thanks for the information. I think it's help us.

> You said this which is why I contested with Jesus paying for anyone's sin. How can he be against the above and also be okay with Jesus dying for anyone's sins even voluntarily?

Substitutionary atonement is a common theme in the Bible: a sheep being killed for the sins of the person or the nation, a scapegoat being released into the wilderness symbolically carrying the sins of the nation on his back. But substitutionary atonement is never one human being punished for the sins of another human. Human sacrifice was an abomination. Jesus, however, being God, voluntarily offering himself for the sins of the world is a different dynamic. The deity puts himself, by love, in the place of those who cannot help themselves to atone for them is an acceptable act, not an act of generational punishment—someone being unfairly whacked for someone else's mess-up.

> but a family has nothing to do with the crime. It was David that did the crime and therefore should solely be punished for the crime.

Wrong. David had trained his boys. They were not unjustly punished for what David did. David was a bad father, and he raised wicked boys who generated their own wickedness. David instilled his sins in his boys: they were adulterers and murderers. God punishes them for their own sin, but it's a punishment on David as well. He watches 4 of his sons die because of his own sin: he trained them to be bad boys (sinners).

> If the child resulted because of natural consequence of some action the next child would have died the same way but as we see God lets the child live.

The child did result because of natural consequences: consensual sex. But there's reason to believe the baby was of mal health. The next child with Bathsheba, Solomon, was healthy, and he lived. Just because God allows one to die a natural death doesn't mean that all subsequent children will also die.

> So that contradict the notion that they assumed God was intervening when it was just natural consequences. It is a God actively speaking and actively intervening in this scenario.

Yes. We don't just throw a blanket over everything and say, "Everything has to be the same." We have to discern what the pieces mean and what's going on.

> because it calls for the dismissal of the notion that each person will be judged according to his actions and his thoughts and punished for his actions alone when clearly God has not done that in the past.

It really doesn't. I am blessed to be an American. I didn't earn or deserve that, but I'm an American because of my parents. I wasn't born in Somalia. There are consequences for our decisions. My parents are Americans because about 12 generations ago one of my ancestors immigrated from Europe. For generations my family has been Christian, and I was raised the same way. In ways it's a lot like the Abrahamic blessing. But that doesn't mean I'm not accountable to God for my actions and thoughts. I very much am. We all are. Whether born in Somalia or America, to a Christian family or a Muslim one, whether religious or secular, we all bear some of the marks of our upbringing (both good and bad), we have certain sins or struggles because of how we were raised, and we have generated plenty of stuff on our own. Some of it has been built into me (some good that I nurture and some bad that I try to defuse), and a lot of it I choose. I am not judged for my parents' sins (no one is), though I have been shaped by my parents. I am accountable to God all on my own.

> The idea of God judging someone for what someone else did is not a biblical principle or practice, and God is actually against people paying for crimes that are not their own

You said this, which is why I contested with Jesus paying for anyone's sin. How can he be against the above and also be okay with Jesus dying for anyone's sins even voluntarily?

> The active punishment of God on David was that the sword would never depart from his house (2 Sam. 12.10) because of his adultery and murder. The punishment fits the crime: David "used" the sword to kill Uriah, and so "the sword" of violence would devour David's family (cf. 2 Sam. 11.25

Right, but a family has nothing to do with the crime. It was David that did the crime and therefore should solely be punished for the crime. To create a situation where the punishment fits the crime and that punishment encompasses families is against what you asserted earlier because all beings are separate by will.

> David confesses his sin in 12.13, and he is forgiven for it, and then he is told the child will die. The text makes no point of saying, and never claims, that God is killing the child because David had a man killed (a life for a life). The text never claims that this was a judgment of God to satisfy justice or to appease God. We are left to make other conclusions. Some background and cross reference information is helpful.

If the child resulted because of natural consequence of some action the next child would have died the same way but as we see God lets the child live.

> In the ancient Near East, including Israelite culture, there was no distinction between natural and supernatural. Their perception was that God or the gods were involved in every detail of life. Thus anything that happened was considered to be an act of God. It's not surprising that they word it this way ("The Lord struck the child"). Any death was "God killed him." Any life was "God spared him." The Lord closed wombs; the Lord opened wombs. Everything was perceived as an act of God. It is very active language that shouldn't be taken in a modern sense. At the same time, the author's point is that David has sinned. If you look at the whole story of David, you'll discover that David loses 4 children as a result of what he did. One son murders another. One son is executed by David's general. This son dies of some kind of disease.

