Jealous God, intergenerational punishment (Exod 20:5)

Jealous God

The motivation clause in Exod 20:5 describes God as ‘jealous’, who will not tolerate rival gods. Even idols (i.e. statues, images) made of the true God will effectively become other gods because they misrepresent the Lord’s nature. Jealousy for us evokes irrational frenzy and possessiveness, but when this term is applied to God in Hebrew, it never carries such connotations. Rather, it expresses ‘zeal’ or passionate loyalty to guarding that special love relationship between Israel and God. As a general rule, when words describing human emotions and attitudes are used of God (e.g. He is jealous, angry, executes vengeance, etc.) we need to be careful not to transfer to God the negative connotations those words may carry in the human context.

Intergenerational punishment

Exod 20:5 raises the question of God’s justice. Does God punish innocent children for the sin of their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents? Before I answer this question, I want to highlight a faulty strategy routinely employed by Christians to resolve the tension. Namely, many dismiss the OT and point to the New and to Jesus as loving and gracious. They are effectively saying that the OT is barbaric, yes, but now we have the NT that trumps the Old and thank God we do not have to live with such cruel ideas anymore. However, this will not do. Such an attitude creates serious problems for our view of Scripture because the God of the OT is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. If we drive a wedge between the two, we create two Gods that are incompatible with each other: we will dismiss much that is in the OT because it is difficult and as a result miss out on what God wants to teach us. We will also misconstrue the NT’s message because of an overemphasis on God’s mercy at the cost of His justice.

To engage with the issue of intergenerational punishment, one interpretation is that the phrase ‘those who hate me’ refers to both the fathers and the children, in which case they are all guilty and receive just punishment. Love and hate are used here, by the way, like Jesus means it in the NT (Luke 14:26) to express allegiance and commitment on the one hand, and opposition and rebellion against God on the other. In other words, if each generation carries on in the same attitude of sin as their fathers, God will judge them.

The emphasis in all this is primarily on the fact that the Lord will not overlook sin, but also on the limits of judgement when compared to God’s boundless mercy (three-four generations juxtaposed with thousands). The figures here may be metaphorical, contrasting a limited number of generations with practically countless ones. The history of God’s people in 1-2 Kings, shows God’s attitude. Israel’s kings practice idolatry from the word go, God warns His people from one generation to the next through the prophets, allows oppressive empires to subjugate them to bring them to their senses, but when none of this leads to repentance, He finally brings judgement (2 Kings 17:7-23). Judah’s history follows a similar pattern though there are some good kings and when they repent, God hears and postpones judgement (e.g. Josiah; 2 Kings 22:18-20).

Alternatively, the reference to three-four generations may indicate a household (in the ancient world it was usual for several generations to live together). Examples of such punishment is much less common than we might think although we remember them because we tend to emphasise individual responsibility much more in our modern Western contexts. Generally speaking, harsh judgement usually comes as a strong deterrent at points of Israel’s story where a particular command is introduced and then disobeyed or when high-profile characters commit sin and Scripture wants to highlight the severe consequences of their disobedience.

Further, there are two particular concepts that can help us appreciate what is going on in these stories: corporate solidarity and the ancient view on descendants. Corporate solidarity is the idea that a group is viewed as a unit rather than as separate individuals. The action of a member within the unit affects the rest of the group. Thus, against God’s will, David orders Israel to be numbered and the punishment is a plague on the people (2 Sam 24:15). Likewise, Achan steals from the spoil of Jericho, which was dedicated to God and the whole of Israel is held accountable as having sinned (Josh 7:1, 11-12). This kind of thinking reminds us that ‘no man is an island’, our actions have a ripple effect on others. Incidentally, corporate solidarity also works in the reverse direction. Rahab’s faithfulness in sheltering the Israelite spies means that her whole family is saved when Israel conquers Jericho (Josh 6:22-23). Our own justification by God is achieved through Christ’s sacrificial death and because we are seen to be ‘in Christ’ (Rom 5:19; 8:1).

