Why collective justice?

[Ben_Shipman]

Why did God “…visitest the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation” [Numbers 14:18]? Why did He doom the nation of Amalek to die, even so long after its crime that none of the original members remained?

Why, for that matter, was all of mankind implicated in the sins of Adam and Eve?

I don’t understand why God sees collectives like Amalek or Man as morally responsible for anything; when God knows the exact sins of individuals, why treat them as anything but individuals?

 

[3_Dog_Night]

The sins of the fathers … passed down from generation to generation …

Have you ever known a family that has a extensive history of alcoholism and abuse? Many times, the abuse and the alcoholism is passed on from generation to generation. Perhaps not every single individual in the family system is affected – but many of them are. It may skip an individual here and there. Why do you think that is?

This is what I think: behavior is modeled and learned from parent to child. It is very difficult to break old childhood patterns. There is often a genetic component – heredity/ nature – along with the nurture/ learning. It just is that way. It can easily be passed on despite an individual’s attempts to do things different than the way that they grew up.

I am using the above as an example. I am not saying that alcoholism is a “sin”. I think it is a lot more complicated than that. I think it is fair to say that alcoholism is an illness – a physical, emotional, mental and spiritual illness. And often abuse (which I think is safe to say is sinful behavior) stems from alcoholism.

I think that passage states the reality. Many “sins” end up being generational in nature.

 

[Ben_Shipman]

There can be natural influence of one generation on the next. But why should there be any supernatural influence? Why should God visit His anger on a later generation for what a previous generation did?

 

[3_Dog_Night]

I think the generation to generation thing is a natural consequence and not necessarily God’s anger. There are consequences to actions/ behaviors. Even King David – his sin of adultery and murder – was forgiven but there were lasting effects of what he did. Of course, I could be wrong. The God I believe and know is not a vindictive God. He is slow to anger, quick to forgive and does not delight in the destruction of the wicked. He would rather see all come to repentance and conversion.

 

[GEddie]

Some also hold that there are generational spirits or demons; if so, then the generational effect of sin makes sense.

The only part that is a puzzle to me is original sin.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ben_Shipman]

Yes; what I can’t quite understand is why original sin should be heritable, and baptism not.

I mean, suppose that children naturally “belong” to their parents, and the parents belong to grandparents, etc. That would explain why everyone is born belonging to Adam.

Now if Adam made himself belong to the Devil, then we could conceivably inherit that in our belonging to Adam. But if Adam was eventually redeemed, and belongs to God, why should belonging to him taint us any longer?

And even if Adam was lost, why shouldn’t the belonging of baptized parents to God override their belonging to Adam, so that if their children belong to them, they belong to God?

 

[Aloysium]

One may not understand is why original sin should be heritable, but live a bit and think about oneself and the world, and one will see clearly that evil exists. As Christians we come to know that through baptism we have the capacity of re-establishing a right relationship with God.

I find it difficult to describe the truth of how we are sons and daughters, carrying the of the first man who enslaved himself to the Devil. While our good deeds, and sins, impact on each other, rippling through time, as the first man, Adam was all humanity; ontologically, he is human nature from which each derive. With the incarnation of Christ, the one true Vine, because we are at a deeper level free to choose who we are to become, we are capable of re-entering into a loving filial relation to God. We can become Christ-like, through the grace of the Holy Spirit and our own efforts.

We do belong to God.

 

[Ben_Shipman]

If nature is what we pass on to our children, then it seems that baptism does not repair our damaged nature, but rather compensates for it supernaturally.

But how can sins be passed down to children, so that the children are actually responsible? It can’t be through physical nature, because sin is not physical (or so I think). It would have to be through a spiritual nature. The soul is spiritual, but it is directly created, not passed on by parents.

What this suggests is a third component of the human person, heritable yet spiritual.

 

[Aloysium]

One may not understand . . . (blah, blah, blah). . . .