In the same story, The Lord is actually speaking to David because he says: "Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight " So that contradict the notion that they assumed God was intervening when it was just natural consequences. It is a God actively speaking and actively intervening in this scenario.

> I didn't claim that all actions were just natural consequences. God is assuredly active in history and in the lives of people. One of the covenantal blessings was that if Abraham and his descendants, including the nation of Israel, would love Him and abide by the covenant, they would be fruitful and multiply, and their nation would be strong and healthy. But that's not to claim that every birth was God's direct doing or that every death was God's direct activity.

Of course, I didn't think you did but to dismiss generational punishment as something that God doesn't actively do is rather strange when he engages in active generational reward. These two methods are quite intriguing because it calls for the dismissal of the notion that each person will be judged according to his actions and his thoughts and punished for his actions alone when clearly God has not done that in the past.

> Yes, but to punish them for that would be harsh, right? Why not take them in and teach them rather than banish them along with their father who has done the crime?

So what you're advocating is separating the parents from the children, killing or imprisoning the parents (depending on the crime), and letting the children grow up as orphans?

You also need to understand that the ancient mindset was very different from our own. Their worldview centered around honor and shame, order/disorder/nonorder, and the community. Pertinent to this particular conversation, they believed that if a person was guilty, his family was guilty, that if a clan was guilty, the whole city was guilty, and that if a city were guilty, the whole nation was guilty. Everything was seen in terms of the community group and in terms of honor and shame. One person acting shamefully could bring judgment on an entire city. That was their worldview. They would never think of punishing the parents and leaving the children as orphans. If the dad was guilty, the kids were corrupted.

> "Sometimes there is collateral damage." Given an omnipotent and omniscient god?

Of course. Sin is never private, but it has community ramifications. A man who commits adultery affects not just himself, but his wife and kids, the other family, the extended family. It has nothing to do with God being omniscient and omnipotent. If a man screws a woman who is not his wife, there is collateral damage.

> If the people of Israel wronged god then they should be punished, not their children.

Agreed, unless what the people of Israel did was instilled in the children. In the Middle East they are training the children to hate Israelis and to kill infidels. This starts from very young ages. We just saw in the news last week of a man in the Southwest US who was training his children to do school shootings. Unfortunately, children learn by example and can be easily tainted. Jesus spoke against it in Matthew 18.

> 1 Kings 21.29: "I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house."

You don't seem to like that God showed mercy. Israel had sinned, had acted criminally and deserved to be punished for it. The king showed some humility and repentance, so God showed mercy in response. "The people have acted wickedly and still deserve to be punished, but as an act of mercy I will wait until you are dead to bring it on." Is there a problem with this?

> Do you have any sources on this kind of thinking being prevalent?

Sure. John Walton, "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament," 2nd ed., Baker Books, 2018, p. 47ff.

>Moreover, doesn't that imply that a great number of alleged perceived supernatural events within the Bible could be viewed as mistaken for supernatural?

That's why we have to study the text carefully and not just read it superficially. It takes work to understand some parts of the Bible.

> Not at all. What it implies is that children learn values and behavior from their parents.

Yes, but to punish them for that would be harsh, right? Why not take them in and teach them rather than banish them along with their father who has done the crime?

> Sometimes there is collateral damage.

Given an omnipotent and omniscient god?

> The family of Mollie Tibbetts will suffer for the rest of their lives.

I don't think that's equivalent. Mollie Tibbetts and her family are victims, not perpetrators of the crime. Of course they'll suffer for what happened. What I'm talking about is suffering from due punishment.

If the people of Israel wronged god then they should be punished, not their children. The man who murdered Mollie Tibbetts should be the one in jail, not his son (if he has one) or anyone else in his family. I don't think it's permissible to call the Christian god punishing anyone else but the perpetrator of a crime 'collateral damage', as though they were unintended targets.

> You're right, and this is not what's going on in the text. Nobody but nobody advocates this kind of justice, and neither does the Bible.

But you stated yourself that the punishment was forestalled. And in the passage it says: " I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house. " Am I reading this wrong?

