Exodus 20:5

Thou shalt not bow down thyself, &c.— This fully shews the meaning of the prohibition in the former verse. As a strong sanction to secure its observance, the LORD adds, that he is a jealous God, i.e. (speaking of God after the manner of men) so zealous for his own honour, as not to bear a rival in his worship, Isaiah 42:8 and so full of just indignation, when that honour is injured, as not to spare those who transgress against him; visiting the iniquity of the fathers, &c. This, which so well suits the context, seems to me to be the true meaning of the word קנא kanne, translated jealous here. Others, however, refer it to that jealousy which a husband has of his wife; and which, they think, may properly be applied to the Lord, who is frequently considered in Scripture as having espoused the Jewish nation, whose idolatry is hence frequently called adultery, spiritual adultery, and going a whoring from GOD. See Exodus 34:15.Deuteronomy 31:16. Judges 2:17. Jeremiah 9:20. קנא kanne, signifies any fervor of mind which exerts itself, whether in indignation, jealousy, or the like; and the idea is derived from that action of fire, which corrodes and consumes the substance of material things. It is remarkable, that God never expresses himself against any crime with so much indignation and zeal, as against idolatry; and that for this plain reason, because idolatry includes a total depravation of principles, together with an entire corruption of manners.

Visiting the iniquity of the fathers, &c.— Visiting, i.e. punishing, with signal judgments, the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, not only personally punishing the parents themselves, but further causing their guilt to prove a punishment to their posterity, even to the thirds and fourths, according to the letter of the Hebrew; and so, in the sixth verse, to the thousands; i.e. (as the versions properly supply) to the third, fourth, and thousandth generation. We may observe, how peculiarly abominable idolatry must be to GOD, and how grievous a sin in itself, by the word here used for it; them that hate me. Idolatry is utter opposition and downright hatred of God. Rewards and punishments are the great sanctions of every law: temporal rewards and punishments were the peculiar sanctions of the Jewish law. The strongest and most affecting of these to human nature, the happiness or the misery of their offspring, are here proposed to the Israelites as their preservatives from idolatry, the most capital offence against their supreme Lord and King; who declares, that the fathers, guilty of this crime, should be punished even to the fourth generation of their posterity; while those who preserved themselves from this hateful offence, should find his mercy extended even to a thousand; i.e. to countless generations of their posterity. Let it be remembered, that God is here to be considered as the King and Lawgiver of the people; and this act of idolatry being immediate rebellion and high-treason against him, there can be no more injustice in his causing the sin of the fathers to prove an evil and a punishment to the sons, than there is injustice in an earthly king thus punishing treason, as is the case, in any of his rebellious subjects. Besides, it is most probable, as God speaks to the people or Jewish nation as one person, thou shalt, &c. &c. that this sanction is to be understood more especially as referring to the nation as such, whose idolatry he threatens, nationally, to punish or reward, as their King and Ruler. Let it be observed further, in justification of the commandment and its penalty, that wicked parents too commonly occasion wicked children: nor can any man avow such an exemption from personal defect, as to claim, for his own sake, an entire exemption from punishment. Here too it is to be observed, in testimony of the Divine goodness, and how much more he delights in mercy than in punishment, that he threatens to visit the rebellious only to four, while he promises to spare the obedient to a thousand generations. This appears to us to be a sufficient vindication of the passage before us; and which they seem greatly to mistake, who suppose that the words, of them that hate me, refer to the children, not the fathers: for thus the threat would be no threat at all; personal guilt would only find, as we are assured it will, personal punishment; and the contrast would be wholly destroyed between those who hated, and those who loved God. But how, upon this view, shall we reconcile what is said Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20? which latter passage is a full and undeniable proof, that we render and understand this passage in the commandment rightly; and, consequently, that all solutions of the difficulty, founded on different translations of the original, are vain. Now, for the first, (Deuteronomy 24:16.) it is evident, that the injunction there delivered, that fathers should not be put to death for their children, or children for their fathers, is delivered in opposition to some idolatrous and wicked practices, which admitted of this kind of transmutation: for the latter, it is no less evident, that the case which the prophet there puts, is an exempt one from the general practice. Such was the hateful and contagious wickedness of idolatry, that a family, once tainted with it, too commonly continued in the practice; and thus derived, from their father, his guilt and his punishment. Besides which, the immediate punishment inflicted upon the father by GOD, may be supposed sensibly to have affected the interests of the family: but the case was put to the prophet Ezekiel, that, if the son of a wicked or idolatrous father, convinced of his own and his father's crimes, would repent and turn, would not the repentance of that soul be accepted? would GOD strictly adhere to his denunciation, of punishing the iniquity of the father in the children? To which the prophet plainly and peremptorily replies, that when the son hath done that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not thus bear the iniquity of the father, nor the father the iniquity of the son. In this view, there is no contradiction in the texts; for it is an allowed maxim, that all lawgivers may, with justice, relax the punishments they have threatened; though they cannot, with justice, diminish the rewards they have promised. But further still, I would observe, that it seems most probable the punishments alluded to here, and in the prophet Ezekiel, are of a different nature. GOD, as we have remarked, speaks at present in the character of the immediate King and Lawgiver of the Jews, and his promises and threats have all a temporal aspect. In Ezekiel, the question is not concerning temporal, but spiritual punishment: and though it may be strictly just in a legislator to inflict temporal punishments on children for the iniquity of their parents; i.e. to deprive them of many privileges with which they would have been invested by the fealty of their parents; it does not seem at all consistent with the ideas we have of the common Parent of the universe, to punish eternally, either children, or any of the race of mankind, for the crimes of parents or of any other. In this respect, surely, it is an eternal truth, that the children shall not bear the iniquity of their fathers, nor the fathers that of the children.

As this law is by the infidels accused of injustice, we have thought it our duty to spend some time in defending it from this calumny. It is not to be looked upon as a part of universal religion, but only as a part of a civil institute, given by Jehovah to one people, as their tutelary God and civil Governor. Now we know it to be the practice of all states, to punish the crime of lese majesty, or treason, in this manner. In the Jewish republic, this method of punishment was administered with more lenity, and with infinitely more rectitude, than in any other: for, although GOD allowed capital punishment to be inflicted for lese majesty on the person of the offender; yet, concerning his family or posterity, he reserved the inquisition to himself: this abundantly justified the equity of it, because no power less than omniscient could, in all cases, keep clear of injustice in such an inquisition.——GOD supported the Israelites in Judea by an extraordinary providence; the consequences of which were great temporal blessings, to which they had no natural claim, on condition of obedience. Nothing, therefore, could be more equitable than, on the violation of that condition, to withdraw those extraordinary blessings from the children of a father thus offending. How then can the infidel charge this law with injustice!