Biblical Hebrew Forum

["George Athas" <gathas AT hotkey.net.au>]

Jim,

It's possible that Ezekiel was revoking the earlier idea, but it's also 
possible to see Ezekiel interpreting the earlier idea in the situation of the 
last few kings of Judah, who were all either sons or grandsons of Josiah. 
Ezekiel seems to be saying that the stain of the father's sin will still 
leave a mark upon his son/successor (as in the earler notion), but this by no 
means locks the son/successor into sin -- the option of change and repentance 
is always available, and the door is never closed. This is particularly 
poignant for Jehoiachin who had been deported to Babylon. Although he 
suffered for the policy of his father, yet he was not locked into it -- the 
door of repentance was always open. Thus, while he was lumped with his 
father's mistakes and was suffering in a Babylonian prison for it, he would 
still be responsible for his own actions.

Interestingly, Jehoiachin was later released, as you know. It seems to 
vindicate the idea of both suffering for the father's sins, while denying the 
son's personal responsibility. As such, Ezekiel is not necessarily denying 
the earlier notion -- he's merely saying that it doesn't deny the moral 
responsibility of the son.

Best Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
(Sydney, Australia)

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jim West 
  To: tladatsi AT charter.net ; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:22 AM
  Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: children bear punishment for sins of parents - 
Ez18:20 & 2Sam 21



  Of course, though, the problem is twofold:
  1) there is no evidence that this punishment was ever carried out.
  2) that ezekiel revokes it means that, at the very least, his 
  contemporaries found it inapplicable and theologically inappropriate.

  Primitive ideas, even in the Deuteronomistic history, were superceded by 
  later legislation and praxis.

  tladatsi AT charter.net wrote:

  >Jim et al.,
  >
  >The original querry was were there any examples of children 
  >being punished for the sins of the fathers.  I cited 
  >several examples where the OT gives commands that the 
  >children and grand-children of sinners should be punished 
  >(and two where the punishment extended for 10 generations 
  >and beyond).  That Ez 18:20 contradicts these commands at a 
  >later date does not change the fact that the commands were 
  >given at an earlier date.  
  >
  >The US constitution originally allowed slavery, indeed it 
  >was built around slavery.  Later it was ammended to outlaw 
  >slavery.  The 13th & 14th ammendments do not prove that the 
  >US constitution never allowed slavery, it merely proves 
  >that slavery was legal before their passage.
  >
  >Having said that, the citations I gave were conditional 
  >commands, IF a man committed certain sins, THEN his 
  >children and grandchildren would be punished.  They are not 
  >actual examples.  Other correspondents cite Jos 7.  I think 
  >the clearest example is 2 Sam 21 1-14.  Here two of Saul's 
  >sons and five of his grandchildren are all killed for 
  >Saul's crimes against the Gibeonites. 
  >
  Actually they were killed because David was bloodthirsty and wanted to 
  make sure no heir could claim the throne.

  > It is as unambiguous 
  >an example of the 2nd & 3rd generation being punished for 
  >the sins of the father, 
  >
  Hardly- it's more nearly an example of davidic tyranny theologized and 
  hence "legitimized".  Kind of the way US politicians today are dragging 
  God onto their side in the Iraq war.  Like the Nazi's did with their 
  belt buckles- "Gott mit Uns".  In every generation people co-opt God for 
  their own purposes- but that does not mean God told them to do what they do.

  >as it is an unpleasent story.  
  >Likewise in 1 Sam 15 the Amalekites are exterminated 
  >because, accroding to the text,  of something their 
  >ancestors had done perhaps a few hundreds years eariler. 
  >  
  >
  Another theologized example attempting to legitimize their own behavior.

  >(this depends on how one reads the chronology from Moses to 
  >Saul).  
  >
  >That Ezikiel would later denouce this practice does not 
  >mean it did not occur or that it was not commanded to 
  >occur.
  >  
  >

  Commanded by whom?

  Best

  Jim

  -- 
  Jim West

  Biblical Studies Resources -  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
  Biblical Theology Weblog -  http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com

  _______________________________________________
  b-hebrew mailing list
  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>From gathas AT hotkey.net.au  Tue Apr 19 22:24:37 2005
Return-Path: <gathas AT hotkey.net.au>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from duckula.hotkey.net.au (duckula.hotkey.net.au [202.138.0.111])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561A54C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:24:36 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from Presario (094.a.004.syd.iprimus.net.au [203.134.35.94])
        by duckula.hotkey.net.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id j3K2Oup25307
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:24:57 +1000
Message-ID: <00fe01c54550$1778cc60$5e2386cb@Presario>
From: "George Athas" <gathas AT hotkey.net.au>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: 
<3rr3lu$pq10di AT mxip08a.cluster1.charter.net><4265A0BC.2090700 AT highland.net>
        <00ce01c5454e$154339a0$5e2386cb@Presario>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: children bear punishment for sins of parents
        -Ez18:20 & 2Sam 21
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:24:32 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 02:24:37 -0000

