Concerning Farrell Till's elaborate expose of the innocent paying the price for the sins of their fathers, I would address it this way. First, since I do not take the position that the Bible is inerrant in its present form, I don't have to go into a lot of gyrations and hair splitting to present my viewpoint. Rather, I will do my best to use concepts that are found in scripture. The argument as I see it is that innocent children and other people suffer for the sins of their parents, in apparent contradiction to Deuteronomy 24:16 (and Ezekiel 18:20), which states that "(t)he fathers shall not be put to death for [the sins of] the children, neither shall the children be put to death for [the sins of] the fathers." Are there other parallels in the Bible that address the concept of one paying the price for the sins of others or even suffering when it doesn't make any sense? And do these other parallels reflect the hand of God behind them? Certainly Jesus Christ suffered for the sins of others, though He had done no wrong. Although it wasn't for the sins of His heavenly Father that this occurred, it was because of the sins of His earthly forefathers (speaking of His humanity and His Biblical ancestors--king David, etc.). In addition, are we not all paying the price for the sin of Adam and Eve, including physical death? One of the Biblical books that is overlooked in this study is the story of Job, whom God called a righteous man, and whom He allowed to go through the ringer in order to show His sovereignty and counter Satan's contentions that if Job suffers, he will curse God. Here, there was obviously a "higher" unseen purpose behind the suffering that we can't disregard in considering other scripture. The concept that God sometimes allows the innocent to suffer doesn't set well with a lot of people, but the theme is often repeated throughout the Bible to serve God's greater purpose.
As an application in real life, Dr. Charles Stanley of the First Baptist Church in Atlanta, tells the story about the late Dr. Barnhouse, who witnessed the effect of the suffering of an innocent baby and God's use of it to bring others into confessing Christ as their savior. A baby with Down Syndrome had been born to a young pastor, and the mother had not yet seen the baby or knew of its condition. The young pastor was initially very worried about how to break the news to his wife, and Dr. Barnhouse told him, "This is from the Lord!" What does Exodus 4:11 say? "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?" And remember Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him." So the young pastor was encouraged. Meanwhile, the hospital switchboard operator (who might well have been a big Skeptical Review fan, and who took pleasure in seeing Christians humbled), heard the news about the baby and looked forward to seeing the young pastor and his wife crumble in the face of adversity. But when the young pastor told his wife about the baby and the comments of Dr. Barnhouse, she called her mother on the phone and told her, "Mother, the Lord has just blessed us with a baby with Down Syndrome. We don't know the nature of this blessing yet, but we're looking forward to finding out." The switchboard operator, who was listening in, was dumbfounded, and she told many of the other workers and nurses, etc., about what the wife had said. The next Sunday, unknown to the young pastor, thirty nurses and staff members from the hospital were in the congregation, and accepted Christ as their savior. God had used the "suffering" of an innocent baby to bring many into eternal life with Him. And we see this concept repeated throughout the scripture.
Getting back to the argument at hand, Deuteronomy 24:16 and other laws were given to man for the purpose of administering human justice, and the commandment in question is an excellent precept. The basic concept was the people should not be held accountable for the sins of others. The issue in scripture relates to justice. The unseen or unknown factor behind the scenes is God's higher purpose (note Job). Certainly, human institutions of justice are imperfect and often down right unjust. God, if you can indulge in the Biblical concept of His omniscience, sees the broader perspective, and its effects on the future of mankind. Imagine now a father telling his young daughter, "Always wait for the light to change in your favor before crossing the street." Then, later, as the father is driving along with his daughter, trying to rush his critically ill wife to the hospital, he looks both ways and proceeds to run a red light so he can save his wife's life. The daughter admonishes him for going against his own instructions and writes The Skeptical Review, but perhaps only the father sees the bigger picture. And so it is with God. The innocent may sometimes suffer along with the unrighteous, but only in the earthly realm and only to serve God's greater and perhaps unseen purpose (as in the case of Job). You can rework the above analogy to show how justice can be administered contrary to appointed judicial authority, which is imperfect, and which may on occasion abrogate the spirit of the law in effecting the letter of the law. It is obvious from scripture that God sometimes steps into human affairs and does something that seems totally contrary to our perceived views of His nature and character. Such is likely the case in Till's illustrations, where God seems to abrogate the Law He gave man, and serves out His own measure of justice on individuals and nations. Since David was King of Israel, and could possibly thwart human measures of justice and retribution if he desired, God stepped in and made David pay the price, whereas otherwise, there may well have been no justice for David and his fellow Israelites to see. Why God selects some instances to step in and take things into His own hands, while other times He doesn't, I don't claim to know, nor can anyone know the hidden things of God. Obviously, mortal man would have never thought that God would send His only begotten Son to "unjustly suffer and die" on the cross for us, so why do we have the audacity to think we can "put God in a box" and completely understand His ways? You may not like that answer, but according to Job, the crucifixion, and other such instances, it's certainly "Biblical."
In addition to this, I think we have to realize that, Biblically speaking, physical death and spiritual death are two different things. One can die innocently for the sins of others and consider themselves very fortunate to gain entry into the kingdom of heaven. So when we look at David and Bathsheba's son who was stricken by the Lord (as well as other examples), we have to assume that that baby is in heaven, and a very happy camper at that! If we could see him now, we might reconsider how unjust God might have seemed in taking him from the earth. We tend to look at physical death as the "end-all" that defines the tenets of human and divine justice, but the judgment seat of Christ is in fact the ultimate "terminus." If those who were "unjustly" stricken with death had also innocently suffered spiritual death and wound up in hell, then we could look at God as being unjust and unfair. So in that respect, the innocent children do not ultimately suffer for the sins of their fathers, and God can remain a "good" and just God.
By the way, regarding Till's clever little remark about the stoning of Achan ("Who ever said that confession was good for the soul")--if Achan's confession was heartfelt, it likely saved him from an eternity in hell, so in that respect, yes, it was good for his soul. Till only looked at the narrow view, and not the "larger picture." If he's going to try to use the Bible against itself, he should be aware of the totality of scripture and use the whole Bible, and he will save himself some instances of embarrassment.
(Dr. Peter D. Righter, 148 Hattaway Drive, Altamonte
Springs, FL 32701)
