Is Adonai "bound" by His own Torah?

Post by **_Ely** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:50 pm

This issue may have been brought up somewhere else, but I can'tfind it. Deuteronomy 24:16 states:

“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.

But we know of plenty of occasions where children are effectively killed because of the sins of their fathers. For example, during the Babylonian and Roman sackings of Jerusalem, many children were killed because of the sins of their fathers.

This leads me to ask, is Adonai not bound by His own Law? Is it simply the case that He can put children to death because of their father's sins, but man cannot do it?

Post by **_Sean** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:43 pm

One thing repeated several times is this type of language:

Num 14:18 'The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.'

Deuteronomy 24:16 is a statement about how men should treat other men as a matter of justice. You shouldn't take a murderer, for instance, and kill his entire family. Instead it should be life for life. In other words, the murderer suffers for his own sin.

This does not mean that the effect of one persons sin cannot or does not trickle down to the next generation.

I don't think the Babylonians or Romans were very concerned about keeping the commands of God, namely Deuteronomy 24:16.

Post by **_Seth** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:37 pm

I've wondered about this, not so much in the context of military conquests like the sacking of Jerusalem, but in places like Achan's sin and the rebellions of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.

What I've come to realize is that since we're not told that the children who were slain along with their parents in those situations were guilty or not, the fact that they were killed indicates guilt.

Wow that's a convoluted sentence!

What I mean is, I assume that Achan's children were complicit in his sin. Likewise for any other case of children being judged with parents. If they weren't guilty, I don't think they'd have been killed.

So my answer is that there's no inconsistency.

Post by **_Ely** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:38 pm

Sean, it was Adonai Himself who commissioned Babylon and Rome to strike His people.

Seth, we also need to consider David and Bathsheba's son. He was just over a week-old when he died.

Post by **__id_1679** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:04 am

Ely,

Is it possible that this particular law is prohibiting substitutionary justice
in behalf of a parent or child under a capital offense?
Do you think Ezek. 18 is related or differs?

Shalom,
Bob

Post by **_Sean** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:23 am

Ely wrote:Sean, it was Adonai Himself who commissioned Babylon and Rome to strike His people.

So do you believe that God revealed His law to Babylon and Rome?

When you say God commissioned them, does that mean God asked them to strike His people? Were they even aware they were acting as God's sword?

Post by **_Ely** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:56 am

Bob,

I'm inclined to think that Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18 are talking about different categories. As you say, the Deuteronomy one is clearly referrign to legal punishment for the sins of individuals whereas the Ezekiel passage is referring to Adonai's dealings with Israel. But either way, the same principle is seen - children not punished for the father's sins.

Sean, even if we want to say that Babylon and Rome were ignorant of Torah, Adonai still used them to carry out His punishment on Israel. And in any case, there's still the case of David and Bathsheba's new born child who was basically killed as a punishment of David's sin.

Post by **__id_1679** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am

Ely,

With respect to David's son being killed for his sin; in this particular case,
it is David being punished and not the child. But is God making David's son a substitute in some sense? How should we view this in the light of Deut 24:16, or other scripture, i.e Ex. 20:5, Deut 5:9, and II Kg.14:6 ?
Is God violating His own commandment? What are the broader implications if any, regarding Jesus' substitionary Atonement, the innocent being punished for the guilty?
You have provoked some serious thought.

Shalom,
Bob

Post by **_Ely** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:35 am

Hey Bob,

The issue of David and Bathsheba's son does complicate matters!

As far substitutionary atonement is concerned, I'm not committed to any one view as yet. I understand from the apostolic writings that Jesus' dying and resurrection was a vital part of God's plans for the salvation of His people and for the restoration of this world. As yet though, I've not been able to fully sort out just why it was vital.

With regard to both of these issues, I'm okay with not understanding everything. We've got many years of study left in this age. And I believe in the age to come, we will continue our studying under the greatest of teachers, Jesus, the apostles and prophets.

For now, as Paul said, "we know it part"!

Post by **__id_1679** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:42 am

Shalom Ely,

Quote: "The issue of David and Bathsheba's son does complicate matters"

Perhaps. Maybe it is another "type and shadow" of Yeshua, the innocent dieing for the guilty. I don't know. Then we have the issue of Job. His family suffered that God may prove to Satan that Job will maintain his integrity even with the removal of all his blessings.

Why was the death of Yeshua so vital for our redemption? It's of course a multi-faceted issue. One of the "offices" of Yeshua seldom explored at least to any depth, is His role as our Goel or Kinsmen Redeemer. Lots of questions!

In Him,
Bob