The following is a submission I wrote (a while ago) for the Babylon Bee that didn’t get published for obvious reasons.  Still, enjoy:

Houston, TX – Jason Johns, chief strategist for the presidential campaign of senator Theodore Cruz, announced some highly controversial new appointments to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in a news conference this week.  Speaking on Thursday, Johns commented on the previous appointment of notorious left-wing personalities to the PACFBNP:

“This week some of us at the Cruz camp were discussing how we’re tired of having the government appoint hippy life coaches, ‘white witches’ and feminist bloggers as our council advocates.  We’d like some properly balanced representation; guys who have a degree in something not related to feminism or gender studies.  If Cruz becomes the president, we can finally do something about this.  That got us thinking.  We know that the liberal crowd hates everything conservative, from churches to chicken sandwiches.  They want to silence conservatives…permanently.  Conservatives are getting really ticked off about getting pushed around too, and would love a chance to push back.  Why not give them all what they want?  Why not use that to generate government revenue?”

Johns then went on to detail a proposal where some of the existing council would be relieved of their duties and replaced with well known and thoroughly loathed conservative personalities.  Then, multiple persons from each side of the council would be selected randomly and thrown into a gigantic “negotiating dome” that would include a variety of dangerous elements and several caches of weapons.  They selected “negotiators” would attempt to find one another, organize, arm themselves and then engage the other team in order to come to an “agreement” on policy and implementation.

“Can you imagine Rachel Held Evans chasing Dana Loesch with a trident in an effort to discuss faith-based initiatives? Can you imagine a morris-dancing cat lady from the Episcopal Church US running into Albert Mohler and having a passionate discussion on neighborhood partnerships with his compound bow?”

Johns described how the proceedings of the council would be televised in a no-holds-barred pay-per-view event in an effort to raise necessary funds for relevant government programs. “Conservatives and liberals hate each others’ guts.  Why not remove the facade of civility? Would you pay to see that?  Of course you would, and our initial market research confirms that you’re definitely not alone!”

The Cruz campaign didn’t publish the numbers that their market research generated.  Johns did allude to the idea that if their plan were to be fully implemented with televised event prices at the level they were anticipating, the strategy would “make a significant impact on the national debt.”

The blog is still on standby as I’m still focused on pursuing pastoral work, but this was a quick and easy post to toss on here to keep some semblance of life.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “there’s no ‘I’ in ‘satire’ ” Unger

Save

My wife and I have an ongoing joke.

When we were first dating, we enjoyed talking about the subtle differences between our two cultures.  She’s American and I’m Canadian, and though people think that Canada is the politer, colder version of the United States, there are a few more differences than manners and climate.  We would always be talking and then one of us would suddenly drop a word that the other didn’t recognize.  One time, it took a trip to to an Office supply store to explain to her exactly what a Duo Tang was.

There was a second, related joke.  Since we were living in the US at the time we were dating and I was the foreigner, I would sometimes pretend to not know what she was talking about and I’d “plead Canadian.”  In other words, I’d feign ignorance and enjoy my girlfriend’s (now wife) shock and awe that I’d never heard of sour cream and onion chips (or whatever it was that we were discussing).  What can I say?  I’m a bit of a stinker.  So why do I bring this up?

I say this because I recently read Tim Challies article on Why I’m Not A Dispensationalist.  In case you haven’t heard of Tim Challies, he’s the most famous Christian blogger around (despite the claims of Frank Viola…and JD Hall).  Beyond blogging, he’s also a Canadian, a pastor, an accomplished author has even made it onto the Babylon Bee.  He’s written several books and even runs his own publishing company!

In other words, he’s a far bigger fish than I am.  I’ve got a blog and I sometimes write for another blog and I’ve also got…this cup:

So, when I read his article on Dispensationalism, I was surprised.

Tim, like me, is Canadian.  We both grew up in Canadian churches, and Canadian churches aren’t exactly known for being articulate, or committed, on their views of theological systems (namely Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology).  I have rarely met a Canadian pastor who has the necessary hermeneutical, exegetical and theological training to adequately sort through matters of theological systems.  I have also rarely had a conversation with a Canadian pastor where talk of theological systems came up and they didn’t mention the Left Behind books.  That being said, Tim Challies is no typical Canadian pastor.

So when I read his article, I was somewhat surprised that he “pleaded Canadian.”

But doesn’t that suggest that he’s falsely claiming to be ignorant of something?

Yup.

Allow me to explain.

In the article he said “In this area I have not carried out the same level of study as, for example, the doctrines of salvation or scripture” and then spent a whole paragraph talking about eschatology.  That gave me a hint for what was coming.

Tim then wrote:

Dispensationalism is a kind of framework for history that is organized around seven dispensations—seven orders or administrations. Particular to this framework is the eschatological position known as “premillennial dispensationalism” which holds that Christ will return prior to a literal one-thousand-year reign on earth. When I say I am not dispensational, this is primarily what I mean—I do not hold to premillennial dispensationalism.

Then, he quoted Greg Allison (from the Baker Compact Dictionary of Theological Terms) saying that Dispensatinal Premillennialism believes in a pretribulational rapture (I wrote a short overview of the relevant terminology which may help) and also a thousand year reign of Christ while Satan is bound.

Moving on from there he explained how he was raised in the Dutch Reformed tradition and therefore was raised as an Amillennialist, as taught (or allowed for) in various Catechisms.  He commented, again quoting Allison, that Satan is currently bound, allowing the gospel to go everywhere, and this binding will stop when Satan is loosed, defeated, the dead are raised and judged and finally Christ ushers in the eternal state.

Tim then wrote how he first discovered the concept of the rapture in the music of Petra (yes, the Christian Rock band) and then met someone while he was in grade 12 that believed and explained the idea to him.

Following that, he wrote,

So why am I not dispensational? I’d like to say that I have studied the issue very closely, that I have read stacks of books on eschatology, and that I can thoroughly defend my position against every alternative. But that’s not the case. It’s more that my reading of the Bible, my years of listening to sermons, and my study of Christian theology has not been able to shake or displace the amillennialism of my youth. To the contrary, it has only strengthened it.

He closed off with a positive recommendation of his pastors’ recent sermon series through Revelation, chalked up Dispensationalism as an equivalent error to Paedobaptism because they both “wrongly allow the Old Testament to have priority over the New Testament,” and then affirmed his love for John MacArthur.

So, what do I have to say about that all?

What else do I have to say?

Well, Tim rejects Dispensational Premillennialism, which is a subset of eschatology.  That doesn’t mean that he rejects Dispensationalism at all; not all dispensationalists are dispensational premillennialists.  For example, there are self-labeling dispensationalists who have differing views about certain aspects of the millennium and self-labeling dispensationalists also have differing views about the nature and timing of the rapture (not all are pretribulational).  I think he knows this to, since he defined Dispensationalism by writing:

“Dispensationalism is a kind of framework for history that is organized around seven dispensations—seven orders or administrations.”

That definition has nothing to do with eschatology.

So what was going on?

I think Tim was just feigning ignorance, or “pleading Canadian.”

He’s one of the most well-read guys around; he reviews books like a madman.  He has no shortage of connections in Evangelicalism, and definitely no shortage of exposure of people and ideas.  He said he hadn’t read “stacks” of books on eschatology, but he’s certainly read one.  It appeared to me that he was doing pre-emptive damage control since he knows John MacArthur and recognizes that his article will receive multiple responses.

Simply put, he cannot be that ignorant about Dispensationalism.  He has read something about it, certainly.  He has talked with people who have attempted to explain it to him, most definitely (i.e. MacArthur, or Phil Johnson, or someone).

He also cannot think that dismissing a compatible eschatological subset is equivalent to dismissing a theological system as a whole.

It’s not, and a competent and well-read thinker (like Tim Challies) would know that  Dispensationalism is far more than its various compatible eschatological subsets.

I mean, in all of 60 seconds I found John Macarthur directly addressing the definition of Dispensationalism, and MacArthur is one of the most widely known dispensationalists around (Tim mentioned him by name for a reason):

Now Tim has to have spent more than 60 seconds learning about Dispensationalism before rejecting it wholesale, especially when it’s something affirmed by people he knows and loves.  As an intelligent adult, he has to know that whatever components of Dispensationalism he encountered in a Petra song and twelfth grade isn’t representative of exegetically-derived, biblically-robust Dispensationalism.

Sure, there are plenty of people who would look at the phrase “biblically robust” and laugh, dismissing that as simple nonsense out of an ignorant prejudice.  I’d hope that someone as widely read and experienced in the best that evangelicalism has to offer, someone like Tim Challies, wouldn’t do so.  In fact, I find that rather hard to believe.

Hence, my only real option is that Tim “plead Canadian.” I imagine that he was anticipating what sort of fight he’d be drawn into if went into details or attempted to engage in an exegetical critique, so he just set us up to be disappointed and bunted.

I may certainly be wrong, but I hope not.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “trying to assume the best” Unger

P.S. – This blog is still on hiatus, contrary to all appearances (namely two posts in one day).

Save

Save

Save

Save

In the first post in this series, I gave a general overview of the idea of generational curses and took a quick look at some of the proponents of the teaching.  In the second post, I gave a quick look at one specific example of the teaching and gave a large list of texts used to attempt to make a biblical case for the existence of generational curses.  In this post, I’ll start what will become a multi-post response and refutation of the whole idea of generational curses.

Why do I feel like I need to make a multi-post response?

Haven’t others done that already?

Well, surprisingly few have taken the subject on with any sort of serious response.

Interestingly, the Assemblies of God actually have a shockingly good, albeit short, response to the problem of generational curses…but that only breeds some serious questions.  One has to wonder why is appears that many AOG pastors don’t care much about what the AOG theologians have to say.  In fact, I’d dare say that the AOG could go as far as requiring official & honest theological *fine print* disclaimers for every “revival”  and people would still flock by the thousands to every new revival, outpouring, or other assorted “move of the Spirit.”

Just in case some think I’m being a little too mean to those nice and faithful Assemblies of God brothers, Todd Bentley (among a few dozen others) was rocketed to international fame in an Assemblies of God church and yes, he’s still around and misleading the masses.  For those that oppose my use of Mr. Bentley as an example of what happens in AoG churches, I plead 1 Timothy 5:22.

There are also other folks that have attempted a response to generational curse theology.

Hank Hanegraaf has a confusing response (why positively mention inherited sin & Rom 5:12-21 in an article rebutting generational curses without explaining the difference?).

John Piper has an uncharacteristically weak response, where he pits one batch of inspired texts against another and then simply trumps the texts he doesn’t like with a greater number of texts he does.  I cannot think of any other issue where he does that so blatantly.  This gives the impression that the Bible doesn’t have a consistent and unified teaching on the subject and makes sorting through the issue seem absurdly difficult.

The best response I’ve read online is Bob DeWaay’s response, which is here.  It’s good and true, but not necessarily thorough enough.  I don’t want to see generational curse theology rebutted with some vague theological principles or a few contrary proof-texts.  I want to see it ground into dust and then torched…because it’s such utterly damnable and life destroying heresy.  In order to grind and torch, one should respond to the main exegetical support and then give a positive exegetical treatment of the subject.  So in preparation to do that, I’m going to list the common proof-texts by category and address them categorically.  Here’s the common texts used to support generational curse theology:

Category 1: God directly visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children: Ex. 20:5-6, 34:6-7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9-10, 7:9; Jer. 32:18.

Category 2: Children indirectly suffer for the sins of their fathers: Lev. 26:39:  Deut. 23:2; 1 Sam 2:27-34, 3:11-14; Lam. 5:7; Matt. 27:24-25.

Category 3: Generational curses are broken by “calling out” to the Lord: Judg. 3:9; 1 Sam. 12:10-11.

Category 4: A person needs to repent of the sins of their predecessors: Neh. 1:5-6; Jer. 14:20; Dan. 9:16.

Category 5: Children are blessed for the righteousness of their fathers: Prov. 13:22.

Category 6: Generational curses were broken, at specific times in the past, for Israel: Ez. 18:2-3; Jer. 31:29-30.

I apologize to those of you who think I’m going a little overboard, but the difference between passionate opinion and biblical conviction is doing the necessary work.   There are lots of people who label things as “unbiblical,” but that sadly means nothing these days.   Most of the time, people who call something “unbiblical” will follow up that sort of broad statement with a list of loosely-related-to-the-topic verses as if that is a sufficient rebuttal, without actually showing what those verses prove.  The internet is full of people who produce lists of verses to show how their insane ideas are apparently found in the Bible.  What the internet is not full of is people who have passionate conviction born from carefully sorting through all the relevant scripture in order to come to a comprehensively biblical and exegetical conviction.

Well, that’s exactly what I’m going to do…over the next several posts (though given my current pace, it will be well into 2017 before this series is done).  For those of you who face this theological trash (and it’s everywhere), this won’t necessarily be light reading.  I do hope that these posts will become a resource that you return to in the future.  Whenever time allows, I’ll do my best to compile them into a single  indexed page, like I did with my study on modesty.

In order to keep this shorter and more readable, I’ll cut it off now and address the texts in category 1 in the next post, with the following posts possibly dealing with multiple categories of texts.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Still going but not blogging much” Unger

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Welcome back, ye brave souls!

In the last post, I scared many people by laying out a large swath of biblical texts used to (supposedly) support the idea of generational curses.  I arranged those texts in six distinct categories, with each category being texts marshaled around a specific point of generational curse theology. Today, I’m only going to deal with the texts in Category 1.  Seeing that these are the most widely used texts to establish generational curse theology, I’m going to spend the most amount of time here.

This will be a bit of an undertaking, but I’m confident you can stomach it!

Category 1: God directly visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children: Ex. 20:5-6, 34:6-7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9-10, 7:9; Jer. 32:18.

Ex. 20:5-6 – This is one of the main texts that generational curse defenders rally to their defense.  Here’s the passage with its surrounding context:

⁴ You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. ⁵ You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, ⁶ but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. – Exodus 20:4-6

Let’s make a few observations:

a. Verse 4 is specifically addressing idolatry, and not some sort of “idolatry of the heart.” That would be addressed in the previous command of vs. 3: “You shall have no other gods before me.”  This is clearly talking about using physical objects, made by human hands, as some sort of recipient of worship, devotion or service…even if they’re claimed to be representative of Yahweh himself.  That’s kinda made clear with the exceedingly broad language of vs. 4 (“anything that is in heaven above…earth beneath…the water under the earth”).  God responds aggressively against the crafting and worship of physical idols.

The scope and reason for this command is given in verses 5 and 6.

b. The importance is the contrast between verses 5-6, not the amount of generations. The scope of the command in vs. 4 is made clear in the first clause: “you shall not bow down to them or serve them.”  The reason for this command is given in the rest of verses 5-6. The reason is that God is an exceedingly jealous God.  That’s not saying that he’s some petty teenager who pouts when someone doesn’t pay attention to him.  Rather, its to say that God’s honor is violated when people wrongly ascribe the blessings he provides to someone else.  He is the source of all the blessings that people receive, and he rightly deserves the credit for those vast and innumerable blessings.

Now, let’s look at the specific contrast.

The idea in 20:5 isn’t that God causes great-grandchildren to receive punishment for their great-grandparents’ sins (especially due to some sort of demons that are passed down “genetically” or “genealogically” or something idiotically pagan like that).  That seems obvious because the following 20:6 says “but showing steadfast love to thousands” with “thousands” being shorthand for “thousands of generations”…and if that’s true, can you think of any Christian parents who have kids have abandoned the Lord?

Yes?

“Thousands” of generations are a lot of generations…like a lot.  Like enough to take us back to Adam and Eve.

It that’s the case and 20:5 is a promise regarding the inevitability of punishment for the grandchildren of sinners, 20:6 is an obvious lie because it’s an equally clear promise for smooth sailing…for “thousands” of generations flowing from any faithful believer.  20:6 would seem to teach, rather plainly, that anyone who’s ever been faithful in all of history would inescapably produce a long line of saints…right?

