June 18, 2006

Cawson St. Church of Christ

Hopewell, Virginia

Mural Worthey

 

The Iniquity of the Fathers

 

Introduction

 

There was an ancient proverb that said: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”  (Ezekiel 18:2, Jer. 31:29-30.)  The meaning is that children suffer the consequences of what their parents have done.   That proverb is denied by both Ezekiel and Jeremiah.  I want to consider this proverb, the relationship between the sins of fathers, or parents, and their children.

 

“As Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.  And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?  Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”  (John 9:1-3.) 

 

The idea that this man’s blindness may have been due to his sinfulness or that of his parents actually came from the Old Testament.  The Decalogue taught that God would “visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me, and show mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.”  (Exodus 20:4-6.)  So, it is true that God does visit the sins of the fathers upon their children, as well as mercy upon those who love Him.  If a person is born blind, does that always mean that the man sinned or his parents to cause the blindness?  No, according to Jesus.  There are other factors.

 

In what ways can the iniquity of the fathers affect their children?  If parents worship idols, especially the false god Moloch, the children might be sacrificed in fire.  Some parents threw their children in front of the giants wooden wheels of the Juggernaut (the title of Vishnu) in order to sacrifice them. Children can be born with HIV Aids due to the parents having the disease.  The sins of parents can affect their children directly.  These examples are primarily physical, but children can be affected spiritually as well.  Many children do not know the way to God because they have not been taught.  They were not raised in a good environment that fostered faith.

 

Some in Israel complained in Ezekiel’s day that God was not fair to punish the children for their father’s sins.  (Ezekiel 18.)  The prophet made the following points: 1) The soul that sins shall die; 2) the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; 3) the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, 4) if a sinner turns from his iniquity, he shall live even though he has committed sins, 5) if a righteous person turns from righteousness to sin, he shall die; and 6) God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

 

It is easy to see a potential problem between Exodus 20 and Ezekiel 18.  Sometimes children do suffer from what their parents have done, but Ezekiel says that the soul that sins shall die.  But note that God shows mercy to the thousandth generation to those who love him and visits iniquity unto the third and fourth generation of those who hate him.  The children who were punished continued the sins of their parents.

 

The Law said: “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers.  Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.”  (Deut. 24:16.)  These passages speak about civil punishment exacted for disobedience.  It does not speak of consequences of behavior.

 

A more serious question.  However, there is a more serious question concerning sin.  Why do we all sin?  Whence came our sinful nature?  Is sin merely a choice that we each make?  Can we decide not to sin?  There is a difference between choosing a life of sin and committing some sin. 

 

Sin Only By Choice?

 

Let us take first the view that man sins only by individual choice.  That is, there are no other factors that necessitate sin.  He does so only if he chooses to do so.  A surprising number of students of the Bible believe this to be true.

 

Adam and Eve were influenced by old Satan.  He is one who reasoned with Eve that God commanded them not to eat of the tree in the midst of the Garden because man would become like God.  Satan challenged the reality of the words of God, “In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die.”  (Gen. 2:17.)  Paul explains that Eve was deceived, but the man was not deceived.  (1 Tim. 2:14.)  Adam disobeyed with full knowledge of his actions; Eve was tricked by the Devil.  But besides these differences, both sinned by choice.  There was no compelling force, except lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life.  (1 John 2:15-17.)  They could have obeyed God and remained sinless in the Garden, as far as we know.

 

Is Adam and Eve good examples for us today for an argument that man sins only by choice?  No, because they brought sin into the world.  (Rom. 5:12.)  The Fall occurred in Genesis 3; the world has changed since that watershed event.  We do not fall to the same extent that Adam fell.  Adam influenced the whole human family by his deed.

 

Another important example is Jesus Christ.  The Scriptures say repeatedly that Jesus did no sin; yet he was tempted in all points as we are.  (Heb. 4:15.)  Satan tempted Him sorely in the wilderness.  (Matt. 4.)  He chose to live above sin and to be obedient to God, His father.  With Jesus, we talk about his impeccability; that is, whether it was possible for him to sin.  With man, we talk about the inevitability of his sinning, his peccability.

