Original Dissent

Parents shall not be put to death for children, nor children be put to death for parents: a person shall be put to death only for his own crime.  Deuteronomy 24:16  JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy

Only – Does God punish people for the sins of their ancestors?  Well, if you read Exodus 20:5-6, Exodus 34:6-7, Numbers 14:18 or Jeremiah 32:18, you might be inclined to say, “Yes.”  These four verses all recount the same single phrase, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children.”  Even the JPS Torah Commentary claims that this idea, found in Greek and Hittite literature, is a divine prerogative.  In a communal society such as ancient Israel, “members of a family expected to share a common fortune, whether good or bad.”[1]  But what do we do about this clear commandment prohibiting the punishment of children on the basis of the parent’s crime?

First, we should notice some moderation (accommodation?) in this translation.  The word translated “crime” is actually heto, literally “sin.”  The JPS translates this word as “crime” because the commentator takes the position that the verse is about human judicial procedures.  God has the right to punish descendants but men do not have that right.  Therefore, the translator shifts the meaning from “sin,” which is clearly within the realm of God’s purview, to “crime,” which makes the verse apply only to human oversight.  But this is playing with the text.  There is no textual justification for this change.  The verse should read, “a person shall be put to death only for his own sin.”

Secondly, we should look at the insertion of the word “only.”  The literal rendering of the verse doesn’t include this word (literally “man for his own sin shall be put to death”).  The translators add “only” to capture the idiomatic sense of this verse.  In other words, they emphasize the individuality of this punishment.  But this seems to stand in stark contrast to the claim that members of the family expected to share in the common fortune.  Which is it:  corporate or individual?

Finally, we should note that this approach, allowing God to mete out trans-generational punishment but prohibiting the same act for human beings, overlooks the difficulty with the word paqad (“visiting”).  TWOT says, “There is probably no other Hebrew word that has caused translators as much trouble as pqd.”[2]  TWOT suggest that there is evidence that the word should be understood in the sense of “make a visitation,” i.e., to attend to with care, or note, to oversee.  None of these meanings suggest trans-generational punishment.  If this is true, then Deuteronomy 24:16 is consistent for both divine and human application.  A man is punished for his own sin.  God does not hold human beings accountable in any way different than we are to hold human beings accountable.  In fact, if Tigay’s commentary is correct and God operates on a different basis, then it is hard to imagine why He would prohibit His children from doing something that reflects His true character.  If Torah reflects the true character of God, and Torah commands me not to punish someone for something they did not actually do, then why would God do that?

Of course, there is a theological implication here that flies in the face of an essential doctrine of the Reformers, namely, the doctrine of original sin.  If God does not punish men for the actions of their fathers, then the idea of original sin is simply wrong.  And if God does punish men for the actions of their fathers (as the doctrine suggests), then why does God prohibit me from doing the same?

Topical Index:  original sin, paqad, visiting, sin, Deuteronomy 24:16, Exodus 34:7