Get it? Long line of Saints?

Neither verse is a guarantee of anything of the sort, and if anyone wants to make the point that “nobody ever could love God or keep his commandments”, I’d point them to Ps. 119:47-48.  That’s a passage where David claims (in inspired scripture) that he does, and look what happened to his family line?

So what is Ex. 20:5-6 saying then?  Exodus 20:5 is teaching that God passionately responds against sin, yes.  He responds to wickedness with a severity that affects one’s progeny, sure.  The Old Testament is full of dead bodies that can testify to that reality.  But, that’s not the point at all.  Not only does Yahweh respond aggressively against sin, but he’s over and exceedingly more passionate in his blessing of righteousness.

The “those who hate me” in 20:5 is paralleled with “those who keep my commandments” in 20:6.  Because of God’s exceedingly abundant blessing available to “those who keep my commandments”, he’s the one who Israel should worship.  He’s an absolute fountain of blessing, and all the deities of the pagan nations that surrounded Israel simple falsely claim his blessings as coming from them.

Remember, 20:5-6 is the reason that Israel shouldn’t commit idolatry, as defined in 20:4 and the first clause of 20:5.  20:5-6 is the logical reason undercutting Israel’s desire to commit idolatry.  If you want blessings (i.e. kids or crops), you attempt to honor the one who made the trees (Yahweh), rather than the one who is made from trees (the Ba’als, Asherah, Chemosh, Molech, Tammuz, Dagon, etc.).  It seems like something that doesn’t need to be said, but sinful people tend to need warnings against doing things that are clearly stupid.

c. Hypothetically speaking, even if the generational curse proponents were correct, one needs to pay attention to the active agent of cursing and blessing.  In Ex. 20:5-6, who’s the one doing the cursing?

God.

Who’s the one doing the blessing?

Also God.

So…the people who hold to generational curse theology are so blatantly twisting scripture that they don’t even pay attention to the surface reading of the very verses they cite repeatedly.

I mean really.  If God Almighty has brought a curse on someone, who’s going to make him stop?  Oh, I know what the generational curse proponents say.  Only God can make it stop since God brought it, and he does that by the means he’s outlined in Scripture: calling out and confessing the sins of one’s ancestors.

We’ll have to wait a little while to show why this idea is in serious error, but we’ll get there when we address the texts in category 3, 4 and 5.

Ex. 34:6-7 – This is one of the other main texts that generational curse defenders rally to their defense.  Here’s the passage with its surrounding context:

⁶ The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, ⁷ keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”- Exodus 34:6-7

Let’s make a few observations:

a.  The concept of visiting iniquity of the fathers on the children is still there, but this passages is clearly focusing on the aspect of blessings.  God proclaims his own glory and opens with what he wants to emphasize: he talks about how he’s a God of mercy, grace, patience, steadfast love, faithfulness, forgiveness, but also serious justice.  Just for the record, he’s 6-to-1 on the positive attributes and 250-to-1 on the amount of time he radiates the positive stuff forth.  The idea is not so much the math as it is the vast gap of the comparison.

Yahweh is a veritable tsunami of blessing.  He  is an unending fountain of mercy, grace, patience, steadfast love, faithfulness and forgiveness…but not an blind or naive one.  If you make him your enemy, you’ll discover that he’s not someone to be trifled with.

b.  Num. 14:13-24 (and Num. 14:18 is another one of the common supporting texts) is actually Moses’ and God’s own commentary on his understanding of what God said in Ex. 34:6-7 (and Ex. 20:4-6).  Moses understood that God was known as a forgiving God, hence in Num. 14:17 Moses asked God to show forth the power (and character) he claimed to have in Ex. 34:6-7.  In Num. 14:19 Moses asks God to do the thing that sets him apart from all his competitors: forgive the sins of this intransigent people “according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have forgiven this people, from Egypt until now.”

Deut. 5:9-10, 7:9; Jer. 32:18 – Considering that these are all various texts simply restating what was said in Exodus, I’d say that the previously stated refutations apply here.  Just to be sure, here are all three passages (set within a little context):

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. ⁹ You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, ¹⁰ but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. – Deuteronomy 5:8-10

Deuteronomy 5:10 is a verbatim quote of Exodus 20:6, which makes sense seeing that it’s a restatement of the same law.  Then, two chapters over comes Deuteronomy 7:9.

 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, ⁸ but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. ⁹ Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, ¹⁰ and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them. He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face. – Deuteronomy 7:7-10

Deut. 7:9 seems to be a loose restatement of Ex. 34:6-7.  It’s very interesting how Deut. 7:10 says that God “repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them.”  That’s Deuteronomy’s parallel to “visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children.”  It seems that the thrust of Deuteronomy is one of “repaying him to his face” since it’s said twice in one verse.  There’s a shift of focus in Deuteronomy’s restatement of the principle, but it is a shift that actually points away from generational curse ideas.  God doesn’t repay the enemies of his children; he repays his enemies to their face.

The last passages is Jer. 32:18.  I’ll place the verse within the greater passage since it’s quite informative.

¹⁷ ‘Ah, Lord God! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you. ¹⁸ You show steadfast love to thousands, but you repay the guilt of fathers to their children after them, O great and mighty God, whose name is the Lord of hosts, ¹⁹ great in counsel and mighty in deed, whose eyes are open to all the ways of the children of man, rewarding each one according to his ways and according to the fruit of his deeds. ²⁰ You have shown signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, and to this day in Israel and among all mankind, and have made a name for yourself, as at this day. ²¹ You brought your people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs and wonders, with a strong hand and outstretched arm, and with great terror. ²² And you gave them this land, which you swore to their fathers to give them, a land flowing with milk and honey. ²³ And they entered and took possession of it. But they did not obey your voice or walk in your law. They did nothing of all you commanded them to do. Therefore you have made all this disaster come upon them. – Jeremiah 32:17-23

Let’s make some observations again:

a. The contrast in vs. 18 is highly important.  As in many of the previous passages, God’s steadfast love is contrasted with his repayment of guilt, but the point made in the passage is found in the vast gap between the two.  God shows “steadfast love to thousands”, and in the context the term “thousands” is shorthand for “thousands of generations.”  Only after that is the statement made about repaying “the guilt of fathers to their children after them.”

As I said before, Yahweh is a veritable tsunami of blessing, but not an endless or naive one.  Those who oppose or rebel against him suffer horribly.

b. If Jer. 32:18 is taken as teaching a generational curse, the verse that immediately follows blatantly shows the error of that understanding.  If a person ignored the refutation of all the preceding misinterpreted passages and hung on Jer. 32:18 alone, they would think that they had a clear passage teaching a generational curse.  After all, 32:18 says “you repay the guilt of fathers to their children after them.”  That sounds like children being repaid for the actions of their fathers, right?

Not so fast.  Jer. 32:19 immediately derails that idea when it describes Yahweh as he “whose eyes are open to all the ways of the children of man, rewarding each one according to his ways and according to the fruit of his deeds.”  That’s also a clear statement, and unless one’s willing to suggest that Jeremiah contradicted himself in the following verse, a person should refrain from taking 32:18 as a straightforward statement about generational punishment.  There’s a hermeneutical principle that applies here: It’s always best to assume that the Biblical writers were smarter than your average sheriff from an 80’s sitcom.

c. Jer. 32:20-23  explains the statements of 32:18-19 .  God has indeed blessed Israel, giving them the land that he had swore to give to their forefathers (32:19-22), but they “did nothing of all you commanded them to do. Therefore you have made all this disaster come upon them”  (32:23).  God has indeed seen what Israel has done and has judged their actions accordingly.  The children suffered for the sins of their fathers in the sense of having to endure the punishment of their fathers, certainly, but the children weren’t directly punished for the sins of their fathers.

So there you have it; those are some of the most frequent texts used to support the idea of generational curses.  I hope I’ve given a little help to you, my readers, in understanding and articulating why those texts teach nothing of the sort.  That should be sufficient for now, and in the interest of keeping this post from becoming too long, I’ll stop here.  In the next post, I’ll deal with the texts in the second category.  Possible second and third.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Panda slapper” Unger

UnSave

Save

Although I’m not blogging these days, I’m still very active.  I’ve recently been doing some pulpit fill at Grace Fellowship Church Chilliwack.  I’ve briskly preached through 1 Thessalonians, and as I was doing my prep for 1 Thess. 4:13-18, I was working through the idea of Christ’s “coming”, and hammering through the term parousia (translated “coming” in 1 Thess. 4:15, as well as many other places) in the New Testament.  For interests of time, I won’t go through all the information I found, but I also want to put some helpful information on here for anyone who is interested in working through the issue (and the people who were listening to the sermon and struggling to keep up).

When Paul mentions Christ’s parousia in 1 Thess. 4:15, it’s a term with some specific background and meaning.  Examining the background and meaning is helpful in sorting out what Paul’s aiming at in 1 Thess. 4:15.

a. What is a Parousia?

Parousia can be a general term used for the “coming” or “arrival” of someone. It’s used this way in mentioning:

– Messengers from the church in Corinth who went to Paul – 1 Cor. 16:17

– When Titus went to visit Paul in Macedonia and comforted him – 2 Cor. 7:6-7

– Paul’s visit to the Philippians – Phil. 1:26, 2:12

– The future coming of the man of lawlessness – 2 Thess. 2:9

– The transfiguration of Christ – 2 Pet. 1:16

Parousia is always referring to an official coming or arrival by someone in authority; it’s when a person arrives in the power of their office or authority.

– A Parousia is not simply a specific calendar day, but rather an official affair.

Parousia is also used in a specific sense: the “coming” of Christ. The incarnation wasn’t technically a Parousia, hence Peter only refers to the transfiguration as a Parousia.

– The incarnation was Jesus’ coming with his authority and power being hidden (i.e. John 2:11 – his first sign that manifested his glory), but his Parousia will be when he comes with all authority and power on full display.

b. What is Christ’s Parousia?

Christ’s parousia is mentioned multiple times in passing in the New Testament (1 Thess. 2:19, 3:13, 5:23; James 5:7-8; 1 John 2:28), but details are only given four times in the New Testament.

i. Matt 24.

– It’s when he comes on the clouds and all men will see him ( 24:30)

– It’s when he gather his elect from all over the earth ( 24:31)

– It’s when he suddenly and unexpectedly appears ( 24:36-44), and Jesus says that after listing two dozen preceding signs in Matt. 24:4-29.

– How can something happen unexpectedly where there’s a boatload of sequential signs?

– That should give us pause to recognize that there might be a little more to this all than appears on the surface.

– This is difficult to understand stuff, hence he includes the “let the reader understand” in 24:15.

– It’s also not my intent to try to deal with all the issues of Matthew 24 either.  This is only a word study of a single word.  Sorry.

ii. 1 Cor. 15:23:

– It’s when believer get resurrected.

– 1 Cor. 15 is using very broad language, summarizing the period from Christ to the eternal state: “Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. ²⁴ Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.“

– So the parousia is sometime between Christ’s resurrection and the delivery of the kingdom to God the Father…that’s a fairly large window of time (but timing isn’t what Paul’s addressing in 1 Cor. 15).

iii. 1 Thess 4 – The text in question so we don’t discuss this here.

iv. 2 Thess 2:1-12

– This passage answers another question of timing, but it shifts from using “coming” in 2:1 to speaking about “the day of the Lord” in 2:2, which is a phrase that is even more broad in what it covers.

– The “Day of the Lord” follows the rebellion (2:3) which includes the lawless one establishing himself in the temple (2:4)

– Then, Jesus kills the antichrist by the breath of his mouth and brings all his influence  to nothing (my understanding of what’s meant by katargeo) by the appearance (epiphaneia) of his arrival (parousia) (2:8)

– 2:8 shows that Christ’s parousia is different than “the day of the Lord”, though they’re closely related.

The Parousia is a component of the “Day of the Lord”.

v. 2 Pet. 3:4-12  – People may suggest that this is a fifth mention that gives details of the parousia, but that isn’t really the case:

– The parousia of Christ is mentioned in that scoffers will mock Christ’s coming since death and creation has been continuing for as long as people can remember (2 Pet. 3:4).

– 3:10 – The “day of the Lord” will be when the heavens and earth will be burned up, as well as when all works will be judged.

– 3:11-13 – “Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, ¹² waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! ¹³ But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.”

– Notice that Christians await the coming of the “day of God” rather than “Christ’s coming”.  This whole passage isn’t really giving details about Christ’s coming but rather the day of the Lord.

– Now there’s a question of the relationship of the “Day of God”, the “Day of the Lord” and the “Coming of the Lord.”  Are those synonymous? Somewhat different? Does one encompass the other and include more stuff as well?  Again, this is a word study, not a book on eschatology.  Feel free to tackle that one on your own.

All that being said, Christ’s parousia is his sudden arrival where the world sees him, his enemies are destroyed and their work is overturned, and his elect are gathered unto him.  The primary mark of Christ’s parousia is the resurrection of believers.

That study doesn’t seem to help much since it clearly appears like there’s some rather problematic understandings, though many of those disappear when one recognizes that a parousia, being a composite affair rather than a singular event, can involve multiple events at different times.  A parousia could be an event that involves dozens of activities over a period of time, and a parousia isn’t so much a “when” but a “what”.  What the person does is arrives in their full authority and power, acting in an official capacity.   That acting may occur in a cornucopia of events and affairs…or it may not.

Who knows?

That hypothetically means that there could be multiple parousias of Christ.  I’m not saying that there are, but only that it’s within the realm of possibility.  Again, I’m not addressing all the related questions right now; there are far too many.

This is just a Bible Bite, not a book.  I apologize for not being able to address and resolve every possible question or issue that may hypothetically arise.  I wish I could do that for everyone, but there’s this annoying affair called “life” that gets in the way.

Dang it.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Longing for the day” Unger

Save

Save

Here’s something I taught the youth in my church recently as we were dealing with various issues related to Christianity.  I hope this is helpful to folks who have struggled with this question!

Christians who appeal to the Old Testament in conversations about homosexuality are often (crudely) accused of hypocrisy because the regulations regarding sexuality are part of the Old Testament Law.  The “Shellfish Objection” popularly comes up like this:

The Shellfish Objection is often articulated in a version of the following:

The Argument: Since the Bible condemns eating shellfish but Christians don’t obey the laws against eating shellfish, then they’re hypocritical when they quote other laws as binding.  In other words, Christians hypocritically pick and choose which rules they follow. 

Here are standard examples of laws that Christians apparently choose to ignore:

 Leviticus 11:7-8 – “And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. ⁸ You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.”

Leviticus 11:12 – “Everything in the waters that does not have fins and scales is detestable to you”

Leviticus 19:19 – “You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.”

Leviticus 19:27 – “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.”

Leviticus 19:28 – “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.”

Exodus 21:7-11 – “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. ⁸ If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. ⁹ If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. ¹⁰ If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. ¹¹ And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.”

Exodus 31:14-16 – “You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. ¹⁵ Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. ¹⁶ Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.”

A categorical answer to all accusations of hypocrisy regarding the Old Testament law:

In the early church, there was a question as to whether or not Gentile converts had to keep the law of Moses. When Paul and Barnabas were in Syrian Antioch, some Jews came and taught the Gentiles ” It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses ” (Acts 15:5).  There was a council assembled in Jerusalem to figure out what to do about this (Acts 15:6-21), and the council decided to give the Gentiles only four rules: “abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:20).

As a point of consistency, homosexuality would have been condemned by the council in Acts 15 since that would fall under the umbrella of “sexual immorality”.  The Old Testament was clear on the morality of homosexuality (among many other sexual practices), and that sexaul morality was upheld at the Jerusalem council.

 So that’s it? That’s all Christians have to do?

 Not really. The New Testament repeats plenty of commands in the Old Testament, and those are all binding on Christians.  Also, Christ gave a new command that was synonymous with the sum of the law:

“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.  By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” – John 13:34-35.