> Thus anything that happened was considered to be an act of God. It's not surprising that they word it this way ("The Lord struck the child"). Any death was "God killed him." Any life was "God spared him." The Lord closed wombs; the Lord opened wombs. Everything was perceived as an act of God. It is very active language that shouldn't be taken in a modern sense.

Do you have any sources on this kind of thinking being prevalent?

Moreover, doesn't that imply that a great number of alleged perceived supernatural events within the Bible could be viewed as mistaken for supernatural?

> But that would imply that the children of criminals should be judged or scrutinized for any behavior they might have picked up from their parent/s.

Not at all. What it implies is that children learn values and behavior from their parents. It's interesting, though, that some people think what people pick up from their parents should be part of their court case. Remember that kid who killed 4 people in a drunk driving accident and his lawyers tried to get him off the hook saying he was a victim of "Affluenza"? I thought it was ridiculous, as did many others, but the judge (if I'm remembering right), only gave him 10 years of probation.

> That seems dangerously close to judging them before they've even committed any crime.

Yeah, I don't believe in this, and neither does the Bible. (I'm not sure anyone does. We've all seen Minority Report.)

> But that would only mean that the children of the guilty parties suffer rather than just the guilty parties themselves.

Sometimes there is collateral damage. The family of Mollie Tibbetts will suffer for the rest of their lives. The alleged perp may get put in jail, serve some time, and get released, but the family will never stop suffering. It's how life goes.

> If I commit a crime, the police shouldn't decide to come decades after the fact and arrest my son.

You're right, and this is not what's going on in the text. Nobody but nobody advocates this kind of justice, and neither does the Bible.

> The text implies that god made the child sick, though.

The active punishment of God on David was that the sword would never depart from his house (2 Sam. 12.10) because of his adultery and murder. The punishment fits the crime: David "used" the sword to kill Uriah, and so "the sword" of violence would devour David's family (cf. 2 Sam. 11.25). 2 Samuel 12.11 mentions more of what God will do. Those two things are God's active punishment on David.

David confesses his sin in 12.13, and he is forgiven for it, and then he is told the child will die. The text makes no point of saying, and never claims, that God is killing the child because David had a man killed (a life for a life). The text never claims that this was a judgment of God to satisfy justice or to appease God. We are left to make other conclusions. Some background and cross reference information is helpful.

In the ancient Near East, including Israelite culture, there was no distinction between natural and supernatural. Their perception was that God or the gods were involved in every detail of life. Thus anything that happened was considered to be an act of God. It's not surprising that they word it this way ("The Lord struck the child"). Any death was "God killed him." Any life was "God spared him." The Lord closed wombs; the Lord opened wombs. Everything was perceived as an act of God. It is very active language that shouldn't be taken in a modern sense. At the same time, the author's point is that David has sinned. If you look at the whole story of David, you'll discover that David loses 4 children as a result of what he did. One son murders another. One son is executed by David's general. This son dies of some kind of disease.

In our modern way of thinking (whether it's more accurate or not is impossible to say), we would not word it this way or understand it this way. We would say the child died a natural death, and that David was cut to the heart with grief, and that was his judgment. But since they saw no distinction between natural and supernatural, they expressed it differently. That's not to claim that the child would have lived anyway. The child may have been born very sickly and was so unhealthy he was going to die. That's how we would say it. The way they said that was "The Lord struck the child and he became ill."

The text is clearly about judgment on David, not on anyone else. Several instances of death surround David's sin, but the focus of the text is on David himself, and that he received what was fair and just for him to receive.

But when we come to the baby, we're in a different arena. The baby was not complicit in crime as the other raping, murderous, and rebellious sons were. Now, it's possible that the baby's health problems were part of the "natural consequences" of David and Bathsheba's union. Congenital defects are somewhat common, especially if there is stress during pregnancy. Making spiritually evaluative statements is difficult. Did God just let nature take its course, and in that sense "smite" the child, or did God show some kind of malicious meanness, punishing the child for the sins of the father? Well, the latter is totally inconsistent with the picture of God in Scripture, and its inconsistency is so great as to make me reject it out of hand.

> Jer. 29.32. Shemaiah was a false prophet, one who lied to the people. He and his family were to be thrown out of town. He preached rebellion against God, an attitude and behavior kids easily pick up.

But that would imply that the children of criminals should be judged or scrutinized for any behavior they might have picked up from their parent/s. That seems dangerously close to judging them before they've even committed any crime.