Sorry, even I don’t understand what I wrote here. I’ll try again.

One may not understand original sin and why it would be heritable,
but live a bit and think about oneself and the world,
and one will see clearly that evil does exist
in a world that is good as created by a loving God.

As Christians we have Genesis to reveal how this has come to be,
and we understand that through the grace that comes with baptism,
we have the capacity to re-establish a right relationship with God.

The truth, as difficult as it may be to conceptualize, is that we are sons and daughters,
carrying the original sin of the first man who enslaved himself to the Devil.
While our good deeds, and sins, impact on each other, rippling through time,
as the first man, Adam was all humanity and his sin affecting him, affects us all.
Ontologically, he is human nature from which each of us derives.

With the incarnation of Christ, the one true Vine,
who is one of us and we in Him,
and because we are free to choose who we are to become,
we are capable of re-entering into a loving filial relation to God.
We can become Christ-like, through the grace of the Holy Spirit and our own efforts.

We do belong to God.

 

[GEddie]

Other than original sin, there is no teaching that sins endure generationally.

The physical result of sins do, but as early as Jeremiah, God taught that sins of parents would not be visited on the children.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ben_Shipman]

If sins did not endure generationally, why was there to be war on Amalek “…from generation to generation” [Exodus 17:16]?

And why did the male children of the Midianites need to die along with their parents [Numbers 31:14-17]?

 

[Aloysium]

Exodus 20:5 -“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,”
Deuteronomy 5:9 -“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,”
Exodus 34:6-7-"Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”
1 Cor. 15:22 -“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.”

vs

Deuteronomy 24:16-“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.”
Ezekiel 18:20 -“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”

The consequences of our actions ripple through humanity as we are all in relation to one another. I understand that there is a final judgement because it is only at the end of time that we can know the full repercussions of our simple lives on the whole of humanity. As a father one exerts an influence that is felt on future generations. The father’s sins will be felt for generations. But, this is not to mean that the offspring will bear his guilt. Our guilt comes from what we do.

 

[Aloysium]

If sins did not endure generationally, why was there to be war on Amalek “…from generation to generation” [Exodus 17:16]?

And why did the male children of the Midianites need to die along with their parents [Numbers 31:14-17]?

We know that God is love. With that in mind, we can take these difficult verses as symbolic, the Midianites personifying sin and their children representing seemingly insignificant strayings that may eventually lead us to perdition. In terms of what they mean to me where I am, that is what has most significance. We must love and not allow what is not love to grow within us.

But the Bible is also a historical revelation of God’s relationship to man. It becomes difficult to interpret these verses because although we know we must defend the good and fight evil, at some point, in doing so we may become evil ourselves. That would seem to be the case if we are killing children who are innocent. I don’t know much, and I don’t know why God would intend this. I suppose that allowing those children to live would have caused irreparable damage to His chosen people in terms of their commitment to God. No judaism, no Christ, no salvation. Mankind follows Satan into hell. Additionally, it seems every megalomaniac believes he is justified by god, if he does not feel a god himself. So this sounds scary. I don’t know. Fortunately, such situations are extremely rare.

 

[Ben_Shipman]

Maybe there is some clarity to be gained by seeing things the following way. Original sin is natural sin, as it is passed from generation to generation. It inheres in the spirit. It is eradicated only through death, but it is forgiven through the supernatural grace of baptism. Adam and Eve were originally in a state of supernatural grace, but naturally they were in a state of neither sin nor grace. Hence they were still vulnerable to temptation.

The children of the Canaanites and Midianites were born in a state of natural sin, and without supernatural grace, as with the rest of fallen humanity. They were killed as a sacrifice to expiate the sins of their nations, because their belonging to their nations made them an acceptable sacrifice for this purpose. It wasn’t because they were specially implicated in sin.

Is there anything unorthodox about this? The most difficult point for me is that it still holds that sins can be attached to a nation rather than to any specific individuals.