– Paul restated this in Romans 13:8 – “Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.”

What? So do Christians keep the law or not?

– The Christian is not judged by whether or not he keeps the law; Christ kept the law on our behalf (Galatians 2:15-16).

– Christians who love Christ should want to obey his commands (John 14:15, 21-24) and we should labor to understand and uphold the principle behind each law (Matthew 5-7).

– The summation of the law (“love one another”) does not, and can not, override the specific content of the law (i.e. the specific commands regarding this or that).  A person cannot recognize that the law forbids adultery, bearing false witness, murder, etc. and then suggest the summary teaching about all those actions (“love your neighbor”) somehow allows for the endorsement of their practice.  That’s utterly illogical and nonsense.

Some specific helps with previously listed passages:

Leviticus 11:7-8, 11 – The Food Laws

The food laws were explicitly overturned in the New Testament.

In Acts 10:1-8, Peter was summoned to the home of Cornelius, a Roman centurion (and Gentile).

Until this time, Peter didn’t really understand that the Gentiles were going to be included in the church, equally with the Jews.

In Acts 10:9-16, Peter has the same vision three times where God presented him with a bunch of unclean food (i.e. pork) and told him ” Rise, Peter; kill and eat” (Acts 15:13). When  Peter protested, God said “What God has made clean, do not call common” (Acts 15:15).

Jesus had taught this very thing in Mark 7:14-19, though the apostles didn’t necessarily realize the significance of his words when he said them.

Leviticus 19:19 – Cotton-Poly Blends and 2 types of Seeds

The mixing of fabrics would be wool and linen, not synthetic fabrics like polyester:

When this command is restated in Deuteronomy 22:9-11, this is spelled out: “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole yield be forfeited, the crop that you have sown and the yield of the vineyard. You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.

The priestly garments were made of linen and dyed thread, which would have been wool (Exodus 28:6-8, 39:4-5). This was the only garment allowed to be made from multiple fabrics.  This may help understand the possible meaning when one looks at both Leviticus and Deuteronomy:

The first condemnation in Leviticus seems to be one of corruption (don’t breed your cattle with something else), the second (when restated in Deuteronomy) seems to suggest that the entire crop would be corrupted (some sort of defilement) and the third condemnation in Leviticus likely involved something religious, as the only other mention of linen and wool in the Old Testament involves making the priests’ garments.

I cannot be sure, but it’s quite possible that interbreeding animals and crops was some sort of pagan fertility magic. Pagans would often do “sympathetic magic”, meaning that they’d do something and hope that the gods would copy them.  Interbreeding animals would be an effort to increase their performance and inter-planting crops would be an effort to increase yield.

This may also suggest that a person may dress in some sort of makeshift priest gown in order to confuse the gods into blessing them.

This is admittedly speculation: we don’t have the necessary information to definitively say what Leviticus 19:19 is condemning.

Either way, it’s not condemning wearing cotton and polyester at the same time.

Feel free to buy the newest fashions in cotton-poly blended fabrics…well, except for the current “clamdigger suits”.

Get it? CLAMdigger?

Those are just horrible.

 Leviticus 19:27 – Getting a Haircut

Leviticus 19:26 & 19:28 talk about divination and ceremonies involving the dead, and Leviticus 19:27 is set in the context of cutting hair or one’s beard in a way required by pagan superstition that would placate or honor the dead.

This is made more clear in Deuteronomy 14:1 where Leviticus 19:27-28 are combined into a single command: “You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead“.

 19:28 – Getting Tattoos

The term (qa’aqa) in is actually a word that means “incision” or “gash”, and it’s not talking about tattooing, but rather cutting.

We see the prophets of Ba’al doing this in 1 Kings 18:28.

Also, like the previous haircut example, it’s something done “for the dead”.

The Pagans did something to change their appearance so that when the dead would return, they would either be warded off or honored by the markings on the body.

This is typical paganism. It’s not about getting a tattoo with the logo of a band or anything like that.

A proper application of this would be to not copy the way the pagans in your land treat, or think of (i.e. revere, fear, or even worship), the dead.

Exodus 21:7-11 – Selling your daughter into slavery.

The morality of Exodus 21:7-11 is widely misunderstood:

There is a faulty assumption that slavery in the Bible was the same as the “slavery” in America and fueled our Civil War. That is entirely false. In reality, the “slavery” described in Scripture is an indentured servitude designed to maintain the dignity of a person or family in extreme poverty or debt. A good portion of ancient slavery was that kind of servitude, and the sort of “kidnap people and sell them into slavery for life” that happened during the European slave trade was condemned in the Bible. Exodus 21:2 and 21:16 explicitly forbid this.

The indentured servitude in the law, as well as in this instance, is only for 7 years ( Exodus 21:2).

Vs. 8 (“if she does not please her master) does not suggest that there is already a sexual relationship.

Also, vs. 10 doesn’t mean that the slave master has 2 wives; the slave woman is already rejected as a possible wife in vs.8. When it says ” he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights“, the passage means that the slave master shouldn’t keep the young woman from finding someone else to marry.

The idea is that a slave owner has no right to force a young woman in a perpetual state of chastity.

When you’re dealing with someone who is bringing up questions and accusations about slavery, the easiest way to shut them down is to force them into a biblical text and ask them to explain it.

Guys who attack the Bible usually haven’t paid any attention to the details. The minute you ask them a few questions, the wheels fall off their cart.

Beyond what I’ve written here, Fred Butler has a great response to this objection here.

What about slavery in general?

That’s a whole other topic that cannot be adequately addressed now. Still, there’s a good reason why the majority of people opposing the European slave trade were Christians.

When you look at history, there were people arguing for slavery and appealing to passages like Exodus 21, but the opponents of the slave trade rightly pointed out that the specific biblical  rules about slavery overtly condemned the manifestation of slavery practiced in Europe and the Americas (i.e. Exodus 21:1, 21:20, 21:16, 21:26-27).

Also, Christians capitalized on the fact that men are all equal creatures, made in the image of God. Because of this fact, the entire slave trade was a horrible institutionalizing of the idea that some men were inferior to others, and even sub-human. The Christian opponents of the slave trade spoke out against this wicked thinking.  In the late 1700’s slaves were legally categorized as “goods and chattel”, meaning that they were considered to be animals who could be beaten and killed without any legal recourse.

Slavery, as practiced in Europe and the Americas over the past several hundred years, was a horrid evil that was rightly abolished.

Exodus 31:14-16 – Keeping the Sabbath

The Old Testament commands the keeping of one day aside from the others for the purpose of rest and worship.

In the New Testament, the early church changed which day they would meet on in order to coincide with the resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2).

There was some disagreement in the early church about which day was to be taken as a special day for worship and rest. Choosing which day was a matter of conscience for the early Christians (Colossians 2:16-17).

Therefore, Christians don’t have to treat Sunday as a special day for rest and worship, but many do.

– Any Christians who don’t worship on Sunday aren’t sinning.

So that wraps up a quick look at the “Shellfish Objection”.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “enjoying my lobster in good conscience” Unger

Save

In our last post, we looked at the main supporting texts for the idea of Generational Curses from category 1: texts that are argued to teach that God directly visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children.  That list covered the main and most typical biblical texts used to promote the idea of Generational Curses, so that post will be the largest and most in depth of this series.  Still, there are several secondary supporting texts that need to be dealt with.

Generational Curse theology is a false theology that needs to be replaced with proper biblical theology, and that doesn’t involve a single text or an unexplained list of texts.

Category 2: Children indirectly suffer for the sins of their fathers: Lev. 26:39; Deut. 23:2; 1 Sam 2:27-34, 3:11-14; Lam. 5:7; Matt. 27:24-25.

Lev. 26:39 – The idea here is that apparently Israel would suffer for their fathers sins if they disobeyed the Lord.

And those of you who are left shall rot away in your enemies’ lands because of their iniquity, and also because of the iniquities of their fathers they shall rot away like them. – Leviticus 26:39

Let’s make some observations:

a. This is part of a longer section.  The section is Lev. 26:14-45, and it’s talking about the punishments that Israel will face if they don’t obey the Lord and keep the law.  In that context, it becomes clear that the entire section is talking about the punishments that the disobedient will face, in their lifetimes.  It would be strange if the entire thrust of the section changed, but only for a single verse, and then went back to what it was saying.  A good hermeneutical rule that would apply here is this:

When in doubt, it’s best to assume that biblical writers didn’t have tourette’s syndrome.

In other words, Biblical writers don’t tend to change topics for 3 seconds and then keep going with a previous discussion.  That’s possible, but that’s certainly not typical.

b. The surface reading of the text doesn’t say what some claim.  The first half of the verse says that those who are punished will be punished “because of their iniquity”.  The second half of the verse adds to that statement; it doesn’t contradict it.  I’d suggest that it’s not saying that those who are punished receive punishment for their sins and the sins of others, but rather that those who commit the same sins as their fathers will receive the same punishment that their fathers’ received.   The main problem here is the word “because”, which isn’t in the Hebrew but is rather inferred by translators.

Deut. 23:2 – This text is taken to teach a universal principle that children suffer for their parents sins; specifically their forbidden marriages.

No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord. – Deuteronomy 23:2

Let’s make a some observations:

a. This is indeed a case of children being excluded from the religious life of Israel on the basis of who their ancestors were.  That much is true.

b. The confusion disappears when one does what needs to be done on any problematic text: read the surrounding text.  The previous verse comments on those who cannot enter the assembly of the Lord because they’re emasculated.  The following 5 verses comment on those who cannot enter the assembly of the Lord for ten generations due to who their parents were (vs.3-6) and those who cannot enter the assembly of the Lord for three generations due to who their parents were (vs.7-8).

The surrounding passages make it clear that the both the penalty and the group being penalized are specific.   The Ammonites and Moabites, including their offspring unto the tenth generation, cannot enter the assembly “because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you” (23:4).  This is a highly specific prohibition against a specific group of people for a specific reason, not a general principle of life.  This was also a historically isolated prohibition.  Unless you’re of Amonite/Moabite descent and are unfathomably old, as in “old” on the level of someone who runs around having sword fights in parking garages that result in mediocre 80’s lightning effects, this cannot possibly apply to you.

1 Sam. 2:27-34 – This text is also taken to teach a universal principle that children suffer for their parents sins using the example of Eli and his two boys.

²⁷ And there came a man of God to Eli and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Did I indeed reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh? ²⁸ Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel. ²⁹ Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded for my dwelling, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?’ ³⁰ Therefore the Lord, the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,’ but now the Lord declares: ‘Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed. ³¹ Behold, the days are coming when I will cut off your strength and the strength of your father’s house, so that there will not be an old man in your house. ³² Then in distress you will look with envious eye on all the prosperity that shall be bestowed on Israel, and there shall not be an old man in your house forever. ³³ The only one of you whom I shall not cut off from my altar shall be spared to weep his eyes out to grieve his heart, and all the descendants of your house shall die by the sword of men. ³⁴ And this that shall come upon your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, shall be the sign to you: both of them shall die on the same day. – 1 Samuel 2:27-34.

Let’s make some observations:

a.  Eli’s whole household was wicked. Hophni and Phineas were wicked lads. 1 Sam. 2:12-17 talks about how Hophni and Phineas would abuse the altar of the Lord and take the best meat for themselves. 1 Sam. 2:22-25 comments about how Hophni and Phineas used to take sexual advantage of when women who served in the tent of meeting.  1 Sam 2:17 reads “the sin of the young men was very great in the sight of the Lord, for the men treated the offering of the Lord with contempt” and 1 Sam. 2:25 reads “it was the will of the Lord to put them to death.”  Those two clowns weren’t innocent lads being punished for the sins of their father.  They were wicked men who, along with their wicked father, had made themselves enemies of God and were about to get what they had coming.

b.  Eli’s sin was letting his sons get away with their wickedness. 1 Sam. 2:29 contains God’s condemnation of Eli.  God stated clearly that “do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded for my dwelling, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel.” Eli got exceedingly fat by partaking in his son’s sins (1 Sam. 4:18), and the Lord had decided to get rid of Eli’s entire family line and “raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind” (1 Sam. 2:35).

1 Sam 3:11-14 – This  passage is God telling Samuel what he plans to do to Hophni, Phineas, and the house of Eli.  The arguments above apply equally here.  Rather than teaching that Hophni and Phineas suffered for their father’s sins, God clarifies the situation when he says “I declare to him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them” (1 Sam. 3:13).

Lam. 5:7 – This is taken as a straightforward statement on children being punished for their parents’ sin.

“Our fathers sinned, and are no more; and we bear their iniquities.” – Lamentations 5:7

Let’s make some observations:

a.  Once again, reading the surrounding text clarifies matters. Jeremiah writes as if he were all Israel, commenting on their current state.  He writes that their inheritance is gone (v.2),  they’re orphans (v.3),  they have to buy water and wood (v.4),  they’re constantly pursued (v.5), they’ve been forced to buy food from Egypt and Assyria (v.6), they’re being ruled over by slaves (v.8), their lives are in danger while farming (v.9), they’re having a famine (v.10), their woman are raped (v.11), there is no leadership at all (v.12), they’re made slaves (v.13), all wisdom and joy is gone (v.14-15).  Then, at the end of the long list cataloguing their suffering, Jeremiah writes “The crown has fallen from our head; woe to us, for we have sinned!” (v.16) and shows that Israel isn’t an innocent victim in this all.

b.  There’s a simple solution.  Lamentations 5:7 doesn’t mean that the children, who are living under the results of their parent’s rebellion, are innocent.  That’s clarified by Lam. 5:16.  The whole point of generational curse theology is that children are punished for a crime they didn’t commit.

That is definitely not the case here.

Matt. 27:24-25 – This is the apparently the Jews willfully taking a generational curse upon themselves.

“So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.’ ²⁵ And all the people answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’ ” – Matthew 27:24-24

Let’s make some observations:

a.  This text doesn’t even teach generational curse theology on the surface. Even if generational curse theology were true (and it isn’t), this text, at best, loosely alludes to it.  The fact that the Jews cried out “His blood be on us and on our children!” doesn’t mean that they could somehow willfully curse their children by killing Jesus.  Their desire to do something doesn’t mean that they were actually able to do so.

b.  The text isn’t saying that they wanted to curse their kids.  The people cried out for the blood of Jesus, and willfully wanted to bear responsibility for his death.  They wanted him dead so bad they would willingly and consciously commit murder, and that’s what they were saying.  They were telling Pilate, “even if you are innocent of this man’s blood, we don’t want to be!”

Category 3: Generational curses are broken by “calling out” to the Lord: Judg. 3:9; 1 Sam. 12:10-11.

Judg. 3:9  – This text is taken to say that people called out to the Lord and a generational curse was broken.

“But when the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people of Israel, who saved them, Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother.” – Judges 3:9

Let’s make some observations:

a.  Once again, reading the surrounding text clarifies matters (this seems to be a theme). In Judges 3:9, the people were suffering for the sin they committed. Judges 3:7-8 states “And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord. They forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals and the Asheroth. Therefore the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia. And the people of Israel served Cushan-rishathaim eight years.”  So even if curses were lifted by crying out to the Lord, this text isn’t an example of a generational curse.

b.  This is a pattern in Judges.  The book of Judges has a simple pattern in it:

1) Israel rebels against the Lord and forsakes him for pagan gods (Judges 3:7, 3:12, 4:1, 6:1, 10:6, 13:1, 17:1-13, 19:1-24), then

2) God sends someone to oppress Israel (Judges 3:8, 3:12-14,  4:2, 6:2-6, 10:7-9, 13:1, 18:1-27; 19:25-28), then

3) Israel cries out to the Lord (Judges 3:9, 3:15, 4:3, 6:7, 10:10-18, [in 19:29-20:22, Israel essentially cries out to themselves for justice, which shows just how far gone they are as a rebellious nation]), then

4) God sends a deliverer (Judges 3:9-11, 3:15-30, 4:4-24, 6:8-8:35, 11:1-12:7, 13:2-16:31, 18:28-31, 20:23-21:25).