Let me rephrase the last paragraph of my previous post:


  Interestingly, Jehoiachin was later released, as you know. It seems to 
vindicate the idea of both suffering for the father's sins, AND NOT denying 
the son's personal responsibility. As such, Ezekiel is not necessarily 
denying the earlier notion -- he's merely saying that it doesn't deny the 
moral responsibility of the son.
GEORGE ATHAS
>From tladatsi AT charter.net  Wed Apr 20 00:03:31 2005
Return-Path: <tladatsi AT charter.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mxsf09.cluster1.charter.net (mxsf09.cluster1.charter.net
        [209.225.28.209])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB534C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:03:31 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from mxip18.cluster1.charter.net (mxip18a.cluster1.charter.net
        [209.225.28.148])
        by mxsf09.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
        j3K43VZt018147
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:03:31 -0400
Received: from fep05.charter.net (HELO 209.225.8.224) (209.225.8.85)
        by mxip18.cluster1.charter.net with SMTP; 20 Apr 2005 00:03:31 -0400
Message-Id: <41b17n$upkopa AT mxip18a.cluster1.charter.net>
X-Ironport-AV: i="3.92,115,1112587200";
        d="scan'208"; a="1033528106:sNHT15713116"
X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.12 (webedge20-101-197-20030912)
From: <tladatsi AT charter.net>
To: Jim West <jwest AT highland.net>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 4:03:30 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:
Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: Re: children bear punishment for sins of parents -
        Ez 18:20 & 2Sam 21
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 04:03:32 -0000

Jim,

1) 2Sam21 is, as I noted, a very clear example of
punishment of the 2nd & 3rd generation.  1Sam14 is as well.
There are others.

2) If it was not practiced, why would Ezekiel denounce it?

The point is not whether the practice is now or was at some
point later viewed as *unethical*.  The point is at several
points in the OT it is both advocated as being ethical and
was put into practice.



> From: Jim West <jwest AT highland.net>
> Date: 2005/04/20 Wed AM 12:22:20 GMT
> To: tladatsi AT charter.net,  b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: children bear punishment for sins of parents
- Ez 18:20 & 2Sam 21
>
>
> Of course, though, the problem is twofold:
> 1) there is no evidence that this punishment was ever
carried out.
> 2) that ezekiel revokes it means that, at the very least,
his
> contemporaries found it inapplicable and theologically
inappropriate.
>
> Primitive ideas, even in the Deuteronomistic history,
were superceded by
> later legislation and praxis.
>
> tladatsi AT charter.net wrote:
>
> >Jim et al.,
> >
> >The original querry was were there any examples of
children
> >being punished for the sins of the fathers.  I cited
> >several examples where the OT gives commands that the
> >children and grand-children of sinners should be
punished
> >(and two where the punishment extended for 10
generations
> >and beyond).  That Ez 18:20 contradicts these commands
at a
> >later date does not change the fact that the commands
were
> >given at an earlier date.
> >
> >The US constitution originally allowed slavery, indeed
it
> >was built around slavery.  Later it was ammended to
outlaw
> >slavery.  The 13th & 14th ammendments do not prove that
the
> >US constitution never allowed slavery, it merely proves
> >that slavery was legal before their passage.
> >
> >Having said that, the citations I gave were conditional
> >commands, IF a man committed certain sins, THEN his
> >children and grandchildren would be punished.  They are
not
> >actual examples.  Other correspondents cite Jos 7.  I
think
> >the clearest example is 2 Sam 21 1-14.  Here two of
Saul's
> >sons and five of his grandchildren are all killed for
> >Saul's crimes against the Gibeonites.
> >
> Actually they were killed because David was bloodthirsty
and wanted to
> make sure no heir could claim the throne.
>
> > It is as unambiguous
> >an example of the 2nd & 3rd generation being punished
for
> >the sins of the father,
> >
> Hardly- it's more nearly an example of davidic tyranny
theologized and
> hence "legitimized".  Kind of the way US politicians
today are dragging
> God onto their side in the Iraq war.  Like the Nazi's did
with their
> belt buckles- "Gott mit Uns".  In every generation people
co-opt God for
> their own purposes- but that does not mean God told them
to do what they do.
>
> >as it is an unpleasent story.
> >Likewise in 1 Sam 15 the Amalekites are exterminated
> >because, accroding to the text,  of something their
> >ancestors had done perhaps a few hundreds years eariler.
> >
> >
> Another theologized example attempting to legitimize
their own behavior.
>
> >(this depends on how one reads the chronology from Moses
to
> >Saul).
> >
> >That Ezikiel would later denouce this practice does not
> >mean it did not occur or that it was not commanded to
> >occur.
> >
> >
>
> Commanded by whom?
>
> Best
>
> Jim
>
> --
> Jim West
>
> Biblical Studies Resources -  http://web.infoave.net/
~jwest
> Biblical Theology Weblog -  http://biblical-
studies.blogspot.com
>
>

Jack Tladatsi