Idioms and Generational Curses

Recently, I was asked a question by an Asia-Pacific missionary whom I met while lecturing for University of the Nations. Occasionally I get questions like this through missionary contacts who encounter ideas, notions, theologies and interpretations that seem suspect. In general, I am of the opinion that good theology is also practical theology and not merely ivory tower. This is one of those occasions, and the question concerned a teaching based on Exodus 20:5; 34:7; Numbers 14:18 and Deuteronomy 5:9, loosely called “generational curses”. The idea is that since God “punishes the iniquity of the fathers to the third and fourth generation”, the sins of a person carry with it a curse that extends to grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Such curses must be broken through repentance for the past sin and the power of prayer—almost to the level of exorcism—before a person can escape the penalty of punishment for something done by one's ancestors. In societies that already are rife with superstition, such a theology can play into an unhealthy worldview that already embraces various levels of magic in the collision between the unseen world with the visible world.

My response to this question is that I'm not on the side of the generational curse interpretation of these passages. I think it may be a classic misinterpretation of a Hebrew idiom. Here's why I think so. In the first place, Hebrew idioms often use numbers in non-mathematical ways (e.g., "for three sins, even for four" and "six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination" and "there are three things too wonderful for me, yes, four which I don't know", etc.). The passages cited may very well also be non-mathematical comparative idioms, which is to say, they intend to show the vast difference between God's punishment of sin and his great mercy toward faltering humans. The "punishing sin to the third and fourth generation" stands in contrast to the "showing mercy to thousands of generations". In other words, these are statements about God's character, and his character is such that his capacity for mercy far outweighs his punishment for sin. Expressed differently, but with the same essential intent, are the words of the Psalmists, "His anger lasts only a moment", but "his mercy endures forever." Hence, I doubt that these passages intend to teach that punishment for sin is passed down mathematically and generationally. At least one thing seems clear: there is no clear and unambiguous teaching in the Bible about such a thing as a generational curse. Certainly the apostles never voiced anything resembling such a thing, and so far as I am aware, it is entirely absent in the post-apostolic church and the Ante-Nicene fathers.

What for me is the clincher is the fact that the Israelites around the time of the exile had also taken these ancient statements in the Torah to refer literal, mathematical formulae. Hence, they had coined a proverb, "The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge" (Eze. 18:2; Je. 31:29). By this proverb, they intended to respond to Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's predictions of exile by saying, "It's not our fault. It's our parents' fault or our ancestors' fault if something happens, not ours." Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel say that this idea is fundamentally wrong. Jeremiah says, "Everyone shall die for his own sin," and Ezekiel says plainly that no one will die because of his ancestors' sins. Rather, if a person dies, it will be because of his own sins. If a parent sins, but the child turns away from the parents' sins, he will not suffer punishment for someone else's guilt.

In principle, then, the teaching of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, it seems to me, precludes the idea of the generational curse, at least as it was rehearsed by my missionary friend. Now, I will readily concede that some sins have implications that may extend to succeeding family members. For instance, a pregnant mother who uses cocaine will endanger her child. An alcoholic father's abuse of his children will leave scars that are deep and visceral. Both need healing. Nonetheless, these are not generational curses, at least as some of the faith-healers describe it. They are simply the consequences of reckless judgments that have affected others.

In the end, I do not subscribe to the generational curse theory, and my assessment is not very positive of healing ministries that are based on this notion. I'm sure many of the so-called healers are sincere, but I think they are sincerely mistaken.

The Moral Center of Islam?

Given the nearly daily interaction between Islam and western nations, it strikes me that there is minimal perception about the nature of this middle-eastern religion as it is commonly portrayed by the general media. My sense is that there are regular assumptions about Islam that are carry-overs from Christianity but not actually part of Islam itself. For instance, a few weeks ago in an interview with a Muslim cleric, the news commentator asked him directly, "Doesn't the Qur'an say that we are to love our enemies?" The cleric nearly swallowed his cud. It's a good idea, but it comes from Jesus, not Mohammed.

This, in turn, led me to wonder about whether or not Islam has a moral center, which is not quite the same thing as a theological center. Certainly Islam has a theological center, and it is that Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his prophet. Christianity has a theological center, also. "To us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ." At the same time, Christianity also has a moral center, first drawn from the Decalogue in the Torah and later from Jesus' commentary on the Decalogue in his Sermon on the Mount. Does Islam have anything similar? In my reading of the Qur'an and the Hadith, I can find nothing comparable to either the Ten Commandments or the teachings of Jesus about moral life.


Hence, to assume that Islam is, so to speak, "on the same page" as westerners, whose moral sensitivities are largely derived from Christianity (however far they may have strayed from the classical church), is to assume what, in fact, is not the case. The longer we hold such assumptions and attempt to come to the table for dialogue with Muslims, the harder it will be to make any real progress. One sees on bumper stickers the little sign spelling out "co-exist", using symbols from the world's great religions. This is a fine sentiment, but if cannot work if even one of those entities does not see it that way.