None of the oppression and suffering in Judges happens because of the sin of someone else; the people of Israel suffer due to their own rebellion.  People do indeed suffer at the hands of the Lord; he brings oppression, discipline, trouble, etc.  Calling out to him in faith and repenting of one’s sin is the only way to be reconciled to the Lord and change his posture towards you.

So yes, calling out does change your situation, but calling out to the Lord doesn’t remove a generational curse since people don’t suffer for the sins of another.

1 Sam. 12:10-11 – This is taken in the same way as the previous text.

“And they cried out to the Lord and said, ‘We have sinned, because we have forsaken the Lord and have served the Baals and the Ashtaroth. But now deliver us out of the hand of our enemies, that we may serve you.’ ¹¹ And the Lord sent Jerubbaal and Barak and Jephthah and Samuel and delivered you out of the hand of your enemies on every side, and you lived in safety.” – 1 Samuel 12:10-11

Let’s make some observations:

a.  This is just the prophet Samuel recounting the events of the book of Judges. See the entire previous discussion.

b.  Again, context, Context, CONTEXT.  The two preceding verses rule out the possibility of a generational curse. 1 Sam. 12:8-9 read “When Jacob went into Egypt, and the Egyptians oppressed them, then your fathers cried out to the Lord and the Lord sent Moses and Aaron, who brought your fathers out of Egypt and made them dwell in this place.  But they forgot the Lord their God. And he sold them into the hand of Sisera, commander of the army of Hazor, and into the hand of the Philistines, and into the hand of the king of Moab. And they fought against them.“

I’ll anticipate an objection: vs. 8-10 are talking about “your fathers”, and vs. 11 switches to “you”.  Some folks might suggest that this is evidence of generational curse language, but it’s worth noticing that it’s basically impossible for the “you” to mean “you who hear my voice right now” as opposed to “you, the nation of Israel”.  The obvious reason would be that Gideon judged Israel 40 years (Judges 8:28), Abimelech ruled 3 years (9:22), Tola judged Israel 23 years (10:2), Jair judged Israel 22 years (10:3), Israel was oppressed 18 years before Jephthah arose to save them (10:8) and judge Israel 6 years afterwards (12:7), Ibzan judged Israel 7 years (12:9), Elon judged Israel 10 years (12:11), Abdon judged Israel 8 years (12:14), the Philistines oppressed Israel 40 years (13:1) and Sampson judged Israel 20 years (16:31), and that was before Samuel was even born.  Clearly, the people who Samuel was addressing in 1 Sam. 12:10-11 weren’t 250+ years old.  That means that when Samuel said “And the Lord sent Jerubbaal and Barak and Jephthah and Samuel and delivered you out of the hand of your enemies” (12:11), he wasn’t saying that the people who heard his voice at that moment were the same people who were delivered by Gideon and Barak…and himself.  That’s clearly not the case.

And…that closes off this post!  It might be a bit much, but I’m going to try to knock out all the remaining proof-texts for Generational Curse theology in my next post.  Let’s lay this horrible heresy to rest.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “calling out to the Lord” Unger

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

In this day, there is no shortage of confusion about Heaven: it’s one of the topics of Christian theology that innumerable unbalanced and unregenerate people love to focus on (that and angels, which is highly related).  There is no shortage of fools and frauds that claim to have insight into Heaven; what it’s like, the nature of it, who goes there, etc.  Also, the last twenty years or so has produced a gaggle of I Went To Heaven books where some clown claimed to go to Heaven and get the inside scoop (every single one of those people is lying, and I explain why here).   There’s no shortage of claims about Heaven out there, and it gets pretty crazy.  Try and survive a few minutes of this barking-mad insanity, which is shockingly peddled by the New Apostolic Reformation crowd (Just kidding…I’m not shocked for a second).

So in an effort to help sort through the mess of misinformation,  I took my youth group through a brief exploration of the topic of Heaven.

Here’s the notes I gave them, for your encouragement and edification!

Let’s explore the topic of Heaven with a few questions:

1. What is Heaven?

Heaven is the dwelling place of God, in a place other than where our planet is (Deuteronomy 10:14; 1 Kings 8:27, 30, 32, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49; 2 Chronicles 6:21, 23, 25, 27, 30, 33, 35, 39; 2 Chronicles 7:14; 2 Chronicles 30:27; Nehemiah 9:6, 27-28; Psalm 2:4, 53:2, 73:25, 102:19, 115:3, 139:8; Ecclesiastes 5:2; Lamentations 3:41, 50; Isaiah 63:15; Matthew 5:16, 5:45, 6:9, 10:32, 12:50; John 12:28).

We can speculate about the spiritual realm (where it is, what it’s like, etc.) but speculation isn’t terribly helpful.  All we really need to know is that Heaven isn’t here, meaning part of this world that we see and touch.  It’s somewhere else, and the exact nature of what that means is a mystery to us.

Heaven is the home of Jesus (Luke 24:51; John 3:13, 3:31, 6:38; Acts 1:9-10), where he administered his priestly work for believers (Job 16:19; Hebrews 9:24) and current sits (Acts 7:55-56; Ephesians 1:20, 2:6; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 8:1; 1 Peter 3:22), awaiting his return (Hebrews 10:12-13; Acts 1:11).

Heaven is the dwelling place of elect angels (Luke 2:13-15, 22:43; Galatians 1:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:7).

Heaven is the place where believers go (temporarily) when they die (2 Kings 2:11; Luke 10:20, 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:23; 2 Thessalonians 4:18; Hebrews 12:23).

Heaven is also the place where the things believers hope for are stored (Ephesians 1:3-10; Colossians 1:5; 1 Peter 1:4).

2. What is Heaven like?

The exact nature of Heaven is unknown to us, since Heaven is a place inaccessible to people (Deuteronomy 30:12).

Still, we know that there is a current Heaven (known as the intermediate Heaven):

The intermediate Heaven is where God sits on his throne; the floor is clear like crystal and God is surrounded by his angels (Exodus 24:9-10, 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chronicles 18:18; Psalm11:4, 103:19, 123:1; Ezekiel 1:22-28; Matthew 18:10; Revelation 4:1-11).

The intermediate Heaven has a temple in it; it is the temple on which the earthly temple was based (Hebrews 8:5, 9:23-24; Revelation 11:19).

The intermediate Heaven is the place where believers go while they await the resurrection (see previous question for Scriptural support).

The intermediate Heaven is the place where believers get their eternal bodies (1 Corinthians 15:47-49; 2 Corinthians 5:1-4), therefore Heaven has some sort of physical aspect to it.  Just how that works, we do not know.

The intermediate Heaven is also a place where believers store up rewards (Matthew 6:19-21; Mark 10:21); the idea that one stores up incorruptible rewards with money again suggests that there is some sort of tangible aspect to Heaven, though the Bible doesn’t directly address the nature of Heaven in this regard.

The intermediate Heaven is also the “country” (so to speak) in which believers have their citizenship (Ephesians 2:19; Philippians 3:20; Hebrews 11:16).

The intermediate Heaven is also a place of righteousness; there’s no sin or temptation and believers will perfectly love one another (Matthew 22:30; 1 Corinthians 13:13; Revelation 21:27).

There is also a coming Heaven (known as the eternal Heaven) that will be different than the current intermediate Heaven and will be discussed below.

3. Who goes to Heaven?

Those with the Holy Spirit go to Heaven (2 Cor. 5:1-5).

The ones who Jesus has prepared a place for; he will take them to Heaven to be with him (John 14:1-6).

The ones who God calls to Heaven go to Heaven (Rev. 11:12).

In other words, the righteous go to Heaven (Rev. 6:9-11).

4. What do people do in Heaven?

In Heaven, people worship God (Rev. 4:10, 7:9-11, 11:15-16, 15:2, 19:4).

Those who are in Heaven also observe the earth and respond to earthly occurrences accordingly (Luke 15:7, 16:27-31; Revelation 6:9-11).

In Heaven people are finally sinless, having the presence and power of sin removed from them completely (Rom. 8:18, 28-30; 1 Peter 4:13; Revelation 7:9, 13-14).  This is the main reason that Heaven is a place of unmitigated joy.

Heaven is also a place where believers receive comfort (Luke 16:25), rest from all the struggles and trials of life (Heb. 3:7-4:11), and reunion with fellow believers (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, 2 Thessalonians 2:1)

5. How long are people in Heaven?

Heaven is not where believers will spend eternity.  Believers who die in the time before the second coming will go to Heaven and return with Jesus when he comes to gather believers (Matthew 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27) and set up his thousand-year kingdom (Is. 65:17-25; Daniel 2:36-45, 7:23-27; Revelation 20:4).  Before the kingdom, all the wicked men and angels will be rounded up and removed from this realm, awaiting their final judgment (Isaiah 24:21-23; 34:1-8; Matthew 13:40-43).  After the kingdom and the final rebellion of Satan and sinners (Revelation 20:7-10), God will destroy both the earth and space (Is. 51:6; 2 Peter 3:7-12; Matthew 5:18, 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; Hebrews 12:26-28) and re-create the entire universe (Isaiah 66:22-24; 2 Peter 3:13).

6. What happens after the intermediate Heaven?

After the earth and space are destroyed, Christ’s kingdom will be handed over to the Father when the eternal Heaven merges with the new Earth. This coming Heaven will be the New Jerusalem; the “streets of gold” place that most people confuse with the current Heaven (Revelation 21:1-27).

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Longing to be Home” Unger

Save

Save

Ah, the American Election.  Watching from Canada, it’s been a bit of entertainment that may bode trouble for Canada, though it’s far too early to tell. I’m not too apathetic toward American politics, though I definitely don’t make a habit of following them.  My wife is from the US, and I have many close friends south of the 49th, so it’s not of no consequence to me.

Still, the election is over now and the aftermath is already being forgotten.  Apparently now that Trump has become the president-elect, mobs of previously-restrained racists and homophobes are free to run around and beat people in the streets…except all of the claimed “Trump instigated violence” stories that I’ve seen in the media are fabricated.  Sadly, lying is how the political (and theological) left has always rolled.  Reason and truth are secondary to the desired agenda.

Those signs should say “I obviously shouldn’t be here,” “I don’t understand how naturalization works” and “This protest shouldn’t be effective”…

That’s all nothing new…but also not terribly encouraging.

So what’s with the title of the blog post?

Well, there is a ray of hope in this all, at least for Christians.

Since everyone was paying so much attention to antics and wikileaks/media exposure of Hillary and Trump, I don’t think too many were really concentrating much focus on the running mates.  Hillary was running alongside Tim Kaine, but he’s irrelevant now.  Trump, on the other hand, was running alongside Mike Pence.  This is where things get interesting.

I didn’t have a clue who Mike Pence was before, so I looked into him.  I was expecting to find someone that was like Donald Trump (i.e. a moral cesspool) but was beyond surprised at what I found.

For a few small limited examples:

1. Mike Pence has been waging a war against Planned Parenthood since at least 2011; not just to curb their abortions, but to cut all federal funding to them.
2. Mike Pence has been opposed to needle exchange programs for many years, but has also shown a willingness to allow for them when they appeared to be an immediate necessity.
3. Mike Pence has defended marriage from culturally-driven re-definition and has also defended religious rights.

He seems to be the antithesis of Trump; a man of upstanding moral character who operates on consistent principle.  That’s somewhat understandable when one hears that he’s a committed Christian, though that could mean absolutely anything these days.  That’s doubly true when one recognizes that the media is reporting stories of his religious leanings and  one remembers how utterly confused 99.9% of the media is when it comes to even the most basic facts of Christianity…but that’s not really that surprising in a day where 1 in 8 Americans think that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife.

So I looked into Mike Pence’s church.  Where he goes tells me what he’s hearing and what sort of theology and practice he’s exposed to (as it did in the last election.  Anyone remember Obama’s pastor?).   I found this article at the Daily Beast where Yashar Ali went to “mass” at Pence’s Evangelical church (College Park Church in Indianapolis), spoke with several “parishioners,” and heard veiled political commentary in the pastor mentioning  “the absolute sovereignty of Jesus Christ” (read my previous comment about media confusion regarding basic facts about Christianity. Us Protestants haven’t celebrated a “mass” in a few centuries…).  Still, that article got me to the church website.

When looking through the mission and history, it appears to be a typical evangelical seeker-friendly, Acts 29-styled “Let’s just focus on Jesus” sort of church.  Nothing bad, but I’ve long since learned that mission, vision and history don’t really tell you what a church is really about. Their resource library, however, is incredibly telling.  They have excellent introductory resources on Creation, Sin, Salvation, and Eschatology.  They use the Desiring God Children’s curriculum.  Their bookstore has stuff from Stuart Scott, Martha Peace, John Piper, IX Marks, Robert Somerville, Ed Welch, Elyse Fitzpatrick, Ken Sande, Ted Tripp, Lou Priolo, John MacArthur, Wayne Mack, Jerry Bridges, James MacDonald, Don Whitney, Tim Keller, Heath Lambert, etc.  They have a decent doctrinal statement. They do Biblical Counseling.

What?  How can this be?

Then, I looked at their pastors.  The lead/preaching pastor is Mark Vroegop.  He’s a grad of Cedarville and Grand Rapids Theological Seminary who has written for the Gospel Coalition and speaks alongside people like Al Mohler and Bruce Ware at Desiring God conferences.  Don Bartemus  is the pastor of compassion ministries and is a Cedarville and Grace Seminary grad (DMin) and also speaks at Desiring God conferences.  Joe Bartemus does adult education and has an MDiv from Grace Seminary, and brings in people like D.A. Carson to help with teaching.   Andrew Rogers is the pastor of soul care.  He has an MA in Biblical Counseling from Masters College, an MDiv from Master’s Seminary and is getting a PhD in Biblical Counseling from Southern Seminary.  Rogers speaks at ACBC conferences, on ACBC podcasts, and even teaches Biblical Counseling at the college level.

I now understand why the media hasn’t gone after Mike Pence with a flamethrower: they don’t even have a clue what category to put these sort of guys in.  They’re not ignorant and bigoted fundamentalists that the media can easily (and comfortably) pigeonhole.  They’re not spineless liberals.  They’re not the Charisma Magazine type of fruitcakes that Trump tends to have anointing him with oil.

The guys that pastor at College Park are smart, articulate and biblically savvy guys; the kind who most HuffPo or Politico writers have never really met, let alone understand in any way whatsoever.  Mike Pence goes to a church run by a bunch of theological unicorns.  If the media understood even a tiny bit about Mike Pence, they would have ignored Trump and waged an all out war on Mike Pence…but their ignorance was orchestrated by a sovereign and divine hand.

Governor Mike Pence, soon to be Vice President Pence, has been involved with those theological unicorns for several years.  He’s being taught by good and godly men, and he’s actually being taught a Biblical view of the world.  Properly understood biblical principles are the underlying principles that drive him and make him a consistent politician who stands up against popular opinion to do what’s morally admirable.  He’s the kind of man authentic evangelicals (not the Religious Right or the Charismaniacs) have wanted in the White House for decades.  He’s not looking to take over one of the seven mountains.  He’s a Bible-believing Christian, with some nuance and balance and wisdom, that could influence some authentic and incredibly positive change…but a guy like that would have never got within a thousand miles of the White House if not for the biblical-proportioned distraction of Donald Trump…and speaking of the Bible, God has a good record of having great and godly men do amazing things when they’re second in command of wicked nations.

“The Lord kills and brings to life;
    he brings down to Sheol and raises up.
The Lord makes poor and makes rich;
    he brings low and he exalts.
He raises up the poor from the dust;
    he lifts the needy from the ash heap
to make them sit with princes
    and inherit a seat of honor.
For the pillars of the earth are the Lord‘s,
    and on them he has set the world.” – 1 Samuel 2:6-8

That is most certainly a ray of hope.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “1 Timothy 2:1-4” Unger

Save

Save

Save

Save

In the previous post, we looked at some of the secondary supporting texts for the idea of Generational Curses from categories 2 & 3.  Those texts are utilized to argue that Children indirectly suffer for the sins of their fathers and Generational Curses are broken by “calling out” to the Lord.  We worked through each text in the list and showed how they don’t teach Generational Curse theology at all.  Now, it’s time to finish off the list of secondary text with the three remaining categories of texts.