> 1 Ki. 21.29. Judgment was coming to all Israel because of their abandonment of the Lord. God would forestall that judgment seeing Ahab's humility.

But that would only mean that the children of the guilty parties suffer rather than just the guilty parties themselves. If I commit a crime, the police shouldn't decide to come decades after the fact and arrest my son.

> 2 Sam. 12.14-18. David is being judged for his sin. The child died a natural death and God didn't intervene.

" And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. " The text implies that god made the child sick, though.

> Doesn't that contradict the idea that Jesus died or suffered for anyone's sins?

No it doesn't because Jesus volunteered to suffer and die for our sins (John 10.18).

> Or a child dying because of a parent's noncompliance such as with David and his child with Bathsheba*) * sorry it isn't written to be a natural death though it clearly says the son will die and the next one will live because God saw this he would be good to live.

The active punishment of God on David was that the sword would never depart from his house (2 Sam. 12.10) because of his adultery and murder. The punishment fits the crime: David "used" the sword to kill Uriah, and so "the sword" of violence would devour David's family (cf. 2 Sam. 11.25). 2 Samuel 12.11 mentions more of what God will do. Those two things are God's active punishment on David.

David confesses his sin in 12.13, and he is forgiven for it, and then he is told the child will die. The text makes no point of saying, and never claims, that God is killing the child because David had a man killed (a life for a life). The text never claims that this was a judgment of God to satisfy justice or to appease God. We are left to make other conclusions. Some background and cross reference information is helpful.

In the ancient Near East, including Israelite culture, there was no distinction between natural and supernatural. Their perception was that God or the gods were involved in every detail of life. Thus anything that happened was considered to be an act of God. It's not surprising that they word it this way ("The Lord struck the child"). Any death was "God killed him." Any life was "God spared him." The Lord closed wombs; the Lord opened wombs. Everything was perceived as an act of God. It is very active language that shouldn't be taken in a modern sense. At the same time, the author's point is that David has sinned. If you look at the whole story of David, you'll discover that David loses 4 children as a result of what he did. One son murders another. One son is executed by David's general. This son dies of some kind of disease.

In our modern way of thinking (whether it's more accurate or not is impossible to say), we would not word it this way or understand it this way. We would say the child died a natural death, and that David was cut to the heart with grief, and that was his judgment. But since they saw no distinction between natural and supernatural, they expressed it differently. That's not to claim that the child would have lived anyway. The child may have been born very sickly and was so unhealthy he was going to die. That's how we would say it. The way they said that was "The Lord struck the child and he became ill."

The text is clearly about judgment on David, not on anyone else. Several instances of death surround David's sin, but the focus of the text is on David himself, and that he received what was fair and just for *him* to receive.

But when we come to the baby, we're in a different arena. The baby was not complicit in crime as the other raping, murderous, and rebellious sons were. Now, it's possible that the baby's health problems were part of the "natural consequences" of David and Bathsheba's union. Congenital defects are somewhat common, especially if there is stress during pregnancy. Making spiritually evaluative statements is difficult. Did God just let nature take its course, and in that sense "smite" the child, or did God show some kind of malicious meanness, punishing the child for the sins of the father? Well, the latter is totally inconsistent with the picture of God in Scripture, and its inconsistency is so great as to make me reject it out of hand.

> Then why would God also use generational reward or national reward such as promising success and strength for a nation because of one man's actions (Abraham for example) if actions lead to natural consequences?

I didn't claim that all actions were just natural consequences. God is assuredly active in history and in the lives of people. One of the covenantal blessings was that if Abraham and his descendants, including the nation of Israel, would love Him and abide by the covenant, they would be fruitful and multiply, and their nation would be strong and healthy. But that's not to claim that every birth was God's direct doing or that every death was God's direct activity.

> The idea of God judging someone for what someone else did is not a biblical principle or practice, and God is actually against people paying for crimes that are not their own (Dt. 24.16, as you mentioned)

Doesn't that contradict the idea that Jesus died or suffered for anyone's sins? Or a child dying because of a parent's noncompliance such as with David and his child with Bathsheba*) * sorry it isn't written to be a natural death though it clearly says the son will die and the next one will live because God saw this he would be good to live.

> What's going on is not generational punishment, but natural consequences.

Then why would God also use generational reward or national reward such as promising success and strength for a nation because of one man's actions (Abraham for example) if actions lead to natural consequences?