle or mark a change in God’s way of implementing justice. It simply outlines the policy God would mercifully follow in dealing with the exilic generation.

Notes

1. In this regard, Robert Stewart speaks of the principle of “relevant difference,” according to which “there can be no greater difference than that between the Creator and the created.” He elaborates: “It is wrong for human beings to take another human’s life without divine permission because humans, being made in the image of God, are equal to one another in terms of worth and dignity. But God is the ontological ground of all creation; no creaturely life exists apart from the will of God. As such God has the right to do as he sees fit with any or all of his creation.” See his “‘Holy War,’ Divine Action and the New Atheism: Philosophical Considerations,” in Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem, ed. Heath A. Thomas, Jeremy Evans, and Paul Copan (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 274.
2. Another slight variation in wording in Exodus 34:7 mentions judgment coming on “the children and their children.” The other three texts mention only “the children” before jumping to the “third and fourth generation.” The repeated use of על before “children,” “children of children,” “third (generation),” and “fourth (generation)” in Exodus 34:7 suggests that all four generations are listed in succession. However, the absence of “children of children” in the other three texts suggests that the father is viewed as the first generation in those passages, with “children” being the second generation, followed by the third and fourth. It is possible, however, that these texts are simply elliptical or that “children” encompasses the first and second generations. At any rate, the reference to third and fourth generations probably emphasizes that the sinning father will see the effects of his sin in his family throughout his lifetime, even if he were to live to an exceedingly ripe old age. In a seventh-century BC Aramaic tomb inscription, Si’gabbar, after thanking his god for prolonging his days, says that “children of the fourth generation” wept and mourned for him as he was dying. “The Tomb Inscription of Si’gabbar, Priest of Sahar,” trans. P. Kyle McCarter, in The Context of Scripture, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), §2.59. The language there and in the biblical texts is not purely hyperbolic. It was entirely possible for a man to see his offspring to the fourth generation in a culture where men married and fathered children at a relatively young age.
3. See Lev 11:8; Deut 14:8; Isa 52:11; Lam 4:15. In these texts the exhortation “touch not” is associated with something designated unclean. However, in Numbers 16 such terminology is not used, so the concept of contamination would have to be implied. In other instances, the command to “touch not” merely refers to something that is off limits (Gen 3:3; 1 Chr 16:22 = Ps 105:15).
4. On the text-critical issue in 2 Samuel 12:14, see the discussion of that passage below.
5. There are several other passages where someone despises something closely associated with the Lord, including his offering (1 Sam 2:17), word (Isa 5:24; Jer 23:17), and name (Ps 74:18; Isa 52:5).
6. As noted above, God threatened to kill the parents and children in Numbers 14, and he did kill the parents and children in Numbers 16. David, by his own admission (2 Sam 12:5), deserved to die with his child, but was mercifully allowed to live (v. 13).
7. There are numerous analogies in modern life, especially from the spheres of business, war, and sports, where the failure of an individual has a negative, even destructive, impact on the entire community with which he or she is identified.
8. Verse 25 is a bit confusing; it reads: “and all Israel stoned [רגם] him with stone(s), and they burned them with fire, and they stoned [סקל] them with stones.” The Septuagint omits the second and third clauses, referring only to Achan’s execution. The referent of the third person masculine plural suffixes in the second and third clauses is not entirely clear. One would naturally think that the object would be the items listed along with Achan in the preceding verse, but only the sons, daughters, and animals would seem to be suitable objects for the verb “stone” (סקל). Further, one would think that burning would follow, not precede, stoning. This makes one wonder if סקל, a different verb than the one used for the stoning of Achan (רגם), is used here for covering the burned items with stones after they were already incinerated. (This might then imply that death was by burning, not stoning, in the case of the children and animals.) But elsewhere the qal of סקל, when collocated with “stones” (as here), is used of stoning as a form of execution (Deut. 13:10 [Heb. v. 11]; 17:5; 22:21, 24; 1 Kgs 21:13). If this is the case here, then Achan’s children and animals are the objects of the verb. Other options are: (1) “Burning” refers to the inanimate items in the list and “stoning” to the animate ones, but verse 15 suggests that everyone and everything, including Achan, would be burned (though verse 25 does not state this of Achan specifically). (2) The second and third clauses are not in chronological order, perhaps because one of them is a later interpretive gloss, albeit misplaced. (The Vulgate and Syriac omit the third clause.)
9. Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible, JSOT Supplement 196 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 86–87. This is also the conclusion of R. E. Clements, “Achan’s Sin: Warfare and Holiness,” in Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What Is Right? Studies on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw, ed. David Penchansky and Paul L. Redditt (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 113–26. Clements states: “The story of Achan is about holiness and its preservation rather than about warfare and its aftermath. The death of the culprit and his family presupposes the application of warfare rules of holiness appropriate to a very taboo-ridden view of cultic purity” (120). Clements finds the portrait of God in the story to be that of “a deity who is cruel, petty, and vengeful” (114). He says it is “difficult to find with the story . . . any residual merit or moral lesson” (125). In the end he appears to side with Achan against his “zealous accusers” (126).