For those of you who have endured this series, I applaud your persistence.  This series is not meant to be a “read through to the end” sort of series, but rather a “resource you can use in the future” that will deal with a bunch of texts that cover all the main beliefs that make up generational curse theology.  So even if someone tosses a bunch of verses at you that I haven’t dealt with specifically, I’ll have dealt with the concept and will hopefully provide you with a bit of help in sorting through the concept.

The whole concept of Generational Curses is a theology that is the sort of “doctrines of demons” that Paul warned Timothy about in 1 Timothy 4:1.  So, let’s tear down what remains of this paper house and close off this series.

Category 4: A person needs to repent of the sins of their predecessors: Neh. 1:5-6; Jer. 14:20; Dan. 9:16. The supposed story with all three of these texts is that the person in the text had to repent of the sins of their forefathers in order to gain some sort of blessing in the present.

Neh. 1:5-6

And I said, “O Lord God of heaven, the great and awesome God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, ⁶ let your ear be attentive and your eyes open, to hear the prayer of your servant that I now pray before you day and night for the people of Israel your servants, confessing the sins of the people of Israel, which we have sinned against you. Even I and my father’s house have sinned.

Let’s make some quick observations:

a. The fact that Nehemiah, as a government official, prayer for the nation and took ownership for national sins doesn’t even support the premise.  If anything, this passages teaches that national officials take national blame for national actions.  This isn’t an individual person being blamed for the sin of an individual who preceded him by a few generations.  A parallel would be if a Christian Prime Minister repented, on behalf of Canada, for the nationally sponsored abortions that his country has been paying for over the years.  Because that Prime Minister actually represents the nation, he can also turn that nation away from their national sins (including long-established ones).

b.  Nehemiah admitted to participating in the sins of his ancestors.  Look at the end of vs. 6. The Generational Curse idea of “confessing the sins of your ancestors” is not personal identification with, and repentance of, the sins of your forefathers that you also commit.  In Generational Curse theology, the idea is repenting of sins that your forefathers committed that you don’t commit.  Sometimes, it’s even repenting of sins that you didn’t even know your forefathers committed.

c.  Nehemiah doesn’t excuse the sin of his contemporaries on the basis of their forefathers.  In Generational Curse theology, a person is said to be sinning essentially against their will.  Someone is a drunk in Generational Curse theology, it’s because of the curse, not their willful rebellion.  That’s not saying that generational curse theology teaches that people are automatons, but rather that the main driving force to committing specific willful sins is one of a generational curse rather than a person’s own wicked desires.

Jer. 14:20

We acknowledge our wickedness, O Lord, and the iniquity of our fathers, for we have sinned against you.

I could say something, but essentially I’d be repeating points (b) and (c) above.  Jeremiah is calling on Israel to stop participating in the sins of their forefathers.

Dan. 9:16

O Lord, according to all your righteous acts, let your anger and your wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy hill, because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and your people have become a byword among all who are around us.

I could say something, but essentially I’d be repeating points (b) and (c) in my treatment of Nehemiah 1:5-6.  Daniel is calling on Israel to stop participating in the sins of their forefathers.

Category 5: Children are blessed for the righteousness of their fathers: Prov. 13:22.

Prov. 13:22

A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children,
    but the sinner’s wealth is laid up for the righteous.

Let’s make some quick observations:

a. This is clearly talking about money. It’s been long enough ago that I don’t even remember where I found this passage, except that it was on multiple websites and in multiple books.  Clearly, this isn’t talking about transferring spirits, curses, or even spiritual blessings from one generation to another.  It’s talking about how the wicked save up money and treasure for other people find and spend.  That’s a story we all know too well, at least in its most extreme manifestation…

Category 6: Generational curses were broken, at specific times in the past, for Israel: Ez. 18:2-3; Jer. 31:29-30.

Ez. 18:2-3

What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? ³ As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel.

The only thing that I’ll suggest here is that this is a proverb that is wrongfully used in Israel, if one reads the rest of Ezekiel 18.  I’ll address that below.

Jer. 31:29-30

In those days they shall no longer say:

“‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
    and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’

³⁰ But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

The same scenario that Jeremiah is addressing is the scenario that Ezekiel addressed as well.  Let’s shift gears with these two text that are apparently used to argue that generational curses existed and were broken in Israel’s past.

The Positive Biblical Teaching on Generational Curses

So far, I’ve been doing a project that has been essentially negative; I’ve been tearing apart all the apparent textual support.  I’ve dealt with  Ex. 20:5-6, 34:6-7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9-10, 7:9, Deut. 23:2; Judg. 3:9; 1 Sam. 2:27-34, 3:11-14, 12:10-11; Neh. 1:5-6; Prov. 13:22; Jer. 14:20, 32:18;  Lam. 5:7; Dan. 9:16; Matt. 27:24-25.   With all those texts removed from the foundation of Generational Curse theology, there’s no positive reason to believe that the Bible teaches anything close to Generational Curse theology.  That’s good, but what’s better is actually realizing that the bible positively teaches against Generational Curses.  That brings us up to Ezekiel 18 (and tangentially to Jer. 31:29-30).

Let me quickly take you through Ezekiel 18 to see what it says:

vs. 1-4.  At the time of Ezekiel, there was a proverb that ran rampant throughout Israel.  People would blame their trouble on their forefathers, saying “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (vs. 2).  God announced, through his prophet, his intent to wipe that proverb out in Israel (vs. 3).

vs. 5-9.  The Lord then speaks through Ezekiel and says that if a man refrains from wickedness and walks in uprightness (vs. 5-8), “he shall surely live” (vs. 9).

vs. 10-13.  The Lord then states that if a righteous man fathers a wicked son (vs. 10-12), that wicked son will not be blessed on account of his righteous father.  Rather, “He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself” (vs. 13).

vs. 14-18.  But, if the tables are turned and a wicked man fathers a son who does not follow in his father’s example (vs. 14-17), “he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live” (vs. 17).  His father will die for his own sin, but the son will not die on account of the father’s sin (v. 18).

vs. 19-20.  God explains that the son who does what is right shall live (v. 19) and then God explains the overriding principle behind this all: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (vs. 20).  This is the centerpiece of the chapter and the under riding principle of everything in Ezekiel 18.

vs. 21-24.  God then explores two hypothetical scenarios.  First, God states that the the wicked man who turns from his wickedness will live (vs. 21-22).  Secondly, God states that the righteous man who turns from his righteousness will die (v. 23-24).

vs. 25-29. God then deals with the opposition he receives from Israel.  Israel thought that previous acts of righteousness should be called into account when a man turns wicked, but God declared their ideas were in error (vs. 25-26).  Also, Israel thought that previous acts of wickedness should be called into account when a man turns to righteousness, but God again declared their ideas were in error (v. 27-29).

V. 30-32. God comes out and clearly states that he will judge “every one according to his ways,” therefore “repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin” (v. 30).  The important thing is to turn from wickedness now (vs.31) since God doesn’t want anyone to die in their sin (v. 32).  The fact that God doesn’t want anyone to die in their sin is the second principle underlying what’s going on in Ezekiel 18; this principal is what gives urgency to the application of the truths of the passage.

So what is going on in Ezekiel 18?

It seems pretty clear that Israel was in the business of justifying themselves.  They wanted to be able to blame their sin on someone else, and parents are an easy and popular scapegoat for disobedience to God (v. 1-20).  People have been blaming their parents for their problems for a long, long time.

As a secondary fall-back, if they couldn’t blame their parents for their sin, Israel wanted to create a system of justice/judgment that could be easily manipulated for their benefit (v. 21-29).  If you’re the one being judged, you want your righteous deeds to outweigh anything else you’ve done.  If someone else is being judged, especially someone you dislike, you want the ability to overlook anything else they’ve done.

So in Generational Curse theology, the first issue of blaming something other than oneself for one’s own sin is the error.  This is what was happening in v. 1-20 of Ezekiel 18, and this is what is happening in Generational Curse theology.  Are you struggling with a relationship, or workplace performance, or handling money, or sexual lust?

Well, it’s likely because of a curse that entered your family line before you were born.

In other words, it’s not your fault.

Talk about the #1 best-selling lie of all time.

Did you punch out that annoying barista who made passive-aggressive judgments about you every time you came in?

It wasn’t your fault.

It was a Generational Curse of Violence!

Hooray!

But, reality says otherwise: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20). 

People don’t suffer for the sins of others.  People suffer the consequences of their own sin, and only their own sin.

But wait!  What about someone who suffers due to demonic spirits, strongholds, sinful habits or other miscellaneous “spiritual bondage” that is passed down through their family line?

This brings up the question of why people commit specific acts of sin.   The Bible is clear on this:

– “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” – James 1:14-15

– “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—  among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” – Ephesians 2:1-3

– “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.” – Galatians 5:16-17

– “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.” – Matt. 5:19

People act on the basis of their sinful desires, and those come from the heart.

In other words, your sin is always your fault and yours alone.

After 6 posts of exploring this subject, I can confidently say that there’s not a single shred of biblical evidence to support the idea that anyone, anywhere, ever sins or otherwise has hardship in their life because of a Generational Curse.

I hope this series has helped those of you who have expressed interest in this subject over the past few years, and I thank you for your patience in waiting for this to happen and finish.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Cursed by myself and nobody else” Unger

Save

Save

A few years ago, I was teaching a class on hermeneutics while I was struggling through my antiviral therapy for Hepatitis C.  In that class, we would spend part of the class going through the hermeneutical rules we had learned and attempt to apply them to difficult texts.  It was a very enjoyable exercise for most, and one of the difficult texts we tackled was 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.  I’ve recently been asked about 1 Corinthians 11 and the issue of head covering, and that question comes up regularly for me.  Knowing that convictions on an issue come through personally working through the Scripture instead of having someone spoon-feed you an answer, I wanted to provide my bible study on 1 Corinthians 11 for the benefit of a few readers.

I’ve modified it a slight to incorporate a little more interpretive helps, seeing that I’m not there personally with you to help answer questions.  Also, you may want to refresh yourself on the basic rules of Bible study here.  Also, here’s some basic rules that are part of every Bible study I write:

1. The text upon which the study is based is ESV.
2. No flippies.  Scripture interprets Scripture, sure, but the main focus of the way I study the Bible is to draw meaning from the text at hand.  That means no flipping to other chapters, unless you’re told otherwise.  Most Christians love to toss out the “Scripture interprets Scripture” line, but in practice it becomes an excuse for what I call “concodrant exegesis”: using a concordance to interpret the text rather than the nouns and verbs in their various ascending circles of context (sentence, paragraph, pericope, logical argument, book, testament, theology, history, geography).  One should never use one verse to “interpret” another just because they share a common term in an English translation.  Dragging the meaning of terms from one passage, in an entirely different context, into another, is a guaranteed way to misunderstand whatever text is  currently in front of your eyes.  It’s a horrible interpretive habit that has become sanctified simply because it’s common.
3. Dig here.  Most of the questions are actually as simple as they seem.  In my Bible studies, I try to “go deep”, which means I go deep into what the author wrote in this text.  That means getting the surface reading right: the terms, the grammar, and the argument/example/principle being put forward.  If you miss that but find a whole bunch of cool speculative intertextual or typological connections, you’ve ultimately missed the meaning of the text.  When that happens, your Bible Study becomes the exegetical equivalent of all icing and no cake.  It might sound great at first, but around 4 pounds into a 9 pound pail of chocolate buttercreme icing, you’ll have an involuntary change of heart (and stomach).
   Believe me, I’ve tried…and painfully lost a bet in the process.
4. Harder questions are marked.  An asterisk (*) question is a “think a little more about this” question.  That’s my indication that the question is not a surface level question.

With that small foundation laid, let’s dig through it!

Dealing with a Difficult Text: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

11:2 – What does Paul commend the Corinthians for?

a.
b.

11:3 – What does Paul say he wants the Corinthians to understand?

a.
b.
c.

– *What is the main idea here that Paul wants the Corinthians to understand?

note – The debate here will be on the meaning of “head” (kephale in Greek), but the debate will boil down to people who say kephale is a figure of speech meaning either “authority” or “source”.  The idea of kephale meaning “source” may be possible in the first two clauses, but certainly not in the third.  The only reasonable understanding of kephale in the third clause is “authority”.  It’s also worth pointing out that the whole “kephale means ‘source’ ” argument is based on demonstrable and objective error.  Wayne Grudem has done an exhaustive study of kephale in all ancient Greek literature, essentially eradicating all debate on questions related to the meaning of the term.  The word never means “source”, anywhere in Greek literature, ever.  People who claim otherwise are simply misinformed and in error…but don’t take my word for it.  Both journal articles, though quite technical, are highly comprehensive and freely available online:

a.  http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/kephale_grudem.pdf
b.  http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/kephale.pdf

11:4-5 – What word comes up in 11:4-5 that also came up in 11:3?

– Is Paul using that word in the same way in 11:4-5 as he was in 11:3?

– If husbands cover their heads when prophesying, who is dishonored?

– If wives uncover their heads when prophesying, who is dishonored?

– If a wife uncovers her head while prophesying, what is that parallel to?

11:6– What does Paul suggest for a wife to do if she refuses to cover her head while prophesying?

– Why would she not do this?

– When Paul says that it’s disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair/shave her head, is he quoting Scripture?  If so, which chapter and verse?

11:7-9 – Why should a husband not cover his head?

– In v. 7, is Paul quoting Scripture? If so, which chapter and verse?

– Why is the woman the glory of man?

– Does this idea come from a clear teaching of scripture? If so, chapter and verse?

– What is the obvious change between 11:6-7 and 11:8-9?

11:10 – What is the conclusion of Paul’s argument in the previous verses?

– *What is the principle here?

– *Why do you think Paul connects that principle to the angels?

– *How does the principle in vs. 10 connect with the main point of the passage as expressed in vs. 3?

11:11-12 – What is the contrast between 11:11-12 and the previous verses?

–  *How does Paul direct the application of the principle in 11:10 via 11:11-12?

– What is the new principle introduced in 11:11?

– How does Paul support this principle in 11:12

11:13-15 – Does the equality of men and women “in the Lord” overturn the created order?

–  What is the specific activity to which Paul applies his argument here?  (note – Paul’s already mentioned it in vs. 4)

11:16 – In the light of 11:11-15, what angle is Paul anticipating regarding people who are contentious against his teaching?

– Will Paul tolerate some sort of overriding of the created order on the basis of male/female equality in the new birth?

That wraps it up.

Normally, I would walk through a passage and give a limited interpretation of it, but this is a little different.  I haven’t used a bunch of pictures so as to not distract from the task at hand.  Also, I’ve provided this for readers who want to sort through the passage on their own without being told the answers (though I did provide a note on the most contested component to help focus discussion and remove the most common element of confusion).  If there are further questions, feel free to fire away in the comments and I’ll do what I can for you.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Just Trying To Understand The Text” Unger

Save

Well, it’s been a long time since I’ve posted on here.  I’ve been working 60-70 hours a week (at 2 jobs) and still am…but I ended up doing some writing tonight that I’ll toss on here since it’s both a) long enough to be a post and b) of possible interest to some.  Because I’m already past my bedtime by 2 hours, there’s no pictures or editting tonight; just some quick Bible study that’s a horribly rough draft.

I won’t bother with the story of why I’m writing this, but I’m going to answer a single question.  What is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament?

Let’s look at every single instance that the Greek verb Baptizo (“baptize”) and the term Pneuma (“Spirit”) appear together in the Scripture. For those that don’t trust me, look at the results here:

So, here’s the verses:

Matt. 3:11, 3:16, 28:19; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5, 2:38, 10:47, 11:16; 1 Cor. 12:13.