 

[Norway]

I have often thought about this question myself and it is a very interesting question. It really gets right to the heart of free will and the tension between determinism and free will. Before I dive into that, I think it is important to note that just as one man’s sins can “poison” an entire race, so can one man’s righteousness save it. There is a verse that says exactly that. And not only can it, it has saved it. “Just as in Adam all were made to sin, so in Christ all will be made righteous.”

Even so, the issue is still a serious question for free will. I think if you read the argument below, it kind of sums up what you are trying to say. Correct me if I am wrong.

1.First, all humans have the choice to follow God or not. If they don’t, then they don’t have free will.
2. If the choice is really free then there should be roughly the same number of people choosing to follow God as those that reject him. Think of flipping a coin, if it is truly not influenced to land one way or another, if it is really a free toss, then it should come down evenly heads and tails over time.
3. But every single person ever (except for two) have come down tails, so to speak.

Conclusion: It seems the choice whether to follow god or not is not really free. What are the chances that out of the billions and billions of humans who have a free choice, every single one chooses to reject him. The choice doesn’t seem free at all. Is that what you are saying? because it is a compelling argument.

I have heard some good replies but I want to see what you say first.

 

[Ben_Shipman]

1.First, all humans have the choice to follow God or not. If they don’t, then they don’t have free will.
2. If the choice is really free then there should be roughly the same number of people choosing to follow God as those that reject him. Think of flipping a coin, if it is truly not influenced to land one way or another, if it is really a free toss, then it should come down evenly heads and tails over time.
3. But every single person ever (except for two) have come down tails, so to speak.

It is much easier to follow God some of the time than to follow Him all the time. In your analogy following God unfailingly over a lifetime might be the equivalent of tossing a million coins and having them all come up heads. Not everyone’s coins will be weighted 50-50, but when put this way it isn’t surprising that everyone is essentially incapable of perfection, except when they are given sufficient grace as Adam, Eve, and Mary were.

I thought of a better way to understand original sin and collective justice. Suppose that God considers children as members of their parents’ bodies. In our case, we are all members of Adam’s body. Thus when Adam sinned, we were doomed to suffer the same punishment in our bodies as Adam suffered in his (i.e. death). Similarly, when the Amalekites sinned against Israel, God decreed a punishment that included their children as descendant members of their bodies.

As Christians, we are members of the Body of Christ. Membership in this body is transmitted spiritually by baptism rather than sexually. Since Christ’s suffering outweighs any sin, his Body is collectively absolved of any of the sins of its members, though those members still bear their own sins individually. In this way, Christ’s suffering relieves us of the burden of collective justice.

 

[Norway]

It is much easier to follow God some of the time than to follow Him all the time. In your analogy following God unfailingly over a lifetime might be the equivalent of tossing a million coins and having them all come up heads. Not everyone’s coins will be weighted 50-50, but when put this way it isn’t surprising that everyone is essentially incapable of perfection, except when they are given sufficient grace as Adam, Eve, and Mary were.

Yeah this is a fine point I think.

I thought of a better way to understand original sin and collective justice. Suppose that God considers children as members of their parents’ bodies. In our case, we are all members of Adam’s body. Thus when Adam sinned, we were doomed to suffer the same punishment in our bodies as Adam suffered in his (i.e. death). Similarly, when the Amalekites sinned against Israel, God decreed a punishment that included their children as descendant members of their bodies.

I am not sure that this really helps answer your initial question though. Wasn’t the question about the fairness of being punished for a wrong you didn’t commit? How can we suffer the punishment for Adam’s sin if it was Adam’s? The only way it makes sense it to say that in some sense we all share each others sins and each other’s righteousness. We know that scripture says “Just as in Adam all were made to sin so in Christ all were made righteous.” But it also says that Paul fills up in himself what “is lacking in the sufferings of Christ.” Maybe in some sense we are share eachothers transgressions and righteousness.