Esther 8 - punishing the children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth

[Eoghan]

Duguid in his commentary (p106-107) suggests that the edict waging war on those who sought to kill the Jews is a continuation of the judgment on the Amalekites. He uses Leviticus as the link.

To what extent do the sins of the Fathers cause judgment on the children?

In a charismatic context I have seen birth deformities blamed on parental involvement with the occult etc...

I had just about got my head round the "baptist" (?) concept of the age of responsibility - this text seems to undermine that doctrine somewhat?

Help

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The fundamental text regarding Amalek is Ex.17:8-16. 1Sam.15 has Saul sparing Agag, king of Amalek, which ties Haman, the Agagite to Amalek.

Sin is no private matter. It negatively affects all around us. In the case of Adam, it affects all his posterity and all creation. The Bible is clear, that the consequences of our sins can and do affect others, especially our children. This is repeatedly taught in Scripture, nowhere more explicitly than in the 2nd commandment.

This also leads some bitter, petulant, and self-righteous types to complain that they are wrongfully punished for their father's sins, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge," Jer.31:29; Ezk.18:2. But the prophets affirm that each person dies for his own sin. Each person has his own appointment with God, in order to answer for himself.

The resolution to this issue lies in the fact that some will die (as a ripple effect) from the sins of others. Wars are prime examples of suffering inflicted on "innocents" due to the actions of their federal representatives. But, death in the body is not the same thing as condemnation before the throne of God. Adam's sin brought condemnation upon all men, and caused the physical death of all men, without exception.

But, it is possible to be spared the condemnation, or have that condemnation lifted, by having that condemnation fall upon the substitute. It is also possible to break the "cycle" of earthly consequences as well. This is the implication of salvation. And note what Ex.20:v6 says, relative to v5. The evil consequences of men's sins (while they have often been perpetuated for many centuries) are actually more limited in scope than the blessings for obedience. "To a thousand" versus a mere "three or four" (generations being supplied to the text by the translators).

The solution to the "dilemma" is to invert the whole question. "To what extent does the righteousness of the fathers cause blessings on the children?" The children don't deserve the ripple effects of blessing any more than they do judgment. But God goes so far as to remind us that while it is tragic that fathers' sins affect multiple generations of their offspring, in terms of blessings to undeserving offspring--there is far more he makes available for the sake of a little faith.

As for specifics, we are not permitted to "interpret Providence" too closely. Jesus silenced his disciples who asked if the man born blind (Jn.9) was deformed for his own sin, or for his parents'. "SIN" has consequences. That's pretty much enough to explain all the suffering and grief in the world, without trying to pin blame. Most careless, prayerless parents can find much in their wayward offspring to bemoan, and should be self-recriminating. But, sometimes we really can't know what was the cause, or the series of causes, that brought some effect of the original Curse down on some son or daughter. And we shouldn't try too hard to fix blame.

As for an "age of accountability," I don't think you'll find much sympathy for that view around here, not from the Presbyterians or the Baptists.