That’s every single passage in the Bible that uses the terms “baptize” and “Spirit” in the same sentence.

But wait, there’s one more verse. The noun form of Baptizo (Baptisma – “baptism”) also appears together with the Greek noun Pneuma in a single place:

Acts 18:25.

So that’s every place that the Baptizo/Baptisma/Baptismos word group appears alongside the noun Pneuma. If there’s any other passages that directly address the specific issue of the Baptism of the Spirit, they do it without using both terms related to transmitting the concept. Now there’s plenty of indirect allusions to the consequences of that baptism, or the evidences of receiving it, or any number of things…but that’s not relevant to instructing us as to what the Bible says the Baptism of the Spirit is (in it’s essential nature).

Let’s look at the Scriptures:

Matt. 3:11 – “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”

So the passage says that John baptized with water for repentance, but there was one coming (namely Jesus Christ) who will baptize “you” “with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”

So who’s the “you” in 3:11?

Well, Matthew tells us very clearly that John had a mixed audience. Matt. 3:5-6 tells us that there were many Jewish folks coming to John and believing his message, but Matt. 3:7 says that many Pharisees and Sadducees came out to listen to him as well. In addressing the Pharisees and Sadducees, John said the following:

“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” – Matt. 3:7-10

So, in Matt. 3:10 he is talking about judgment. Then, John turns to the whole crowd and says vs. 11-12:

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

The reason I say that John was addressing the whole crowd is because John clearly wasn’t baptizing the Pharisees and Sadducees “for repentance”. But, the Pharisees are still standing there and John then comments about the fire that he had mentioned in 3:10. He states that the one who is coming (Jesus), already has his winnowing fork (a tool used for separating the wheat from the chaff), and will separate the wheat from the chaff.

John’s crowd included both wheat (those who were being baptized for repentance) and chaff (the unrepentant Pharisees and Sadducees). What’s interesting is that the coming baptism is related to both the wheat and the chaff. One group (the repentant) will be baptized by the Holy Spirit and the other group (the unrepentant) will be baptized with fire. Many people claim that the “fire” that is being talked about in vs.11 is some sort of passion for God or his “manifest presence” in the form of spiritual manifestations (which it never ever means in the Scripture), but if one reads the surrounding verses, the fire in vs. 10 and the fire in vs. 12 is inescapably a destructive element.

This passage doesn’t spell out all the details regarding what this coming “baptism” is, but it definitely connects it with both repentance and judgment.

Addressing Matthew 3:11 also deals with Mark 1:8 and Luke 3:16, which are simply parallel accounts of the same event.

Matt. 3:16 – “And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;”

So this is Jesus having the Holy Spirit descend upon him at his own baptism…but Jesus’ baptism was just a water baptism. The other surrounding events (i.e. the audible voice of God and the physical manifestation of the Holy Spirit himself) clearly don’t happen to anyone else, ever. There should be no need to expand upon the singular and peculiar nature of Christ’s own baptism…though John 1:33 does explain why the Spirit visibly descended upon Jesus.

Addressing Matt. 3:16 also deals with John 1:33, since they’re directly related and discussing the same events.

Matthew 28:19 – “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

Clearly, this is a command regarding water baptism.

Acts 1:4-5 – “And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

Acts 1:4-5 directly refers to the promised baptism that John the Baptist spoke about in the the Gospel passages we’ve already looked at. That baptism was coming.

Now tongues was clearly the evidence of the reception of that baptism, but Acts 1:5 doesn’t tell us what that baptism was, at least in it’s essential nature. All we know is that the promised baptism was imminent in Acts 1:4-5.

Acts 10:47 – “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

Acts 10:47 is referring to water baptism, and the people who Peter wanted to receive that baptism were the Gentiles who spoke in tongues (Acts 10:46). The very fact that they had the evidence of receiving the Spirit of God should have made it clear that deciding to administer water baptism to them was a no-brainer.

Acts 11:16-17 – “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”

This is is Peter recounting his experience in Acts 10 for the Jerusalem council.

Acts 18:25 – “He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.”

Clearly, in Acts 18:25 the term “baptism” is not modified by the term “spirit”, but they’re referring to separate ideas.

Finally, we have the last mention of “baptism” and “Spirit” (appearing in the same sentence) in the entire New Testament:

1 Cor. 12: 13 – “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”

Now this is interesting. Paul writes that the Spirit baptizes “we” (And Paul has been talking to “brothers” since vs. 1) into one body, and those who are in that body are all “made to drink of one Spirit”.

So outside of the Gospels, the only Scripture that directly addresses the topic of the Baptism of the Spirit talks about how the Spirit baptizes people into the body of Christ.

In other words, that’s salvation, as a careful read of 1 Cor. 12:4-27 indicates (Paul is arguing that the same Spirit who brought you into the body of Christ hands out gifts for the common good of that body, and each person is responsible for using their gifts for serving that body).

Paul is clearly not talking about some sort of experience following salvation, but salvation itself.

Uh Oh.

And what’s worse is that this is the consistent teaching of the rest of the New Testament.

In Acts, after the incident of tongues where the crowd asked what the sign of tongues meant (Acts 2:12) and Peter’s answer to that question given in Acts 2:14-36, the crowd then asked what they should do in response to Peter’s answer in Acts 2:37. In Acts 2:38-39, Peter said:

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

In other words, be baptized for repentance and then you’ll also receive the promised baptism of the Holy Spirit (which was promised in Matt. 3:11). That baptism is for who?

Elite Christians who have some sort of super spiritual experience after their salvation?

Not for a second.

The Holy Spirit was promised, by Peter, to inescapably be given to “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

That means everyone who is a Christian has received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Again, in Acts 19, we have some people who had followed John the Baptist and received his baptism (Acts 19:1-3). They knew about the promise of the Baptism of the Spirit but didn’t know that the promise had already been fulfilled, so Paul gave the disciples of John the gospel of Jesus and they immediately were both baptized in the name of Christ (19:5) and simultaneously received the Holy Spirit (19:6).

In other words, they got the Baptism of the Spirit when they heard and believed the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, if we’re taking out beliefs from the Bible, the case is clear.

I definitely believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

It’s when a person is baptized into the body of Christ upon hearing and believing the Gospel, and that’s the only teaching of the New Testament.

Anyone who says otherwise is in demonstrable, objective error.  They’re possibly teaching something they’ve learned from their experience, their confusion, their tradition, or any number of sources…but they’re not teaching something that they learned in the Bible (rightly understood and applied, of course).

One can debate the marks of that baptism (and I’ve already admitted that in the New Testament, the initial proof of the Baptism of the Spirit was speaking in tongue…though a person may want to read this, this and this before assuming that I would suggest that such is the case in our post-apostolic era), or the nature, purpose, extent, etc. of that baptism, but none of those debates really change the clear and uniform teaching of the New Testament as to what the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is.

If you’re a Christian, it happened to you when you became part of the body of Christ.

Until Next Time (which may be some time),

Lyndon “Dunked and Delivered from Damnation” Unger

Boy oh boy.  It’s been 16 months since I last posted on here.  At that time, I was driving truck for a nursery and working 12-16 hour days while studying for my LSAT’s and attempting to get into law school.  Life was rather nuts and I wasn’t doing it that well…and then things got *actually* crazy.  I’m not going to get into details about how my life has become a field, strewn with flaming cow pies from the Devil’s own satanic herd.

There are three reasons for that:

a.  I don’t want to.
b.  I can’t.
c.  The people who need to know already know.

I’ve been gone from this blog (outside of responding to occasional comments), but I haven’t been totally gone from the web (though I’ve been gone from this for so long that it just took me several attempts and several minutes to insert the above picture…sigh).  I have  been somewhat on social media, but Twitter and Facebook have more or less been outlets for humor and low-grade trolling…purely distractions for me.  I haven’t been blogging because I haven’t known what in the world to write about.  Scandals have arisen that I normally would have weighed in on, but I didn’t say anything and that was most likely for the best.  There was nothing I could have said that didn’t get said by someone smarter and more articulate than myself anyway.  Issues have come and gone and though I may have listened to podcasts and read articles, I didn’t weigh in because I didn’t really need to.

I’ve also had many book reviews to do, mostly on books that (I suspect) aren’t the best books around, but I haven’t had time to dive into those books due to all the complications of life and time demands that I’ve had placed on me.  Besides, I had to close down my office and all my books are now in a storage locker (and will remain there for what appears to be a rather long time).  In as much as I’d love to toss some stuff online about some of the books I’ve run into that haven’t been addressed at all, I’m not that important to the kingdom.  Other people won’t become heretics if I don’t write a specific book review…and if they do, they probably would have hated what I had to say anyway.

So I’ve not really been doing much online, but that’s also because I’ve not really been doing good personally either.  For a long time I was experiencing Jeremiah’s cry in Jeremiah 8:18 – “My joy is gone; grief is upon me; my heart is sick within me.”  After a little while, I realized what was happening in my own heart and that I was certainly to blame for much of that sickness of heart and absence of joy.  From there, the next step was to repent of the sins that led me to that place…but that’s sometimes easier said than done.  I’m not an objective viewer of myself and my sin tends to lie to me about itself; where it is, what it’s doing, how large it has become, etc.  That makes things less easy than I wish they were.

I also realized that I had failed to heed the warning of James 1:22 – “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”  Oh how easy it is to fall into that trap of knowing much more than you do.  In conservative circles, where right doctrine is so prized, our doctrine almost always exceeds our practice and we only do a fraction of what we know we should do.  It’s also not a case of knowing the righteous things to do and instead doing evil things, but rather knowing the righteous things to do and not doing those righteous things when you can (and should).  Inaction is a lot harder sin to see in yourself and a lot harder sin to address.

So, I’m not sure where this blog is going to go.  I’ll likely post a few things that are on my mind (lessons I’m preparing to teach at church, dealing with indwelling sin, Christ-likeness, parenting, etc.).  I also have 78 draft posts that are in various stages of development.  Many of those drafts are an idea that needs to be fleshed out (i.e. a few sentences that need to become a full post), but a few of them are almost ready to go posts that may get finished up sometime.  Either way, I need to fill my mind and time with studying the scripture and sharing my findings on here since I’ve discovered that my sinful flesh has no problem finding other complete wastes of time to fill my life.  When you’re weighed down in heart and somewhat in shock, it’s easy to have a pity party and binge-watch Netflix.  That being said, the Lord is good and has granted me a return to my senses…at least enough to see that it’s time to wash my face and move forward.

I will definitely covet general prayers for myself and my family; perseverance and wisdom, grace and a fresh revelation of “what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe” (Ephesians 1:18-19).  Pray that the Lord will grant rejoicing to the bones he has broken (Psalm 51:8) and that he would create in me a clean heart and renews a right spirit within me (Psalm 51:10).  Pray that he would restore to me the joy of my salvation and renew a willing spirit within me (Psalm 51:12).  Pray that I would repay no one evil for evil but rather that I would act honorably towards even my enemies (Romans 12:17) and pray that I would do everything I could to live at peace with everyone (Romans 12:18).  Pray that I would persevere in overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:21).  Pray that I would walk in a manner worthy of my calling (Ephesians 4:1), that I would walk in love (Ephesians 5:2), and that I would be strong in the Lord and the strength of his might (Ephesians 6:10).

If this blog has been a blessing to you in the past, I would like to ask for you to return that blessing upon me in the form of your prayers.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Mennoknight” Unger

Instead of writing some long and substantial new post (which is slowly happening), I was going through my dozens of drafts and found a few things that I’ll put up over the next little while; articles that I’ve saved, brief thoughts, etc.  For now, I ran across a series of articles on the topic of Divine Guidance, by Philip Jensen.

For those of you who don’t know who that is, he’s a great Anglican from Australia who was previously the Dean of Sydney at St Andrew’s Cathedral and Director of the Sydney Diocesan Ministry Training and Development, but now has retired from those positions to simply work with Two Ways Ministries , which is named after the gospel presentation he wrote; Two Ways To Live. Philip Jensen devised Two Ways To Live in 1978 and also wrote a series of Bible Studies/Discipleship tools called Just For Starters.  Definitely tools you should check out.  In fact, if you or your church is looking for curriculum or discipleship resources on anything and haven’t checked out Matthias Media (Philip’s Australian publishing house), you really need to.  They have a wealth of solid resources that far too many people in North America are unaware of.

But enough of me promoting Matthias Media.

Here’s the articles from Philip Jensen on divine guidance:

1.  The Guiding God.
2. The Response of the Guided.
3. How does God Guide?

Those may be things that all my readers already know, but perhaps you can use those resources for someone who’s struggling through that issue.  At some point or another, we all do.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “I Don’t Work For Matthias Media…But I’d Love To!” Unger

As I’ve been sorting though various sins and situations in my life, I’ve come to a renewed conviction about the vast importance of memorizing Scripture.  It’s something that I’ve done purposefully and aggressively in the past, but something that I’ve increasingly neglected over the past decade. I’ve fallen into the warning of James 1:22:

“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.”

Sadly, I’ve become a Sesame Street character with regards to Scripture.

Being a seminary-trained fellow that is very acquainted with the contents of the Bible, it’s an easy (and terribly wrong) leap from being familiar with Scripture to telling yourself that familiarity is the same as purposefully obeying Scripture.  Over many years, I was one of those guys who could kinda finish a Scripture quote (get the gist, but not the specific words) and remember the book and chapter (but not the verse).  That vague knowledge of Scripture wasn’t the same as having specific truths penetrate and permeate my heart and thinking to the point that they were regularly part of my thinking and decision making processes.

In order to both rectify that self-deceiving situation, I’ve been working on something.

I’ve made memory cards in order to memorize key passages in Proverbs with my kids.

Now I know I’m possibly re-inventing the wheel (there are already books out there that have organized all the Proverbs by topic), but I’ve got a 5 & 6-year old and I wanted to tailor some memory cards that are more oriented towards them (though there’s plenty of Proverbs that will require some explanation of the principle to be translated to little minds).  This means I’ve stayed away from the warnings against adultery and adulteresses, mostly because I don’t want to have that conversation yet, and I’ve picked passages that are (mostly) single verses related to topics relevant to them (i.e. nothing about borrowing money and charging interest on loans).

This isn’t a catch all for memory cards, but it’s definitely a few dozen hours of work that is a big step in the right direction.

I’ve also formatted the cards to be printed on 3 x 5 cards on an Avery 5388 template, which is here (and blank Avery 5388 pages for printing are here).  I’m going to laminate the cards (craft project with the kids for next weekend) and hole punch the corners so that I can organize the cards (possibly by topic) on 2-inch loose leaf rings.  For anyone who hasn’t seen Scripture Memory Cards on loose leaf rings, they look like this:

Here’s my memory cards in 2 formats, depending on what format you want:

1. Proverbs Memory Cards For Kids – Final -Word Document
2. Proverbs Memory Cards For Kids – Final – PDF Document

Be warned: it’s a 59 page document with 3 Proverbs per page.  That’s 177 cards of Scripture (an Avery 5388 pack has 150 cards on 50 sheets).  They’re also spaced so that you can duplex them easily, just to keep you from not having to buy 2 packs of Avery 5388 cards (but that also means much more work in order to organize them topically).

I hope they are a blessing to someone.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Forgetful Jones” Unger

And it’s gonna be a short one.

I’m still not really doing anything with this blog since life is simply too demanding these days.  The short story is that I’m now a single parent and don’t have a shred of time for blogging…and no, I’m not going to explain.

Those that need to know definitely do, and I covet your prayers (if somehow you end up on here).

The only reason I’m posting is because today I did something that has been on my to do list for around 2 years.  Since today was a holiday, I spent a few hours working and converted the Generational Curse series into a short e-book.

It’s free, so please excuse the spelling errors, lack of stunning layout and any other unforgivable sins.

