Individual Responsibility in Ezekiel 18, 1-32
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY IN EZEKIEL 18, 1-32 Paskalis Edwin N. Paska STFT Widya Sasana Malang Abstract: Persoalan apakah anak mewarisi dosa orang tuanya atau apakah Allah menghukum seseorang karena kesalahan orang tuanya telah menjadi perdebatan yang seru di kalangan umat kristiani, para klerus maupun para ahli Alkitab. Beberapa teks Alkitab, seperti Kel. 20:5; 34:7; Bil. 14:18; Ul. 5:9; Yer. 32:18 sepertinya memang menekankan adanya dosa warisan. Namun banyak teks Alkitab lainnya, seperti Ul. 24:16; Yer. 31:29-30; Yeh. 18:4 menyangkal hal itu dan menandaskan tanggung jawab pribadi. Ada yang menduga bahwa terjadi perkembangan atau perubahan dalam paham Israel tentang dosa. Pada mulanya Israel meyakini adanya dosa warisan, namun sejak abad ke-6 paham ini mulai diformulasi ulang dan puncak perubahannya ada pada Yehezkiel. Analisa atas konteks dan isi Yeh. 18:2-4 menunjukkan bahwa Yehezkiel memang menolak ide hukuman warisan. Namun apa yang dibuatnya bukanlah menyangkal teks- teks Alkitab yang sepertinya berbicara tentang hukuman warisan melainkan penafsiran dan pemakaian yang salah atas teks-teks tersebut. Keywords: The sour grapes proverb, repentance, individual responsibility, co- llective responsibility, awareness of sinfulness, fatalism. The existence of inherited punishment, that is, the passing of divine punishment from one generation to the next, is nebulous and has caused controversies. For example, believing in inherited punishment, some Chris- tian charismatic groups in Java (Indonesia) organize what they call the “fam- ily tree” retreat (retret pohon keluarga). The main aim of this retreat is to heal or to free participants from the sickness, sufferings or curses which are believed to be caused by their parents’ or grandparents’ sins. This prac- tice, which was likely inspired by Kenneth McAll’s book Healing the Family Tree, has angered many other Christians, both clergy and laity. The episco- pal vicar of the Jakarta archdiocese issued a pastoral letter on August 27, 2003, urging charismatic groups not to support such retreats. However, no biblical arguments were given, and the letter roused dissatisfaction among those who still support this kind of retreat. Paskalis Edwin, Individual Responsibility 179 Several passages which contains a formula of inherited punishment (Exod 20,5-6; 34,6-7; Num 14,17-18; Deut 5,9-10) and the implementation of this doctrine (1 Sam 2,11-36; 2 Sam 12,1-25; 21,1-14; 1 Kgs 14,1-18; 16,1-4; 21,1-29; 2 Kgs 21,1-18) lead the readers to understand that the author (Deuteronomistic historian) is presenting the doctrine of inherited punish- ment. The prophets Ezekiel, however, has been seen as abrogating the doc- trine of inherited punishment when he assailed the popular proverb “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (Ezek 18,2; cf. Jer 31,29). Ezekiel affirmed that “it is only the person who sins that shall die” (Ezek 18,4)1 . Other passages in the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (such as Jer 17,10; 32,19; Ezek 3,17-21; 7,9.27; 14,12-23; 18, 20; 33,12-20; etc.) also seem to emphasize the individual responsibility. Some scholars, however, such as Lindars and Joyce, argue that the central con- cern of Ezekiel was not individual responsibility but national responsibil- ity2. Let us study Ezek 18,2-4 to see whether this text proves that Ezekiel abolishes the notion of inherited punishment. 1. The Context of Ezek 18, 2-4 The sour grapes proverb in Ezek 18,2 is part of a call to repent and to live (Ezek 18), which is placed in the middle of the judgment oracles (chaps. 15-17 and 19)3 . Ezekiel announced that the punishment of Jerusalem was unavoidable (chap.14) because of their unfaithfulness (chap.15), especially because of their adultery, a symbol for idolatry (chap.16). The punishment was set into motion by Zedekiah, the king in Judah (chap.17), whose re- quest for military aid from Egypt provoked a double death sentence both from Nebuchadnezzar (because he broke his allegiance to the vassal cov- enant with Babylon) and from God (because he broke his allegiance to the Lord’s covenant). Chapter 19 then presents the lamentation over the de- portation of the king and the ruin of the nation. In the middle of these judgment oracles Ezekiel summons Judah to repent and live (chap.18). 1 Many scholars, such as G. von Rad, Brownlee, Taylor, hold that Ezekiel 18 is concerned to argue for “individual responsibility”. See G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, New York – Edinburgh, 1962-1965, 392-94; W. Eichrodt, Ezekiel, London, 1970, 231-249; W.H. Brownlee, Ezekiel 1-19, WBC 28, Waco, TX, 1986, 50, 284, 292; J. Taylor, Ezekiel, London, 1969, 45. 