Although a modern Western context is more strongly individualistic, corporate solidarity is not unknown. For instance, a director may have to resign over a mismanagement of the company’s affairs even if he is not the one who directly caused the problem in the first place. The name of the company and its employees may become tainted by scandal as a result. Likewise, in recent decades a number of heads of state apologised for historic atrocities committed in the name of their country, even though the incidents happened before their time. However, it is important not to push the idea of corporate solidarity too far because ancient peoples understood individual responsibility no less clearly than we do. Thus, David cries to God during the plague asking Him not to punish the people when he, David, had been the one who sinned (2 Sam 24:17). Similarly, God makes clear that the person who stole things dedicated to God (Achan) should be judged and once this is done, Israel is restored and conquers the city of Ai (Josh 7:15, 24-25; 8:1).

A second aspect to explore is the ancient perspective on descendants. Children were seen as a blessing from God and a continuation of the family’s future line. Early Israel had very little concept of an afterlife, it simply was not revealed to them at this point. They believed that people die and everyone goes to Sheol (the underworld) irrespective of what they had done (Eccl 9:2-5), and this is irreversible (e.g. Job 7:9-10; Eccl 9:10). There may have been hints here and there of something more, but the idea that God will raise the dead or judge beyond this earthly life only starts to be recognised in the post-exilic period (Dan 12:2), a few hundred years before Jesus’ birth.

This put a whole different emphasis on children. They mattered less as individuals in their own right, though of course parents might have had their favourites or felt attached to their offspring emotionally, just as they do in any age. Rather, children were important because they were in effect an extension of the head of the household, represented the family line and therefore the future. People might die, but still live on in their children, which gave the existence of their offspring added significance. Barrenness was one of the greatest tragedies in the ancient world precisely because children represented God’s approval and the flourishing of one’s future. In fact, one of the punishments for acts committed against God was to be ‘cut off’ and this did not simply mean one’s own life but the life of one’s descendants. Thus, the loss of descendants signalled something different for ancient Israel than it does for us. It alerted them to the seriousness of certain sins, which would jeopardise the future of the whole family.

When David committed adultery with Bathsheba, the son of that illicit union died as a strong reminder of the devastating effects of his sin. Not all children out of wedlock died in Israel, of course, but this was a unique occasion where God made an example of David because of his elevated position as king (2 Sam 12:14). His sin also went much deeper than ‘just’ adultery and murder, bad as these were. He abused his position as king by using his royal power to take what was not his and thereby showed deep contempt for God and His word (2 Sam 12:7-10).

Likewise, Achan steals from God and he is made an example of. Israel is taught through it the serious impact of such an offence. In addition, Achan’s sin was perceived as a highly dangerous contamination, like the current COVID virus, that affected everything and everybody that belonged to him. In order to stop the spread, all those seen as contaminated (and once defiled there was no cure) had to be ringfenced and eliminated. This is why he and ‘all that belongs to him’ (including his children) had to die (Josh 7:24-25). Once again, this sounds harsh, but it signals to ancient Israel, immersed in a particular understanding of the world, how desperately serious this kind of sacrilege was. We should also remember that death in these stories does not equal eternal damnation of the innocent. Those who died faced God who is both just and merciful, who knows the exact state of the human heart and all the extenuating circumstances for each individual.

Finally, it is important to note, that apart from a few high-profile incidents where God Himself judges and where more than one generation might be impacted for specific reasons, these cases are more exceptions than the rule. In the normal course of events Israel was to administer justice based on individual responsibility (Deut 24:16). Although around the exile some felt that the generation who went into Babylon suffered for the sins of their antecedents, the prophets affirm that God is just and the generation that sinned is held responsible (Jer 31:29-30; Ezek 18:2-3).

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to ask or share your thoughts.

If you have enjoyed this post, please share it with others.