Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> Again, I am not making a valuation of the principle of
> punishing the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or even 10th generation for
> the crimes or sins of one man (or I suppose one woman for
> that matter).  I am not judging either the fairness or
> efficacy of this principle.  I merely stated that it was
> expounded in theory and enforced in practice.

Enforced?? Surely not.
And you simply misinterpret the theory.

> That being said, of the three case studies that this thread
> identified, Joshua 7, 1 Sam 15, and 2 Sam 21, none involves
> idolatry.
>

Josh7: the house of Achan actually profited from illegal things, so all who
profited were punished - not their descendants. Besides, "them" might refer
to goods, not to people - because they were burned, and animals stoned. The
heap of stones commemorates "him," not "them."

Amalek in 1Sam15 was an enemy nation. Saul dealt with the current problem,
rationalized  by past grievances. But Amalekites committed idolatry in the
sense of opposing the divine will.

In 2Sam21, David did not recognize that Gibeonites have a right to punish
Saul's children. Indeed, Gibeonites were not bound by Hebrew commandments.
David rather recognized the merits of their vengeance. Saul, of course,
committed idolatry by sparing the animals for sacrifice, thus imagining that
sacrifices, the material, are more important than obedience.

Vadim Cherny