2 B. Lindars, “Ezekiel and Individual Responsibility”, VT 15 (1965) 452-467; Joyce, P.M., “In- dividual Responsibility in Ezekiel 18?”, in E.A. Livingstone, ed., Studia Biblica 1978, JSOTSS 11, Sheffield 1979, 185-196; and “Ezekiel and Individual Responsibility”, in J. Lust, ed., Ezekiel and His Book. Textual Literary Criticism and their Interrelation, Leuven 1986, 317-321. 180 Studia Philosophica et Theologica, Vol. 7 No. 2, Oktober 2007 1.1. The Structure and Content of Ezek 18 Ezek 18 is composed of several small units from different redaction levels4 . Its literary genre may belong to that of the disputation speech, which (according to Murray) is made up of three elements: thesis, counter-thesis, and dispute5 . The content of Ezekiel 18 can thus be sketched as follows: v. 1 : Introduction v. 2 : Thesis vv. 3-4 : Counter-thesis vv. 5-29 : Disputation vv. 5-20 : Each generation is responsible for its own deeds vv. 5-9 : The first generation is good and shall surely live vv. 10-13 : The second generation is wicked and shall surely die vv. 14-19 : The third generation is good and shall surely live vv. 21-29 : Each individual will be judged on the basis of his or her present behaviour vv. 21-25: First argument vv. 21-23 : A wicked person repents and shall surely live vv. 24 : A righteous person turns away and shall surely die v. 25 : Conclusion vv. 26-29 : Second argument vv. 26 : A righteous person turns away and shall surely die vv. 27-28 : A wicked person repents and shall surely live v. 29 : Conclusion vv. 30-32 : Conclusion (summon to repent). The thesis to be disputed is presented immediately after the introduc- tion formula (v. 1) in the form of a question which challenges the people’s opinion: “What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?” (v. 2). Then follows a refutation of the thesis: “As I live, says the Lord, this proverb (mâsal) shall no more be used by you in Israel” (v. 3) and its theological basis: “Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins shall die” (v. 4a)6 . Finally the counter-thesis is formulated succinctly: “Only the soul that sins shall die” (v. 4b). The dispute proper begins in v. 5 and consists of two major parts (vv. 5-20 and vv. 21-29)7 . In the first part the prophet buttresses the counter- 3 M.C. Lind, Ezekiel, Scottdale, Pennsylvania, 1996 148. 4 G.H. Matties, Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse, SBLDS 126, Atlanta, GA 1990, 34. 5 D.F. Murray, “The Rhetoric of Disputation”, JSOT 38 (1987) 102.117-118. 6 D.F. Murray, “The Rhetoric of Disputation”, 118. Paskalis Edwin, Individual Responsibility 181 thesis by describing the interrelated hypothetical cases of three successive generations within a family (vv. 5-18).8 These three generations are pre- sented in three subsequent subunits which use a similar structure. Each begins with a protasis followed by an apodosis (verdict). First (vv. 5-9), there is a good generation: “If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right... he shall surely live”. Second (vv. 10-13), there follows a wicked generation: “If he begets a son who is a robber, a shedder of blood …, he will surely be put to death”. Third (vv. 14-19), there follows a good genera- tion: “But if this man begets a son who… does not do likewise… When the son has done what is lawful and right, he shall surely live”. The cases insist on the individual responsibility of both the righteous and the wicked. Each generation is judged independently. The first part of the disputation (vv. 5-20) concludes with the citation of the audience’s question: “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the iniquity of the father?’” (v. 19a). This question repeats in other words the thesis found in v. 2. In response to this question the prophet not only reiter- ates the counter-thesis of v. 4b but also adds that parents will not suffer for their children’s wickedness (vv. 19b-20). Thus each generation is respon- sible for its own behaviour and its consequences.9 The second part of the disputation (vv. 21-29) is concerned with the effects of a change of conduct on the part of the individual.10 The indi- vidual’s life is no longer fettered by the sum of all the deeds he or she has done so far. Each person will be judged by God not on the basis of the sum of his/her deeds, but on present disposition and behaviour. Changes are not only possible but also have consequences11 .