10. See Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “ ‘For This Reason’: Etiology and Its Implications for the Historicity of Adam,” Criswell Theological Review 10, no. 2 (Spring 2013): 45–46.
11. God’s providential punishment of David could be categorized as an “act-consequence” or “dynamistic” type of retribution, as opposed to the “judicial” or “direct retributive” model where God judges directly. Koch argued that this providential model is dominant in the Old Testament, but his thesis has been challenged, especially by Patrick Miller. There is no one-size-fits-all explanation for the dynamics of divine retribution, which operates in different ways in different contexts. For more on this debate, see Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Retribution,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets, ed. Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 675–76.
12. See Robert B. Chisholm Jr., 1 and 2 Samuel, Teach the Text Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 240.
13. The Hebrew text has “enemies of the Lord” as the object of the verb, but surely this is an attempt to soften the charge. The piel of נאץ means “treat with contempt,” not “cause [someone] to show contempt.”
14. Marti J. Steussy explains: “Our first insight into David’s thoughts . . . comes in 1 S 18:26: ‘David was well pleased to be the king’s son-in-law.’ Not ‘Michal’s husband’ nor even ‘Saul’s son-in-law’ but ‘the king’s son-in-law.’ This privileged insight reinforces the implication of David’s opening words: whatever else may or may not be on his mind, David is keenly aware of political position and possibilities for his own advancement.” See her David: Biblical Portraits of Power (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1999), 54. See also Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 87.
15. It is preferable in verse 1 to read ביתודמים (earlier ביתה), “(on Saul and on) his house [there is] bloodguilt,” for MT’s elliptical ביתהדמים “(on Saul and on) the house of bloodguilt.” See S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel (reprinted; Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1983), 349–50. See as well P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 437.
16. Exceptions include two late texts, Ecclesiastes 5:16 and Esther 1:18, as well as 2 Kings 3:27, where it seems reasonable to assume that the source of the anger is Mesha’s god. For discussion see Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Israel’s Retreat and the Failure of Prophecy in 2 Kings 3, ” Biblica 92 (2011): 79.
17. For more on Yahweh as an injured party in Saul’s crime, see Simeon Chavel, “Compositry and Creativity in 2 Samuel 21:1–4, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 1 (2003): 37. He writes: “In the Gibeonite pericope, Saul’s violation of the vow in hunting down the Gibeonites creates two victims or plaintiffs, the Gibeonites, obviously, but YHWH as well, whose name and reputation Saul has willy-nilly put to the test. The impalement of the sons, then, which lasts for months, does more than exact judicial vengeance for the Gibeonites through vicarious talionic punishment. The setting of the famine, the divine oracle, David’s use of the term, the Gibeonites’ power to bring blessing to ‘YHWH’s estate,’ the ritual impalement of Saul’s sons ‘before YHWH’ (see 2 Sam 20:8; 1 Kgs 3:14–15), their nonburial, and the emphasis on YHWH’s propitiation at the story’s end, particularly the term—all combine to affirm that impaling the sons amounts to a sacrificial offering to YHWH. So, indeed, say the Gibeonites themselves: ‘we shall impale them to YHWH’ (v. 6).”
18. There is a fourteenth-century BC Hittite parallel to what transpires in 2 Samuel 21. Mursilis II prays to the storm god to lift a plague that came upon the land due to his father’s violation of a treaty oath made with Egypt. See McCarter, II Samuel, 444–45.
19. For a discussion of what may have motivated David’s choice of Rizpah’s and Merab’s sons, see Brian Neil Peterson, “The Gibeonite Revenge of 2 Sam 21:1–14: Another Example of David’s Darker Side or a Picture of a Shrewd Monarch?” Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 1 (2012): 210–16. This issue is beyond the scope of this article, which focuses on why God sided with Gibeon in this matter and required the lives of Saul’s offspring as punishment for Saul’s crime.
20. See Cheryl Exum, “Rizpah,” Word and World 17 (Summer 1997): 264–68.
21. Chavel, “2 Samuel 21:1–14, ” 41.
22. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus, Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 52–53.
23. Ibid., 53.
24. On the Achan incident, see ibid., 54.
25. Ibid. For a more detailed study of the ancient Near Eastern, especially Hittite, parallels, see Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 16–35.
26. The following discussion of Ezekiel 18 is adapted from Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 253–54, and the same author’s “How a Hermeneutical Virus Can Corrupt Theological Systems,” Bibliotheca Sacra 166 (July–September 2009): 263–64.
27. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible, 177–78. See also Joel S. Kaminsky, “The Sins of the Fathers,” Judaism 46 (1997): 319–32.