I found an interesting comment online about PSA and Hodge who in his 3 volume systematic theology work presented for the first time the doctrine laid out. He took from Calvin and Luther and developed the PSA theory into a doctrine.
Hodge maintains that not only does the Bible teach that the innocent may suffer in place of the guilty but that the providence of God in history demonstrates the fact. He is right that the Pentateuch does mention three times the phrase: "God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (
Ex. 20:5,
Num 14:18,
Deut. 5:9). What Hodge fails to mention, however, is that this punishment of the children for the deeds of their forefathers seems to be revoked in
Ezekiel 18:2-4,
20.
Please complete the citation by Hodge, “…of those that hate Him.” The point in
Ex. 20:5;
Num. 14:18; and
Deut. 5:9 is never that children are being punished for their parents’ sins.
Deut. 24:16 make it abundantly clear that the individual, even in the OT, was culpable for his own sins, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” Thus, the principle asserted in the Pentateuch is not being repealed, rethought, or reconsidered in the exilic period; the sense of Hebrew justice is not evolving; just the opposite it has devolved by Ezekiel’s day and is being corrected by him. The point made by God through Moses, and reiterated through Ezekiel, is that children would be affected by their parents’ sin. Parents model for their children what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately, the parents’ sinful behavior and habits are often followed by their children (this is readily seen today in the proliferation of abusive behavior by children who were raised in abusive homes). The point in Ezekiel is that the children, now in exile, were blaming God for being unjust (
Ezk. 18:25a, 29b). They came to believe He was punishing them for their forefathers’ sins – a clear misunderstanding of
Ex. 20:5;
Num. 14:18; and
Deut. 5:9). Regrettably, therefore, these same children frequently found themselves practicing the same sinful acts as their parents’. Therefore, the admonition of Ezekiel 18 is for them to accept the same just punishment for such actions. God is driving home the point through his prophet that each child is still individually responsible (
Ezk. 18:4). The misunderstanding of the exiles, which could lead to irresponsibility and fatalism, was expressed in the contemporary proverb in Judah: "The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge" (
Ezk. 18:2) i.e., what the father did caused judgment to be meted out against his children. The people believed (cf.
Jer 31:27-30;
Lam 5:7) that righteousness and wickedness were hereditary; therefore, there was no reason to change one's ways. God’s response through the prophet to this new proverb was that the hereditary principle would cease immediately (v. 3), for it had been erroneously applied to righteousness and unrighteousness. The principle of heredity which Ezekiel’s contemporaries had adopted was erroneous and declared as such by God in chapter 18. The principle of individual responsibility before God has always been true (cf.
Gen 2:17,
4:7;
Deut 24:16;
2 Kings 14:6;
Ezek 3:16-21,
14:12-20,
33:1-20). A son is not bound to be like his father, though that was the concept among Ezekiel's contemporaries, as it often is today.
However, it should be pointed out that Ezk. 18 goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the children can abort the "sin-punishment-inheritance" progression at any time – (if you sin there is punishment and the likelihood that your children will follow in your sinful ways and suffer the same punishment for their own sins). But he must repent and do what is right.
(Part 2) I think your attempt to demonstrate an evolution in ethical and moral perceptions of justice between Moses and Ezekiel is fallacious; just the opposite is true. The sense of justice the people had embraced had devolved into something other than what God had told them with Moses into a skewed sense of justice which Ezekiel was bound to correct.
That said, I think Hodge, along with other of his contemporaries adopted an erroneous view in relation to the passages cited above, and for the reasons I noted above. However, this should not be taken to mean that Hodge’s assertion the innocent may rightfully bear the iniquity of the guilty is incorrect. The entire sacrificial system of the OT supports the idea that of penal substitution. The fact that an innocent lamb could bear the guilt of an individual, let alone the nation, thus freeing that individual from the consequences of his sin is seen throughout the entire OT system. I disagree with Hodge in his specific use in this instance, but not with his assertion.
I have read your posts with great interests and have come to a conclusion. You seek to compare the atoning work of Christ in penal satisfaction with the exactitude of (mainly modern) legal code. Our modern legal code, and subsequent sense of justice, is more interested in pecuniary satisfaction – that what is paid is the precise amount or the exact thing owed; nothing else. Release then, is not a matter of grace, but of right. (E.g. If a thief does the jail time to which he is sentenced then he has paid his debt to society and is free to return to his life.) In this line of thinking, the atonement of Christ becomes legal tender for forgiveness. A substitute can pay the debt of another in a pecuniary arrangement, but the emphasis is on the debt and amount being paid, not on forgiveness. Our entire American penal code is built upon pecuniary satisfaction. Thus, to compare the penal satisfaction of Christ to the American, let alone the global, sense of justice is fallacious.
