RESPONSIBILITY (IN THE BIBLE)

In the ancient Semitic world, collective responsibility was often practiced in its cruder forms; and, as part of a common heritage, it became a significant basis for society and law in the world of the Old Testament. With the insight gained from revelation and experience, the concept of collective responsibility was refined; and this was effected especially by due recognition of individual responsibility. In the New Testament it is explicitly revealed that the principle of the solidarity of the human race, an instance of collective responsibility, stands at the center of the economy of salvation.

This article will treat in order: the common Semitic attitude of collective responsibility; instances of collective responsibility in the Old Testament, the growth of the concept of individual responsibility in the Old Testament, and, finally, the solidarity of the human race in salvation history.

Common Semitic Attitude. In the ancient Near East, a man was looked upon more as a member of his social group than as an individual person. This was due especially to the fact that in nomadic communities the tribe's fight for subsistence bound its members so closely together that each member was filled with the same community spirit. The ideas, engendered by such community spirit, when applied to criminal law, held a man responsible for the deeds of another of his group, particularly of his family. Perhaps the best example of this was the law of blood vengeance. In the Code of Hammurabi there are noteworthy examples: "If a man struck another man's daughter and caused her to have a miscarriage … if she died, they shall put his daughter to death" (209–210); "If a builder built a house for a man but did not make his work strong and as a result the house collapsed … if this cause the death of the son of the owner of the house, they shall put to death the son of the builder" (229–230); "If a man held another man's son as pledge for a debt and the son dies from beating or abuse, they shall put to death the son of the distrainer" (115–116).

Primitive notions about collective responsibility were slow in changing. Even in postexilic times the popular idea that the presence of a great sinner on a ship endangered all the travelers was commonly accepted (Jon1.7); and among the Medes and Persians it was customary for the children to be punished for the sins of their parents (Dn 6.25; Est 9.10, 14). That such primitive notions were still current in Christ's time is seen in the narrative about the man born blind (Jn 9.2).

Collective Responsibility in Old Testament. In the Old Testament there are many examples of God punishing or rewarding a group for the acts of one individual. The sin of Adam is most noteworthy. Although the Old Testament does not explicitly teach the doctrine of original sin, it does teach a certain solidarity with Adam; all men share in punishment for Adam's sin. Implicit in the punishment of Cain is the punishment of his offspring (Gn 4.13–14). The curse brought forth by the shameless behavior of Ham falls on his son Canaan (Gn 9.18–27). Because of the unwilling fault of Pharao, his whole house is struck (Gn 12.15–20). Their wives and children share in the punishment of Dathan and Abiram (Nm 16.27). The family of Achan, although they did not share in his sinful violation of the ban, shared his punishment (Jos 22.20). In the Book of Judges it is in accordance with the idea of collective responsibility that the stereotyped formula of sin, punishment, repentance, and liberation sums up current history. In Exodus 20.5 the punishment of children for their parents' violation of the First Commandment is threatened: "I the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments" (Ex 20.5–6; 34.7; Nm 14.18; Dt 5.9)

As stated in the passage just quoted from Ex 20.6, God blesses the descendants of a virtuous individual for many generations. There are many instances of this: Noah's family shares his salvation in the ark (Gn 7.1); Lot's family accompanies him out of Sodom (Gn 19.12); and, the descendants of Caleb share in his blessings in the land (Dt 1.36). If ten just men could have been found in Sodom and Gomorrah, God would have spared the city (Gn 18.22–32).

The covenant relationship to God, whereby the Israelites stood as one body before God, i.e., as a church (qāhāl ), made the people all the more conscious of collective responsibility. Until the time of the Exile, the Israelite considered his reward or punishment from God not so much a response from God to his individual actions, but as common participation in the response given by God to the whole people.

Individual Responsibility. Yet, the correct understanding of collective responsibility does not exclude a strong feeling of individual responsibility; indeed, some of the oldest stories in the Old Testament show clearly that God punished or rewarded the individual as an individual for his deeds. There are many punitive laws in the Pentateuch based on the principle of individual responsibility. In Dt 24.16 (dealing with human, not with divine justice as in Ex 20.5), there is a protest against the punishment of the children for their parents' sins: "Every one shall die for his own sin."

But it was the preaching of the Prophets that emphasized individual responsibility, thus correcting the cruder notions of collective responsibility common to their world. During the Exile, the inherited view whereby children suffer full punishment for the sins of their parents began to be questioned. The older theology had been synthesized into a proverb: "Fathers have eaten green grapes, thus their children's teeth are on edge" (Ez 18.2). Ezekiel, in response, answers that any sinner can be saved, if he does penance, and that if "Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it [the land], as I live, says the Lord God, I swear that they could save neither son nor daughter; they would save only themselves by their virtue" (14.20). Thus Ezekiel becomes the champion and, so to say, the theorist of individual responsibility. A similar reaction against the more primitive notions of collective responsibility is found in Jer 31.30 (although perhaps not written by him, but a later addition based on Ez 18.2): "Through his own fault only shall anyone die: the teeth of him who eats the unripe grapes shall be set on edge" (Prv 24.12; Sir 16.14).

Solidarity in Economy of Salvation. Considering the Exile experience in the light of collective responsibility, it is not surprising that the concept of vicarious suffering of the future Messiah, based on the principle of solidarity, should be explicitly expounded in the suffering servant songs (Is 52.13–53.12). For Pauline theology in the New Testament, although the role of Christ as the Servant of the Lord was recognized (Phil 2.7), the central Old Testament text used for explaining the reality of human solidarity in Christ's redemption was the fall of Adam (see Rom 5.12–19; 1 Cor 15.22). For the Christian religion, the whole of theology ultimately is summed up in the intervention of two persons: the one (Adam) in whom all men fell, and the other (Jesus Christ) in whom alone man can be saved. The New Testament, insisting on a solidarity with the risen Christ through personal faith, satisfies both the demand of individual retribution and the law of human solidarity in sin and salvation (see Rom 5.19; 1 Cor 15.21–22; Eph 4.25; 1 Cor 12.26; etc.).

See Also: retribution.

Bibliography: l. v. a. bourgeois, … Solidarité (3d ed. Paris 1902). j. laroche, La Rétribution sous l'ancienne alliance (Cahors 1904). h. bÜckers, "Kollektiv und individualvergeltung im Alten Testament," Theologie und Glaube 25 (1933) 273–286. h. w. robinson, "The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality," Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament 66 (1936) 49–62. Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible, tr. and adap. by l. hartman (New York 1963) 2032–36.

[m. rodrÍguez]