 

Is Jesus a good example for us today as an argument that man sins only by choice?  Think about that for a moment.  If we can choose to be fully compliant to the will of God as Jesus was, then we would have no need for the Savior.  God could have just commanded man to obey his voice.  If man disobeyed, he could blame no one but himself.  Jesus’ death on the cross would not have been necessary at all, if we could live without sin as Jesus did.  Man would be on equality with Jesus Christ, morally and spiritually.

 

I know that it is not true that man sins only because he chooses to do so.  The great apostle Paul wrote, “To will is present with me.”  (Rom. 7:18, KJV)  And, “I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.”  (Rom. 7:18, ESV)  If it were only a matter of desire, Paul would have lived without sin.  Many other great souls have given great effort to conquer the flesh and the world.  Some forsook their homes, wife and children to live in isolation and spiritual concentration.  Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, did.  Martin Luther said that if man could have been saved by monkery, he would have been.  I think that it is telling that many good men and women have tried to live without sin, yet they have not been able to do so.  Great religions have been established with that goal in mind.  Christians, even with the help of the Spirit of God, still succumb to sin.

 

Do we sin simply because of a lack of will to be pure?  No.  There are millions who would love to live above sin.  Who would not like to live above the personal guilt of sin?  Can man accomplish this goal simply by choice?  I think not.

 

Is It the Fault of Law?

 

When Paul discussed this theme with the Roman church, he talked about the role of the law in his sinful state.  There is some connection spiritually between law and sin, but it is not a cause and effect relationship.  By the Law is the knowledge of sin.  (Rom. 3:20; 7:7.)  There is the law of sin and death.  (Rom. 8:2.)  But Paul wrote that the law is good; the commandment is holy, just and good.  (Rom. 7:12.)  Paul concluded that it was not the law that caused him to sin, but something within him.  The law is spiritual, but man is carnal, sold under sin.  (Rom. 7:14.)  The fault lies within the nature of man, not in the Law or in man’s will.  It lies in his inability to keep the Law of God.  Paul wrote, “I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwells no good thing.”  (Rom. 7:18.)  Paul is pointing to something in the flesh.  (7:5.)

 

Is it the Flesh?

 

According to Paul, the problem of always choosing the right thing was not a problem of the will or of the Law of God.  He discussed and eliminated both of these.  But he named the real problem as the flesh (Gr. sarx).  What does this mean?

 

A lexicon of Greek words of the New Testament defines flesh by giving eight different usages.  Three important ones are: 1) the literal meaning—the material that covers the bones of animals and humans, 2) a human being in contrast to divine nature (Gal. 1:16) and in contrast to evil beings (Eph. 6:12), and 3) flesh as the willing instrument of sin.  The flesh is subject to such a degree that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likewise present.  No good thing can live in the flesh.

 

The lexicon continues: “The OT lays no stress on a necessary relationship between flesh as a substance and sin.  .  . But in Paul’s thought especially the flesh is the willing instrument of sin.”  (Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, 751.)  John wrote that all that is in the world is the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life.  (1 John 2:15-17.)

 

It is interesting how various translations translated sarx.  These translations are based upon the third meaning of the word given above.  Note the following:  1) KJV, New KJV, RSV, EV, ESV—flesh, 2) NIV—sinful nature (Rom. 7:18, Eph. 2:3), 3) TCNT—earthly nature (Eph. 2:3), 4) Williams—lower nature (Eph. 2:3), 5) TEV—human nature (Rom. 7:18).  One of the controversies over the NIV was their translation of sarx.

 

Many have decried the NIV’s translation of sarx as sinful nature.  Foy  E. Wallace, Jr. wrote, “But man does not have a sinful nature—his nature is of God and he becomes a sinner.”  (A Review of the New Versions, Wallace, 1973, 700.)  But the question remains, What does flesh mean in Romans and Ephesians?  It does not mean the literal flesh.  It refers to the seventh usage in Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich; that is, the sinful desires of the flesh.  It speaks about that relationship between the flesh and sin.  It is what Paul was talking about when he wrote, “I know that in my flesh dwells no good thing.”  If our nature is totally from God, then why is there sin in the flesh?