Grab it here:

Nobodys Fault But Mine

Until Next Time (and WHO knows when that will be),

Lyndon “Gone for now but not dead” Unger

Well, it’s been a few moons and then some since my last actual writing on here!

2018, 2019 and 2020 have come and gone.

Most of us have survived the apocalypse while maintaining a decent supply of toilet paper and have kept our sanity…though not easily.  In times of trouble or distress, it seems like the peddlers of foolishness and idiocy have found fertile soil in the fearful hearts of people to plant desperation, doubt, despair and wild conspiracies…and Christians have not only proven open to these all but, in my limited experience, have rather been alarmingly deceived on multiple fronts over the past 12 months. I’ve been disheartened in watching many people I respect and care about swallow ideas and attitudes that were profoundly at odds with the clear teaching of scripture and/or the basic tenets of logic. One of the most frequent ideas was that everything was somehow the mark of the beast: 5G cellular technology, vaccines, coronavirus itself, closing down your church in response to government orders, Mark Zuckerberg himself (I mean, his name is MARK! What more do you need?), etc.

I’ve had this post bouncing around in my head for many months, so I’m finally just going to pound it out.

So what IS the Mark of the Beast?

Sorry.

I couldn’t help myself.

I’m a dad and reserve the right to unleash dad jokes at any and all moments.

Let’s start with the passage in immediate question.

Here’s Revelation 13:11-17, with 13:16 in bold:

“Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. ¹² It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed. ¹³ It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, ¹⁴ and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived. ¹⁵ And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. ¹⁶ Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, ¹⁷ so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.“

So let’s consider the details of the passage:

1. The second beast rises out of the earth (vs. 11).
2. The second beast has horns like a lamb and speaks like a dragon (vs. 11).
3. The second beast exercises all the authority of the first beast (vs. 12).
4. The second beast makes all people to worship the first beast (vs. 12).
5. The second beast performs great signs, even making fire fall from the sky (vs. 13).
6. The signs are given for deception of all people, causing them to make an idol of the first beast (vs. 14).
7. The second beast even causes the image to appear to come to life, speaking and even killing (or causing to be killed), those who don’t worship the idol of the first beast (vs. 15).
8. The second beast causes all people of all classes to be “marked on the right hand or the forehead” (vs. 16).
9. This mark makes it so that anyone cannot buy or sell unless they bear the mark (vs. 17).
10. The mark is equivalent with the name of the best/the number of its name (vs. 17).

Now there is a lot that can be said indeed, but I’m going to address one specific question only: the mark of the Beast. I’m not going to tackle the meaning of the number 666, or the identify of both beasts, or anything else since those are separate issues that would require totally separate posts. But still, I want to point out some important details.

First, the whole passage is about the second beast pointing the world towards the first beast; the context is one of an agent of a false deity promoting said false deity. That whole thrust, the promotion of worship towards another, is core. Second, the whole world gets deceived (not meaning every individual person on the planet, but rather the overwhelming majority) and anyone who doesn’t worship the beast is killed (hence not everyone is actually deceived; if every specific individual on earth fell for the deception then nobody would be killed at all). Third, the mark is on the right hand and/or the forehead. I could draw this all out and eliminate a bunch of possible interpretations but in the interest of getting to the punch, I’ll just zoom in on the last point; the mark on the right hand/forehead.

Let’s run back to the Old Testament and look for some relevant passages that may help.

In Exodus 28:36-38, as God is laying out all the components of the priestly garments, there’s this little detail that oft passes unnoticed:

You shall make a plate of pure gold and engrave on it, like the engraving of a signet, ‘Holy to the Lord.’ And you shall fasten it on the turban by a cord of blue. It shall be on the front of the turban. It shall be on Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear any guilt from the holy things that the people of Israel consecrate as their holy gifts. It shall regularly be on his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord.

So Aaron (the chief priest), as part of his priestly robes, had a plate fastened on his head that said “holy to the Lord”. That plate set him apart for the Lord and showed possession; it declared that Aaron was a special possession of Yahweh; the one who represented his people in their offerings (hence he bore the guilt from their offerings).

Then in Ezekiel 9:1-6, when Yahweh was pronouncing judgment upon Israel in Ezekiel’s vision, Ezekiel hears the following:

Then he cried in my ears with a loud voice, saying, “Bring near the executioners of the city, each with his destroying weapon in his hand.”  And behold, six men came from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with his weapon for slaughter in his hand, and with them was a man clothed in linen, with a writing case at his waist. And they went in and stood beside the bronze altar. Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub on which it rested to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed in linen, who had the writing case at his waist. And the Lord said to him, “Pass through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it.” And to the others he said in my hearing, “Pass through the city after him, and strike. Your eye shall not spare, and you shall show no pity. Kill old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women, but touch no one on whom is the mark. And begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the elders who were before the house. 

Again, the mark is one that sets apart those devoted to Yahweh from those who participated in the idolatry of Israel. The mark is one that sets God’s devotees apart from the masses; it essentially states “these people belong to me; do not touch”. It was definitely not something like this:

That’s just pointing out Old Testament precedent for the idea of a mark on the forehead denoting possession, but what is more helpful is seeing if John uses the idea of a mark in a similar way in the book of Revelation.

In Revelation 7:2-3, we have an angel stating the following:

Then I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, with the seal of the living God, and he called with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm earth and sea, saying, “Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.”

That same pattern we see happening in the Old Testament indeed comes back. The mark on the forehead is a seal, setting apart the servants of Yahweh from the rest of the populace that is marked out for judgment. It was definitely not something like this:

The same sort of idea appears in Revelation 9:1-4

And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit. He opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft. Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green plant or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads.

Once again, the mark is a mark that sets apart a person unto God. The mark his servants apart from the masses; it’s a mark of ownership or possession. The ones bearing that mark are spared from the judgment that comes on the rest of mankind. It was definitely not something like this:

In Revelation 14:9-10, that pattern continues when the third angel announces judgment and says:

And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

Seems to be clear. In this passage, the Mark of the Beast is a similar, but different, mark. It is what sets people apart for judgment. Those with Yahweh’s mark do not get judgment, but those with the Beast’s mark do get judgment. It’s a mark of divine ownership, or divine rejection (in this case). It was definitely not something like this:

Now the mark of Yahweh or the beast may involve things like the above, as in some sort of tracking and classification system (which we’re already seeing done via social media), but it’s a mark of spiritual devotion as that evidences an invisible reality.

One last passage needs to be mentioned. In Revelation 22:1-4, once the new Jerusalem comes down and is filled with those who belong to the Lamb, this is how it is described:

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. ⁴ They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.

The people where will worship God and the Lamb in the new Heavens and new Earth and will “see his face”, and “his name will be on their foreheads”. The same pattern that has been in both the Old and New Testaments carries on. It’s a mark of ownership; one that shows possession. In the end, the only people left on Earth are God’s people and they will all bear his mark.

I could go on, but I think I’ve hammered home the point fairly clearly. The mark of the Beast isn’t a physical mark, per say (though it could well involve some sort of physical designator, but that’s neither necessary nor the main component of its nature), but is rather a mark of ownership or devotion. It is explicitly linked with worship and those who take and bear the mark of the Beast do so as a result of spiritual deception. Those who don’t take the mark are synonymous with those who “who would not worship the image of the beast” (Rev.13:15). The past several years have been highly illustrative as to how someone could not “buy or sell unless he has the mark” (Rev. 13:16); we’ve already seen online payment companies refusing to process payments for people and organizations they don’t like, and online trading platforms refusing to allow stock trading with stocks they don’t like…and those decisions have been made and enforced against people on the sheer basis of ideology; no physical marks needed at all. It’s not a stretch to imagine those sort of restrictions to amplify and extend to credit card companies and banks and ultimately things like citizenship and basic human rights, and those real limitations/cessations of personal rights and freedoms wouldn’t need any corresponding physical mark at all.

Either way, I’ve addressed the specific question I’ve wanted to address but will not address the numerous others...and there are MANY.

Feel free to ask directly related questions in the comments, but I’m not nearly as free to monitor this as I once was due to increased family and work commitments. I will try to address questions as I’m able.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “the Mork of the Beast” Unger

I’ve had around a hundred topics or ideas that I’ve wanted to write about at some point, but life has not afforded me the time for writing and likely won’t in the future, so I’m going to try to set aside some time every few days for writing and see what I can come up with.

It won’t be much, but *something* is more than nothing. To start off my highly reduced blogging load, I’m going to address a few simple questions that I’ve received in the past and have not made time to respond to. The first question is one that has come up multiple times for me:

What does 1 Tim. 3:4-5, and specifically the comments about elders and their kids and the home, mean in practice?

In other words, does an elder in a church need to resign if his adult children no longer profess belief, or run off and live shameful, foolish or wicked lives?

What about if his young kids use the church’s fancy multi-function printer in a counterfeiting scheme to help the church fill the offering plate?

What about if one of his teenage kids one day proclaim that they don’t want to attend church any longer and start attending a local “free thinkers” club?

What about if his toddlers run in the sanctuary/foyer/worship center/praise plaza/whatever area of the church is sacred and while eating mouthfuls of ill-gotten communion wafers while screaming like a chimpanzee and pretending to smoke a rolled-up bulletin like a cigar?

Now, I’ve heard of all these stories, and many more, happening in churches (in actual real life…though I suspect the toddler intended the bulletin to be a trumpet/kazoo instead of a cigar).  I know of elders in churches having teenagers that had multiple illegitimate children and yet those elders remained in “good standing” with the church, and I know of pastors who have lost their jobs because their 4-year-old was running around outside the church post-service (without the communion wafers & cigar…just running in the parking lot).  Both of those seem rather extreme, but most of the time churches are struggling with matters that fall into far less extreme categories.

But where does one draw lines?

How does one handle the biblical warning in this area?

Let’s examine the obvious passage in question (1 Tim. 3:4-5) and see if we can’t gain some direction on this all.

Here’s the broader passage of 1 Timothy 3:1-7:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. ² Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³ not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ⁴ He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, ⁵ for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? ⁶ He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. ⁷ Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Setting it up a little, 1 Timothy 3:1 talks about how desiring to be an elder is noble, and 3:2-3 talks about one skill (“able to teach”) that elders should posses along with eleven moral qualities (a ratio that far too many seem to miss).  Then, in 3:4-7 Paul gets into details with three more characteristics (a good manager of his home, a mature convert, an externally-respected fellow), and goes into a little more detail about each of them.

Let’s look specifically at 1 Timothy 3:4-5 now:

⁴ He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, ⁵ for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?

Verse 4 gives the principle (“manage his own household well”) with the qualifying phrase that explains how he’s supposed to manage his household (“with all dignity keeping his children submissive”).  Paul then gives the reason for this characteristic (“if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”)

So then, the middle phrase (“with all dignity keeping his children submissive”) is the real crux of the passage, but the questions neither start nor end there.  What does it mean to manage one’s household? What about keeping your children submissive with all dignity? What age does “children” refer to?

Clearly, the passage is saying that any elder’s children must look like this at all times, right?

RIGHT?

Here’s where a little word study comes in helpful!

a. Children

What are “children” in the Scripture?

Specifically, are adult descendants of a person still considered “children”?

The term here is teknon, and it’s a common term in the New Testament (occurring 99 times, not counting all the cognate variants).  It often is used as synonymous with “offspring”, without specific denotation of any actual age, though when it’s used in reference to adults outside of the times that Christians are called “children” of God, it’s always metaphorical (see 1 Cor. 4:14 & 17; 2 Cor. 6:13; Eph. 5:1; Phil. 2:22; 1 Thess. 2:7, 11; 1 Tim. 1:2, 18; 2 Tim. 1:2, 2:1; Titus 1:4; Phile. 1:10; 1 Pet. 1:14, 3:6; 2 Pet. 2:14; 2 Jo. 1:4, 3 Joh. 1:4; Rev. 3:23).  My point here is that once people are adults, they are never referred to as “children” any longer, at least in the same way that they were when they were toddlers and pre-teens.

There is an interesting point to make in Ephesians 5 and 6 as well.  In Ephesians 6:1, Paul addresses children directly and commands them to obey their parents, but in Ephesians 5:1 Paul addresses the parents directly and commands them to imitate God “as beloved children”; in other words they’re to act “like” children in a specific way…but they aren’t actually children.  There’s an implicit assumption of young age in the term “children”, but Ephesians 5:1 and 6:1 (among many other passages, like 1 Pet. 1:14) suggest that in the New Testament one is either a child or a parent (i.e. Colossians 3:20-21). Humanity, in its broadest sense, is broken down chronologically into one of those two categories.  Not “children” and “adults”, but rather “children” and “parents”.

Another point worth mentioning is that in his instruction to widows, Paul assumes that children are part of the immediate household (1 Tim. 5:4) and also that later in the same passage, Paul speaks of older women having “brought up children” (past tense – 1 Tim. 5:9).  This seems to suggest that there was a time when the rearing of children had ceased, or been completed in some way.

Due to these reasons, I’d suggest that children are “children” as long as they’re dwelling in their parental home and under their parent’s authority…which in the New Testament era would have been aroun 14-18 years old and in our modern era should generally refer to someone being under the age of 17-20 (though today “childhood” shamefully continues on into the 30’s for many…).

Let’s just say that if an elder has a 35-year-old living at home who spends their time playing video games as opposed to working and making profitable use of their time (I understand that there are always exceptions to every rule), there’s some other serious and pointed questions that need asking.

b. Ruling.

The term “rule” is a rather straightforward term that appears only four places outside the book of 1 Timothy, and 4 times within the book (2 of which are in 1 Tim 3:4-5).

In Romans 12:8, 1 Thess. 5:12, 1 Tim. 5:17 the term is used to describe the practice of elders in the church; how they “rule” or “oversee” the people in the church.  It’s not so much a term related to having authority as opposed to a term related to giving care/guidance/attention to a person/people (a nuance that comes out well in 1 Thess. 5:12 where elders “labor among you and are over you”).

In Titus 3:8 and 3:14 it’s used to refer to the relationship of the believer and their good works, bringing out the nuance of “devotion” or “having concern for” (“…so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works” – Titus 3:8).  It involves an active use of authority for a beneficial purpose rather than simply the position of authority in and of itself.

So, an elder must guide and care for his household well, and how to recognize if one’s doing it “well” is seen in the following clause of 3:4, “with all dignity keeping his children submissive”.

c. Dignity and Submission

What’s dignity?

Dignity is translated from the Greek term semnotes (it appears only in 1 Tim. 2:2, 3:4 and Titus 2:7) which comes from semnos (it appears in Phil. 4:8; 1 Tim. 3:8, 11; Titus 2:2) and carries the idea of gravity.  It’s interesting that 1 Tim. 3:3 & 11 contrast the term with the idea of being double-tongued or slanderers. The term also carries the nuance of “honorable”.  The idea in both terms is speaking/portraying something or someone honorably instead of negatively.  I’d suggest that in 1 Tim. 3:4 the idea is one of the elders’ children treating Christ/Christianity as serious and honorable (mostly meaning adhering to Christian standards of conduct), as opposed to openly condemning Christ/Christianity.

The children of an elder should show forth the positive influence of the beliefs and worldview that has been influencing them, regardless of their personal profession of either.  The children of elders should be examples worthy of emulation, at least as far as external behavior and demeanor are concerned.  They should be mature, responsible, decently mannered, and self-controlled.  This brings us to the last term.

What does “submissive” mean?

I’ve already did a fairly in-depth study of the term hypotasso here, so I won’t repeat myself except to say that the Greek term is hypotasso and is a military term for referring to how troops fall into line.  The idea is one of fulfilling a role, or placing oneself in one’s required location within a formation.  It has to do with order and self-discipline; putting yourself where you need to be in relation to others and their roles/needs.  Doing your required part as a component of a greater whole.

So, an elder needs to exercise his parental role in the lives of his children towards an end (not the end, but an end) of teaching them to be an example of honorable conduct.  His kids must not be out of control.  This is actually spelled out in the parallel passage in Titus 1:6, where it says “his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.”

