GENERATIONAL CURSES: EXODUS 20:5

One of my blog readers sent me a list of 34 key beliefs of his that he wished me to comment on. Most of them were either the sorts of items that might show up on any doctrinal statement from a Christian denomination or dealt with the types of beliefs that might be called secondary or tertiary. But a surprising number of these “doctrines” involved issues related to illness and generational curses. The reason became obvious when I considered that he had also mentioned he had suffered from debilitating illnesses most of his life. I have dealt briefly on this subject in my post “Should children be punished for the sins of their parents?”

He elaborated further on his beliefs by stating, “God's generational curse is a possible cause of some cases of illness since it is in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:5), which remain in effect for all Christians as moral law. The entire New Testament is full of criticism and warnings to obey the Ten Commandments and other moral laws and supports that generational curses still occur in the new covenant era.” He cited five proof texts (discounting Gospel parallels): Luke 19:44; 21:22-24; 23:28-29; John 9:2-3; and Revelation 2:20-23. Let us take them one at a time.

Luke 19:44: Jesus looks upon Jerusalem and warns them of a coming time when enemies will besiege the city and “crush you to the ground, you and your children within you” because they did not recognize Jesus as their Messiah. Most people apply this prophecy specifically to either the future time of the Tribulation or to the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans. It says nothing about illnesses or even pronounce a curse on future generations or on Christians who do believe in Jesus. Crushing the children within the womb at the time refers to their death along with their pregnant mothers or to the slavery into which they will be born.

Luke 21:22-24 similarly can be applied to either of the two specific time periods given above, but in this case the advice seems to be given to believers who are told to escape Jerusalem as soon as they see the telltale signs of an advancing army. Otherwise they will be killed or taken captive. The only mention of further generations is the practical consideration that it will be much more difficult to flee if the woman are pregnant or nursing at the time.

Luke 23:28-29 is very much in the same vein. On the way to the cross, Jesus encounters women who are weeping over him and tells them to instead weep for themselves and their children. He concludes his advice in v. 31 by asking, “If they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?” In this instance, it is fairly clear that the coming events of 70 AD are in mind. In other words, if the Romans crucify a totally innocent man, what will they do to you when I am gone?”

John 9:2-3: Amazingly, my correspondent even quotes this passage favorably when, if anything, it is a proof text that argues rather strongly against his contention. This is the well-known story of the man born blind, about whom the apostles ask, “Who sinned, he or his parents?” As usual when confronted with his followers' dullness of understanding, Jesus doesn't go into great length to expose their false assumptions but simply tells them they are mistaken. Note that though the apostles apparently still believed in some sort of inherited curses, they didn't quote any OT texts that refer to the “third and fourth generations” but only ask if the man or his parents sinned, not his “fathers” or “ancestors.” Their second misconception was like that of Job's friends that all misfortune must stem from sin.

Note one similarity between all of the above texts: none of them occurred in the new covenant era, in direct contradiction to my correspondent's assertion, since there is general agreement that it only commenced with the death and resurrection of Christ.

Revelation 2:20-23 By contrast, this passage clearly does apply to the New Covenant period. Christ warns the false prophetess Jezebel who has refused to repent that He is throwing her into great distress “and will strike her children dead.” The main thing to note here is that there is unanimity of feeling among Bible scholars that “her children” refers to all those in the church who “commit adultery with her” by following her false teachings. This same figurative use of “children” almost certainly appears in II John 1:1.

With those NT texts eliminated as proofs, we must now turn to the Old Testament since another contention was that we are told as Christians to continue obeying the Ten Commandments, and generational curses are clearly mentioned in them (Exodus 20:5). This passage, which is repeated several more times in the Pentateuch, does in fact mention a curse on the third or fourth generation for the iniquity of the parents. However, it follows that warning with the promise that He will show “steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.” So if one wishes to be strictly literal, all one has to do is find someone in their previous 1,000 generations who meets these qualifications, and that should cancel out anyone in their last four generations who did not love God. Some more serious objections are given below.

In the first place, as others have pointed out, this curse strictly applies to those who practice idolatry and is specifically directed to the people of Israel. In the second place, there is not even a hint that this curse includes diseases. Thirdly, even in the OT there is a strong indication that the concept of a son suffering for the father's sins will no longer apply in the future. This is most clearly seen in the eschatological passage in Jeremiah 31, which also contains the prediction of the New Covenant. “In those days they shall no longer say: 'The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge.” (Jeremiah 31:29-30)

Finally, it is by no means agreed that the NT teaches strict adherence to the Ten Commandments, and especially to the comments in Exodus attached to those laws. Jesus broke most of the restrictions concerning the Sabbath and redefined it as a day to do good works and one which was for our benefit. His early followers for the most part ceased to observe it, and substituted Sunday instead in honor of Christ's resurrection. When he castigated those who donated their money to the temple in lieu of supporting their parents, he did not quote the reason being “so that you will live long in the land that the LORD you God is giving you.” In the Sermon on the Mount, he similarly redefined most of the commandments in terms of root motives instead of outward observances and expanded the prohibitions against false witnessing and murder to include, respectively, swearing oaths using God's name and hating someone else. His parable of the Good Samaritan similarly expanded the definition of “neighbor” to include many more people that the Jews had considered. The end result of his new interpretations was to make it clear that absolutely no one could keep the law entirely.

Then why did Jesus say that he didn't come to destroy the law? He qualified that statement by saying that he was fulfilling the law. That really meant two things. For one, Jesus represented the true Israel who by being personally sinless, was at last was able to adhere completely to the moral requirements demands of the Father. Secondly, he was able by his death to nail the penalty of the law on the cross. Actually, any reading of the Gospels, Acts, Romans, Galatians or Hebrews, for example, will make it clear that Jesus intended the OT law to be totally summed up in the two great Love Commandments. Anything more than that was trying to put new wine in old wine skins.

So in conclusion, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible, Old or New Testament, that even hints that some illnesses today are the result of generational curses by God on one of our ancestors.