06-24-2007, 10:26 PM
|
 | Moderatus Bapticus | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Gambrills, MD
Posts: 8,489
Thanks: 1,169
Thanked 1,451 Times in 841 Posts
| |
Josh - I tend to agree with Matthew Henry's take on this: Quote: |
God had expressly provided that magistrates should not put the children to death for the fathers'; but he did not intend to bind himself by that law, and in this case he had expressly ordered (v. 15) that the criminal, and all that he had, should be burnt. Perhaps his sons and daughters were aiders and abettors in the villany, had helped to carry off the accursed thing. It is very probable that they assisted in the concealment, and that he could not hide them in the midst of his tent but they must know and keep his counsel, and so they became accessaries ex post facto--after the fact; and, if they were ever so little partakers in the crime, it was son heinous that they were justly sharers in the punishment. However God was hereby glorified, and the judgment executed was thus made the more tremendous.
| |