It’s necessary to point out that “believers” in Titus 1:6 is a translation of the term pistos, or “faithful”.  I’d suggest that it’s not a command for an elder’s children to be regenerate (since that’s beyond anyone’s power to accomplish), but rather honorable and conducting oneself in a way befitting Christian profession (whether or not one actually professes belief in Christ).  This is seen in how “faithful” is contrasted with not open to the charge of debauchery (asotia – “riotousness”) or insubordination (anypotaktos – hypotasso with negative particle “α” at the front – literally “non-submissive”).  So, the point here is that people who watch these kids aren’t accusing them with being trouble-makers or profligates, which parallels the requirement of the elder himself to be well regarded outside the church in vs. 7.

These days, we’ve seen some rather overt expressions of what profligate and troublemaking look like:

So, that hopefully gives us some good trajectory to think upon.

An elder must have children, as long as they are of the age where they would typically be in the home, that positively reflect the instruction and care that he gives them.  They must not be publicly accused of being hellions or troublemakers, and they must instead be exemplary kids who exhibit self control and honorable conduct.

Also, once an elder’s kids are out of the house and out on their own, especially having children of their own, any wicked conduct on their part doesn’t disqualify an elder, though wisdom would suggest that at such a time and elder may want to step down temporarily (if needed) and do what they can to positively influence and instruct their children.

Obviously, there are plenty of examples of kids who simply go berserk when they leave home, and if they’re unregenerate, then sinners gonna sin. Most youths who were raised in God-honoring homes and instructed in the Scriptures tend to rebel more subtly by rebelling in small ways against their upbringing (i.e. becoming lazy or materialistic), but every now and then even the best-raised children become, well, atheist vampires.

Yup.

Seen that before.

That being said, if an elder has done a proper job in the home, a rebelling child will still have some restraint and respect even in their foolishness and rebellion.

So as a bottom line, if an elder has grown kids who have been out of the home for years and those kids rescind their previously-made profession of faith and/or swan-dive into sin, it does not require that elder step down from decades of outstanding church service.

If an elder has high-school kids who are involved in either crime or sexual immorality, they need to step down from their role for a time and get their house in order.

If an elder has young children (toddlers or elementary school aged kids) and they’re the church hellions who run around stealing honey and biting anyone and everyone, then that elder also needs to step down from their role for a time and get their house in order.

He may also want to confirm that his children and humans and not Honey Badgers.

That mistake has also been sadly made before.

It’s my hope that this post may prove to be of assistance to people in such circumstances in the future.

If that’s you, please let me know; I’d love to hear your story.

Also, if someone in your church has ever confused a Honey Badger with one of their children, I’d really love to hear that story as well.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Currently checking my children’s bedrooms for Honey Badgers” Unger

I recently have come back to the topic of Biblical modesty in some online discussions and I encountered a strange argument about how the Bible teaches some concrete rules about clothing lengths and styles. Believe it or not, there are folks out there arguing this from Genesis 3:21. They tend to suggest that the Hebrew term in the passage that is translated “garments” denotes a covering that goes from “neck to knee”, hence all “biblically” modest women need to look something like this:

Anything less is wickedness.

Is that the case?

In a word, “nope.”

For those who want more than a single word answer, let’s dig in!

Genesis 3:21 reads “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.” The phrase “garments of skins” is translated from the Hebrew “kathnoth oyr”, where “oyr” means “skins” and “kathnoth” is the feminine plural construct form of “kutoneth”. Most of the articles I’ve found (and there’s not terribly many people making this argument that I’ve been able to find; even the Jehovah’s Witnesses realize that this argument is a stretch) tend to try to suggest that the Hebrew word kutoneth *always* denotes some sort of shirt/coat that has long sleeves, a tight collar and hangs below the knees (some say to the ankles).That level of specificity is nowhere in the text of scripture though. The term appears 29 times in 26 verses of the Hebrew Old Testament:

1. It’s a indeterminate style overcoat in Genesis 37:3, 37:23, 37:31-33, Ex. 28:4, 28:39, 28:40, 29:5, 29:8, 39:27, 40:14, lev. 8:7, 8:13, 10:5, 16:4, Job 30:18, SOS 5:3, Is. 22:21
   
2. It’s a generic term for “garment” in 2 Sam. 13:18-19, 15:32, Ezra 2:69, Neh. 7:70, 7:72.Not one of those verses says anything about length, but a bunch of them simply state that it’s an overcoat that goes over some sort of under-layer of a garment (Job 30:18, Is. 22:21) or a priest’s undergarment (Ex. 28:4, 28:39-40; Lev. 8:7, 8:13, 16:4) or robe (Ex. 29:5).

The idea is that it’s an *outer* layer, not a *long* layer. That makes sense since Adam an Eve already had on what would have essentially been undergarments (the Hebrew essentially says they were “loin coverings” – see Gen. 3:7) and unless one’s going to argue that God *stripped* Adam and Eve’s existing clothes off as part of the process of covering their (semi) naked bodies (which seems absolutely idiotic), then the idea in Gen. 3:21 is that God put an over-garment on top of their insufficient under-garments. Those over garments were ones made from an animal that God had to kill, and the insufficiency wasn’t due to their length. If that were the case, God would have made a much longer leaf-covering for them. The insufficiency was in the cost; Adam and Eve should have died that very day but instead an animal died in their place and they had to wear the remnants of its corpse.

That’s a good reminder for us to not treat sin as if it’s no big deal, right?

That being said, absolutely nothing is connotated about the length of that over-garment, since length is absolutely and positively *not* the issue.

Was it a full on fur coat that had wizard sleeves, a hood and a train? Maybe, but we don’t know.

Was it simply a sleeveless tunic of some sort? Maybe, but we don’t know.

Was it some sort of sweet tanned leather tunic with a matching belt with a dope Christian slogan?

I’d really like to think so.

But seriously, anyone who suggests that the lexical root of the term or it’s usage elsewhere in scripture suggests some universal specificity with regards to form or style has either:

1. Not done sufficient lexical work in the first place (or is blindly following a lexicon without understanding how they work).
   
2. Filled in the white spaces with their personal preferences/tradition (as if THAT ever happens).

So that’s the long answer to the question.

No, Genesis 3:21 does NOT teach (explicitly or implicitly) about skirt length.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Master of Modesty“ Unger

In the previous post, we looked at some of the secondary supporting texts for the idea of Generational Curses from categories 2 & 3.  Those texts are utilized to argue that Children indirectly suffer for the sins of their fathers and Generational Curses are broken by “calling out” to the Lord.  We worked through each text in the list and showed how they don’t teach Generational Curse theology at all.  Now, it’s time to finish off the list of secondary text with the three remaining categories of texts.

For those of you who have endured this series, I applaud your persistence.  This series is not meant to be a “read through to the end” sort of series, but rather a “resource you can use in the future” that will deal with a bunch of texts that cover all the main beliefs that make up generational curse theology.  So even if someone tosses a bunch of verses at you that I haven’t dealt with specifically, I’ll have dealt with the concept and will hopefully provide you with a bit of help in sorting through the concept.

The whole concept of Generational Curses is a theology that is the sort of “doctrines of demons” that Paul warned Timothy about in 1 Timothy 4:1.  So, let’s tear down what remains of this paper house and close off this series.

Category 4: A person needs to repent of the sins of their predecessors: Neh. 1:5-6; Jer. 14:20; Dan. 9:16. The supposed story with all three of these texts is that the person in the text had to repent of the sins of their forefathers in order to gain some sort of blessing in the present.

Neh. 1:5-6

And I said, “O Lord God of heaven, the great and awesome God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, ⁶ let your ear be attentive and your eyes open, to hear the prayer of your servant that I now pray before you day and night for the people of Israel your servants, confessing the sins of the people of Israel, which we have sinned against you. Even I and my father’s house have sinned.

Let’s make some quick observations:

a. The fact that Nehemiah, as a government official, prayer for the nation and took ownership for national sins doesn’t even support the premise.  If anything, this passages teaches that national officials take national blame for national actions.  This isn’t an individual person being blamed for the sin of an individual who preceded him by a few generations.  A parallel would be if a Christian Prime Minister repented, on behalf of Canada, for the nationally sponsored abortions that his country has been paying for over the years.  Because that Prime Minister actually represents the nation, he can also turn that nation away from their national sins (including long-established ones).

b.  Nehemiah admitted to participating in the sins of his ancestors.  Look at the end of vs. 6. The Generational Curse idea of “confessing the sins of your ancestors” is not personal identification with, and repentance of, the sins of your forefathers that you also commit.  In Generational Curse theology, the idea is repenting of sins that your forefathers committed that you don’t commit.  Sometimes, it’s even repenting of sins that you didn’t even know your forefathers committed.

c.  Nehemiah doesn’t excuse the sin of his contemporaries on the basis of their forefathers.  In Generational Curse theology, a person is said to be sinning essentially against their will.  Someone is a drunk in Generational Curse theology, it’s because of the curse, not their willful rebellion.  That’s not saying that generational curse theology teaches that people are automatons, but rather that the main driving force to committing specific willful sins is one of a generational curse rather than a person’s own wicked desires.

Jer. 14:20

We acknowledge our wickedness, O Lord, and the iniquity of our fathers, for we have sinned against you.

I could say something, but essentially I’d be repeating points (b) and (c) above.  Jeremiah is calling on Israel to stop participating in the sins of their forefathers.

Dan. 9:16

O Lord, according to all your righteous acts, let your anger and your wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem, your holy hill, because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and your people have become a byword among all who are around us.

I could say something, but essentially I’d be repeating points (b) and (c) in my treatment of Nehemiah 1:5-6.  Daniel is calling on Israel to stop participating in the sins of their forefathers.

Category 5: Children are blessed for the righteousness of their fathers: Prov. 13:22.

Prov. 13:22

A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children,
    but the sinner’s wealth is laid up for the righteous.

Let’s make some quick observations:

a. This is clearly talking about money. It’s been long enough ago that I don’t even remember where I found this passage, except that it was on multiple websites and in multiple books.  Clearly, this isn’t talking about transferring spirits, curses, or even spiritual blessings from one generation to another.  It’s talking about how the wicked save up money and treasure for other people find and spend.  That’s a story we all know too well, at least in its most extreme manifestation…

Category 6: Generational curses were broken, at specific times in the past, for Israel: Ez. 18:2-3; Jer. 31:29-30.

Ez. 18:2-3

What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? ³ As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel.

The only thing that I’ll suggest here is that this is a proverb that is wrongfully used in Israel, if one reads the rest of Ezekiel 18.  I’ll address that below.

Jer. 31:29-30

In those days they shall no longer say:

“‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
    and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’

³⁰ But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

The same scenario that Jeremiah is addressing is the scenario that Ezekiel addressed as well.  Let’s shift gears with these two text that are apparently used to argue that generational curses existed and were broken in Israel’s past.

The Positive Biblical Teaching on Generational Curses

So far, I’ve been doing a project that has been essentially negative; I’ve been tearing apart all the apparent textual support.  I’ve dealt with  Ex. 20:5-6, 34:6-7; Num. 14:18; Deut. 5:9-10, 7:9, Deut. 23:2; Judg. 3:9; 1 Sam. 2:27-34, 3:11-14, 12:10-11; Neh. 1:5-6; Prov. 13:22; Jer. 14:20, 32:18;  Lam. 5:7; Dan. 9:16; Matt. 27:24-25.   With all those texts removed from the foundation of Generational Curse theology, there’s no positive reason to believe that the Bible teaches anything close to Generational Curse theology.  That’s good, but what’s better is actually realizing that the bible positively teaches against Generational Curses.  That brings us up to Ezekiel 18 (and tangentially to Jer. 31:29-30).

Let me quickly take you through Ezekiel 18 to see what it says:

vs. 1-4.  At the time of Ezekiel, there was a proverb that ran rampant throughout Israel.  People would blame their trouble on their forefathers, saying “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (vs. 2).  God announced, through his prophet, his intent to wipe that proverb out in Israel (vs. 3).

vs. 5-9.  The Lord then speaks through Ezekiel and says that if a man refrains from wickedness and walks in uprightness (vs. 5-8), “he shall surely live” (vs. 9).

vs. 10-13.  The Lord then states that if a righteous man fathers a wicked son (vs. 10-12), that wicked son will not be blessed on account of his righteous father.  Rather, “He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself” (vs. 13).

vs. 14-18.  But, if the tables are turned and a wicked man fathers a son who does not follow in his father’s example (vs. 14-17), “he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live” (vs. 17).  His father will die for his own sin, but the son will not die on account of the father’s sin (v. 18).

vs. 19-20.  God explains that the son who does what is right shall live (v. 19) and then God explains the overriding principle behind this all: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (vs. 20).  This is the centerpiece of the chapter and the under riding principle of everything in Ezekiel 18.

vs. 21-24.  God then explores two hypothetical scenarios.  First, God states that the the wicked man who turns from his wickedness will live (vs. 21-22).  Secondly, God states that the righteous man who turns from his righteousness will die (v. 23-24).

vs. 25-29. God then deals with the opposition he receives from Israel.  Israel thought that previous acts of righteousness should be called into account when a man turns wicked, but God declared their ideas were in error (vs. 25-26).  Also, Israel thought that previous acts of wickedness should be called into account when a man turns to righteousness, but God again declared their ideas were in error (v. 27-29).

V. 30-32. God comes out and clearly states that he will judge “every one according to his ways,” therefore “repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin” (v. 30).  The important thing is to turn from wickedness now (vs.31) since God doesn’t want anyone to die in their sin (v. 32).  The fact that God doesn’t want anyone to die in their sin is the second principle underlying what’s going on in Ezekiel 18; this principal is what gives urgency to the application of the truths of the passage.

So what is going on in Ezekiel 18?

It seems pretty clear that Israel was in the business of justifying themselves.  They wanted to be able to blame their sin on someone else, and parents are an easy and popular scapegoat for disobedience to God (v. 1-20).  People have been blaming their parents for their problems for a long, long time.

As a secondary fall-back, if they couldn’t blame their parents for their sin, Israel wanted to create a system of justice/judgment that could be easily manipulated for their benefit (v. 21-29).  If you’re the one being judged, you want your righteous deeds to outweigh anything else you’ve done.  If someone else is being judged, especially someone you dislike, you want the ability to overlook anything else they’ve done.

So in Generational Curse theology, the first issue of blaming something other than oneself for one’s own sin is the error.  This is what was happening in v. 1-20 of Ezekiel 18, and this is what is happening in Generational Curse theology.  Are you struggling with a relationship, or workplace performance, or handling money, or sexual lust?

Well, it’s likely because of a curse that entered your family line before you were born.

In other words, it’s not your fault.

Talk about the #1 best-selling lie of all time.

Did you punch out that annoying barista who made passive-aggressive judgments about you every time you came in?

It wasn’t your fault.

It was a Generational Curse of Violence!

Hooray!

But, reality says otherwise: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20). 

People don’t suffer for the sins of others.  People suffer the consequences of their own sin, and only their own sin.

But wait!  What about someone who suffers due to demonic spirits, strongholds, sinful habits or other miscellaneous “spiritual bondage” that is passed down through their family line?

This brings up the question of why people commit specific acts of sin.   The Bible is clear on this:

– “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” – James 1:14-15

– “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—  among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” – Ephesians 2:1-3

– “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.” – Galatians 5:16-17

– “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.” – Matt. 5:19

People act on the basis of their sinful desires, and those come from the heart.

In other words, your sin is always your fault and yours alone.

After 6 posts of exploring this subject, I can confidently say that there’s not a single shred of biblical evidence to support the idea that anyone, anywhere, ever sins or otherwise has hardship in their life because of a Generational Curse.

I hope this series has helped those of you who have expressed interest in this subject over the past few years, and I thank you for your patience in waiting for this to happen and finish.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Cursed by myself and nobody else” Unger

Save

Save