Does God punish the children of the wicked or not?

[charliedale]

Pastor Mike,

The OT has times when it says that God punishes the children for the sins of their parents and other times when it says that He doesn't.

Jeremiah 32:18 "You show steadfast love to thousands, but you repay the guilt of fathers to their children after them."

Jeremiah 31:30 "But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge."

Also, God commands in the Law that the Israelites not punish children for the sins of their fathers, but Enoch's whole family was punished (and God seemed pleased).

[Mike Miller]

To begin with, let's go back to Exodus 20:5 where God forbids the making of images to worship. He says that to those who hate Him, He will visit the iniquity of the children to the third and fourth generations, but for those who love and obey Him, He will show steadfast love to thousands (of generations). For one thing, it is commonly accepted that these numbers (third or and fourth; thousands) are hyperbole that should not be pressed to the detail. The truth here is that in God's design, when we sin, our sin affects more than just us. Our children--and even their children and grandchildren--can suffer the consequences. God will not protect the subsequent generations from the consequences of the God-hater. On the other hand (and this is the hyperbole), thousands of generations will benefit from the love of God a man has. Again, instead of seeing these numbers as literal, we should see that God is saying that even great-grandchildren can suffer consequences for a man's sins, but God would much rather bless than curse. As bad as it is for the family of the God-hater, it is so much better (thousands) for the family of the one who loves God. Moreover, every time God judged Israel, it was for a few generations, but if God's people would stay faithful to the covenant, thousands of generations would benefit (if they all stayed faithful).

Now, in Jeremiah 32, Jeremiah is obviously alluding to this text. The context is that God just had Jeremiah buy a field during the siege of Jerusalem. Jeremiah prays for understanding, and in doing so, he begins (as we often do in prayer) by recounting how wonderful God is. The focus, it seems, is on God's compassion--that His propensity to love is far greater than to wrath. In other words, he says in effect, "God, you're so great and compassionate. What are you doing?"

The text in Jeremiah 31, however, is in the context of prophecy about the coming New Covenant. What are the differences between the new and old covenants, according to this text (especially 31:31-34)? For one thing, it will be an everlasting covenant that cannot be broken, as the Old Covenant had been broken. And why can't it be broken? Because God will write his law on men's hearts instead of on stone. The New Covenant will be very personal. The Old Covenant, however, was between God and the nation of Israel--between God and the community. Look at when Jeremiah's ministry is. He begins preaching in about 627 B.C., and continues through the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. His messages are of warning (the impending fall/exile) and hope (the return and the New Covenant). The entire nation was about to be judged because they had been faithless. This means that even faithful people like Jeremiah and Baruch (and Ezekiel) were going to be judged, as were the children and grandchildren and several generations of the rebellious people.

It in this context that he quotes what is apparently a familiar proverb: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." This seems to mean that when men sin, their children suffer. But in the new covenant, people will not be punished for the sins of others--for national sin. The covenant will not be between God and a nation; it will be between God and individuals. The Old Covenant had stipulations (see Deuteronomy 28): national blessings for obedience and national curses for disobedience. Those blessings and curses were largely material and temporal and not about eternal salvation. The New Covenant, however, is not about material and temporal blessings and curses, but it is about a personal relationship with God that cannot be broken.

Therefore, on the one hand, children and grandchildren are apt to suffer the consequences of sin. That is still true. But for God's people, His love is of greater magnitude than His wrath. This is what Exodus 20 and Jeremiah 32 are about. On the other hand, in the New Covenant, there won't be national rebellion and judgment, but each person will either be saved or lost (and again, this is eternal in the New Covenant) based on their personal relationship with God. This is what Jeremiah 31 is about.

I know this is a lot, and I hope I've been clear. If not, feel free to ask a follow-up or two.

Oh, and I have no idea what your comment about Enoch refers to. Please enlighten.

[charliedale]

Oops! I didn't mean Enoch. I meant Achan. Joshua 7:24.

[Mike Miller]

Achan was an excellent example of God dealing with the entire nation. Achan was the first one to violate the covenant in the Promised Land, and he and his entire family were taken out. Why? For one thing, to preserve the community. For another, to send a strong message to the rest of the community. Two things to remember: 1)This was under the Old Covenant where sin was punished like this; 2)The leadership in the community was in charge of exacting punishment for violating God's commands.

You can see how this differs with the first blatant rebellion in the New Testament--that of Ananias and Sapphira. While I see their deaths as preserving the community and sending a strong message as with Achan, they were dealt with individually, and God Himself killed them instead of the leaders.