What is the context?
The Lord considers the righteous man’s son, who chooses a violent and oppressive life. His father’s faithfulness does not make his bloodshed, idolatry and abuse of the poor harmless. He answers for his own actions.
Then comes a third generation. This son sees the wrongdoing of his father, considers it and refuses to follow it. He practices justice and supplies the needs of others. He will not die for his father’s iniquity.
The contrast works in both directions. A righteous parent does not excuse a wicked child, and a wicked parent does not make a child’s faithfulness impossible or meaningless.
The closing statement names the principle again: the righteousness of the righteous belongs to that person, as does the wickedness of the wicked. Each generation is addressed as responsible before God.
How is this passage commonly understood?
Henry and Wesley read the examples as a denial that a person’s judgment can simply be transferred to another generation. Henry explains that a faithful son need not share his father’s final fate even when he experiences outward troubles in the same world.
The passage gives real weight to a different choice: the third-generation son sees what happened before him and does otherwise. It does not say that family influence is unreal or that wrongdoing never harms other people; its point is that another person’s conduct does not replace one’s own responsibility to God.
What is our position?
We don't have a position on this passage yet. When our study reaches a conclusion the text supports, it will appear here.