what about the sins of David being visited on the whole nation, as in the matter of the census?
So as to your question,
“what about the sins of David being visited on the whole nation, as in the matter of the census?”
although it touches on the idea of corporate culpability, I don’t see how it follows logically from my comments.
I’m not suggesting this is your viewpoint, however often when debating the subject of generational curses, many people will use this and similar passages to support the idea of innocent children inheriting a curse or generational sins from their ancestors. Commonly the reasoning goes something like:
“You see? Just as the whole nation suffered from the sins of the king, so can children suffer by inheriting curses or sins from their ancestors.”
We need to avoid the tendency to inappropriately homogenate all indirect suffering as a premise to construct arguments to support the fad doctrine of generational curses or sins. Again, I’m not saying this is your underlying argument. These subjects are quite nuanced, and we have to look at each within its context.
Your question is interesting but addresses a different subject. In the case of the census, clearly, there was corporate punishment and at first glance seemingly only initiated by one person. In the Rebellion, there is explicit language stating that the children were innocent. The children had to endure the punishment inflicted upon their parents, but it was not directed at them. Eventually they walked into the promise land. Delayed, but not denied.
I wonder in the case of the census if the corporate punishment was a result of corporate guilt due to the populace asking for a king in the first place, and I am hypothesizing about this. In asking for a king, it seems it was a move away from trusting in God towards trusting in common human machinations i.e. a king that can be seen, heard, and touched. That was a sin prophesied by Moses, yet the Lord worked within it. They opted for a king instead of maintaining greater trust in God. Perhaps as a result they shared guilt by extension.
Maybe there is a correlation with the catalyst of the Rebellion. While recounting their history, Moses quotes the Lord:
“See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land the Lord swore he would give to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and to their descendants after them.”
Deut 1:8
It appears that Israel took a position of, “We would like to see what we are getting into for ourselves before committing, and this after the Lord said, “See, I have given you the land.” Moses said:
“You have reached the hill country of the Amorites, which the Lord our God is giving us. See, the Lord your God has given you the land. Go up and take possession of it as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, told you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.”
Deut 1:20-21
Moses said go, they said, not so fast:
“Then all of you came to me and said, “Let us send men ahead to spy out the land for us and bring back a report about the route we are to take and the towns we will come to.””
Deut 1:22
Had the people not requested spys, 10 would not have returned with an evil report. They wanted to see for themselves if what God said was true. While the spies confirmed the land flowed with milk and honey, they managed to emphasize potential dangers which generated a wave of fear leading to more sin. Corporate lack of trust led to corporate sin resulting in corporate punishment.
Since humans are predisposed to trust in the seen rather than the unseen, it seems logical that the people could have supported David’s error. Perhaps the general public sinned in their hearts by wanting to assess their apparent national strength along with David versus trusting in the Lord. Again, I am hypothesizing. However, it was readily apparent to Joab that David’s command was a sin, so why would we assume the rest of the nation did not recognize this as well? Did Joab sin by obeying David? Did Israel sin by participating? Clearly, David was willing to accept all the guilt and claimed that it was all his; it may have been. However, based upon precedent, and that David’s command was recognized to be sinful by at least one person, I don’t know that we are in the position to conclude that many if not most of the general public did not share some guilt.
It seems a concession that the Lord allowed the spies to go into the land, indicated by Him directing Moses how to and how many.
“The Lord said to Moses, “Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites.From each ancestral tribe send one of its leaders.”
So at the Lord’s command Moses sent them out from the Desert of Paran. All of them were leaders of the Israelites.”
Num 13:1-3
Perhaps it was the Lord’s intention all along to send out spies but when considering Deuteronomy chapter one, it appears that He commanded Moses how to carry out His concession to the people. The idea of sending out spies appears to be initiated by the people.