 

Man is depraved, just not totally depraved.  Man is sinful.  “The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.”  (Jer. 17:9.)  Man is a complex being; capable of immense good and unspeakable evil.  In order to avoid the truth of this dark side of mankind, some reject the concepts of man being depraved by crying, Calvinism.  But Romans and Ephesians were written by Paul long before Calvin was born.  The Bible does not use the language of inherited sin, original sin or total depravity, but it does use the word flesh in a spiritual or symbolic way.  Since it cannot be taken literally, then we must understand its relationship to sin.  Sinful inclinations or sinful nature are not explanations far afield from the contexts of Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians.  I believe that sinful nature expresses quite accurately the meaning of sarx.  It is admittedly not a translation, but an interpretation.  But even with the KJV, flesh, it must be interpreted.  If taken literally, it refers to the physical flesh.  Note the phrase in Romans 8:3, “sinful flesh.”  (Gr. sarx hamartia)  The Bible, therefore, describes the flesh of man as sinful.

 

The central question is not whether man sometimes sin by choice.  Of course, we often make wrong choices in life.  But we must decide whether sin is simply a matter of choice.  Can someone decide not to sin and accomplish that completely?  Paul wrote that sin in his life was not due to a failure of the will.  He wanted to live above sin.  He sought to maintain a good conscience always before God and man.  So have many others.  But, is sin inevitable for every child born into the world?  If so, why?  It must be because sin is not merely a matter of choice.  Is it not strange that someone, besides the Lord, has not lived above sin?  If someone has done that, then that person does not need the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  If one person can do it, then we ought to live above sin.  Then the cross becomes unnecessary.  (Gal. 2:21.)

 

Man’s Fallen Condition

 

Where did man get this sinful condition that goes beyond his power to control?  This is not an effort to shift the blame to someone else.  It is simply recognition that sin is not merely a matter of individual choice.  There is a problem with man that goes beyond man’s ability to solve.  It took Divine intervention to solve the problem of the Fall of man.  It took a second Adam.  Just as by the disobedience of one man sin entered the world, so likewise by the obedience of one man the free gift of justification came upon all men unto life.  (Rom. 5:18.)  In Adam all die, but in Christ all shall be made alive.  (1 Cor. 15:22.)

 

Man received this terrible problem with sin from the Fall of Genesis 3.  He received the knowledge of good and evil when he disobeyed God.  He further received a terrible penalty, a curse from God.  The serpent, man, woman and the earth were all cursed.  Man was driven from God’s presence.  

 

The basic question is: Where did man acquire his sinful nature?  There have been primarily two answers given.  Man either acquired it through his own personal sins, or from the Fall of man in Genesis 3.  Those desiring to separate man’s sinful nature from the sin of Adam emphasize that each sinner acquires his sinful nature by choosing to sin.  But this fails to answer a basic question about the universality of sin among human beings—Why does man sin in the first place?  Can he choose to not sin and live above it?  If he cannot, then why?  Did he receive something from the Fall that causes his sinful nature?  Is it inevitable that man will sin?

 

It seems obvious to me that man does not acquire his sinful nature by choosing to sin.  That does not explain why he committed the first sin, and whether he can live above sin by choice.  Man is sinful by nature because of the Fall.  It is inevitable that all will sin; man cannot choose to conquer sin by willing it.  For this reason, we needed the Savior of mankind.

 

Conclusions

 

Often in this discussion, only two extreme views are contemplated.  Either one believes the doctrine of hereditary total depravity of Augustine and Calvin, or one believes that man sins only by individual choice.  To them, there was not a serious Fall in Genesis, only a little fall.  But there is another view that is more reasonable and compatible with Scripture.  That view is that man has received something from the Fall that affects everyone born into the world.  God cursed the world.  We live in a fallen world and state.  Man cannot simply choose to live without any sin.  If so, he would not need the Savior.  We are carnal, sold under sin.  (Rom. 7:14.)  The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.  (Jer. 17:9.)