It is oft-quoted that G-d punishes “to the third and fourth generations” (Ex. 34:7 and Numbers 14:18). Which rubs a lot of people the wrong way: why should the innocent be punished for the actions of their ancestors?
But reading the text carefully suggests that this might be a mistranslation of the text! Here is the conclusion: Based on a careful analysis of the actual words used, according to the Torah, punishment for actions do not automatically fall on the next generation as long as the offense is acknowledged. And it thus follows that any descendant who acknowledges the sin can break the chain. Because the entire point of holding people responsible is so they can learn and improve!
How did I arrive at this conclusion? As follows:
The classic translation of the verse (using the Exodus verse):
…extending kindness to the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; yet He does not remit all punishment, but visits the iniquity of parents upon children and children’s children, upon the third and fourth generations.”
The reason this translation is a problem is that it is actually not in the text itself. Translators have added sufficient “gloss” that, if you were to try to translate the English back into Hebrew, would not deliver the original text. A translation that does not work in both directions is really an interpretation!
The key problem is that
yet He does not remit all punishment
Is taken from just three words: nakeh lo yenakeh – which loosely means “blameless, not blameless (in the future).” You can see how “blameless not blameless” is not a very satisfying translation! So how can we make sense of it, while being true to the way the word is used in the text?
Let’s start by understanding what the word nakeh, which is repeated in the verse, means elsewhere in the Torah.
The first usage of this word in the Torah is when Avimelech says he is blameless for Sarah:
He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister’! And she also said, ‘He is my brother.’ When I did this, my heart was blameless and my hands were clean (nakeh).”
Avimelech accepts that he certainly acted. What was done, was done. But he is arguing that he should not be responsible for any punishment as a result, because his hands were nakeh – he says he should not be held responsible.
This meaning is also found when Avraham’s servant is commissioned to find a wife for Isaac:
And if the woman does not consent to follow you, you shall then be clear (nakeh) of this oath to me.
So this is one meaning: “not responsible,” or “not obligated.” The word is consistently used in the text to refer to “blameless” (in the case of sin) or “exempt” (as in a newly-married man’s exemption from military service).
Which means that the verse we started with could be (re)translated as follows:
‘The LORD! slow to anger and abounding in kindness; forgiving iniquity and transgression for the blameless. But for the not-blameless, visiting the iniquity of parents upon children, upon the third and fourth generations.’
Note, however, that “blameless” is also not – quite – right. In addition to having the sense of being responsible, the other verses quoted (Avimelech as well as Avraham’s servant) shows that it also reflects whether or not the person accepts responsibility!
Which then gives us a translation that works with the language in the Torah, and also makes sense. To wit:
‘The LORD! slow to anger and abounding in kindness; forgiving iniquity and transgression for [those who are blameless/take responsibility]. But for [those who are guilty and/or reject responsibility], visiting the iniquity of parents upon children, upon the third and fourth generations.’
Which may explain why G-d holds future generations responsible: in order for a person to improve, they must accept that they have erred. And if the error is part of the family history, then the Torah holds future generations responsible inasmuch as they do not acknowledge that their ancestors erred. Which makes sense, if G-d is always trying to help mankind grow in positive directions. There is both negative and positive feedback needed in order to steer any growth trajectory.
One clarification is required. The above applies to punishments – but not consequences. In the Torah, for example, when the people sinned, the “thirteen attributes of mercy” were a way to stop punitive punishments. But they did not reverse consequences from actions. So although, for example, the generation of the spies recognized their error and sought forgiveness for that error, G-d still did not allow them to enter the Land of Israel.
In the Torah nothing can be undone. But the downside damage can be mitigated.
I think there are lessons to be had here for parenting as well: when our children do something wrong, there are both potential punishments and consequences. Punishment is there for when the child has yet to learn or accept that he/she has done something wrong – think of that punishment as a punitive tool. But if the child fesses up and pledges to not do it again, the punitive punishment can be lifted. But that does not mean that the consequences of whatever he/she did go away!