What does it mean for God to "visit" the iniquity of the fathers upon the children?
Exodus 20:5 is a key verse for the teachers of generational curses.
"You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor 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 them that hate me;" (KJV)
I want to take a close look at how some deliverance ministers interpret and apply this verse. When confronted with the teaching of generational curses based on this passage in Exodus, people question whether or not this Old Testament warning even applies to Christians today. This is a very important question that I believe has a very direct answer, but for the purpose of brevity, I will not discuss it here. Let us assume that this passage reveals an unchanging picture of the way God must relate to mankind. If so, what exactly is this saying?
There are two key words that we must deal with: visiting and iniquity. We will start with iniquity. Deliverance minister Dr. Paul Cox defines iniquity in this way: a twisted response to God that comes from an inner crookedness. (1.) He distinguishes iniquity as something different than both sin and rebellion. To Dr. Cox, we sin when we take our eyes off God and go astray. Dr. Cox says there is not necessarily any malicious intent behind sin. Rebellion, on the other hand, occurs when we knowingly do that which God has commanded us not to do. Dr. Cox is essentially saying that sin and rebellion are actions that result from an inner twistedness he calls iniquity.
In this way Dr. Cox attempts to differentiate between sin, rebellion, and iniquity. While the Bible often uses iniquity as a synonym for sin, Dr. Cox describes it as something more akin to a sinful tendency, not sin itself.
Similarly, deliverance ministers Chester and Betsy Kylstra define iniquity as a pressure to sin. (2.) According to them, iniquity is not something you do, it is something that influences what you do. They say that having iniquity doesn't condemn a person. It is only the sins you commit under the influence of iniquity that condemns you. Here again, iniquity is seen as something akin to the sinful nature, but it is not the direct act of sinning.
This redefining of iniquity is a very important pillar of the generational curse doctrine. If the deliverance minister's interpretation of iniquity is incorrect, the doctrine takes a serious hit.
Now I will examine how deliverance ministers interpret the word visiting. To them, this word describes the act of "passing on." When the parents' iniquity is visited upon their children, they interpret this to mean that the parents' iniquity is passed on to the children. This is taken to literally mean that the sinful tendencies of the parents will result in a strong influence upon the children to repeat their parent's sins. The pressure for the children to sin like their parents is what is called the generational curse. However, to the deliverance minister, the generational curse not only results in a pressure for the child to sin like the parents, but it can also bring a host of other negative things into the child's life, such as sickness and hardships.
There are various interpretations on how this increased pressure to sin comes to be. One minister described it this way: "As a result of a sinning parent's severe transgressions against the Lord, sometimes demons will be allowed to attach to the sinning parent. Once they attach to the sinning parent, they will then attempt to try and jump and transfer onto some of the children in the family to form out a curse line. If this curse line ends up getting formed, then the demons will follow that child into his adult life and try to get him to commit the same type of sins that his sinning parent had been committing."
Despite the fact that Exodus 20:5 specifically says that God is the one who will "visit the iniquity", this minister prefers the idea of demonic forces being involved in bringing added pressure to sin. The minister has good reason for putting the blame on demons, for James 1:13 is clear that God does not tempt people. However, even if this minister does not say that God is directly involved in bringing the curses of sinful tendencies and negative consequences, the passage clearly states that God is ultimately behind it. If demons are involved in perpetuating sinful tendencies and bringing generational curses, it must be allowed by God in accordance with His will if the deliverance minister's interpretation of this verse is correct.
Most of these ministers don't have any problems admitting God's involvement in bringing the generational curse of sinful pressures. Dr. Paul Cox states "We believe the Father visits the iniquity of the fathers on the sons not because He has a heart to burden people, but so that they may be confronted with this twisting of the truth, rise to the challenge and overcome it...We believe this occurs so that the sons may be presented with this wrong response, perceive this sin, and be given the opportunity to 'master it' that their fathers squandered."
Similarly, Chester and Betsy Kylstra say that generational curses are a matter of God's justice. They assert that God's justice results in the children being affected by the pressure of inherited iniquity as well as the pressure of possible curses because of their parent's sin. In other words, they are saying that God's method of judging sin is to bring upon the children an increased pressure to commit the same exact sins as their parents. To me this is a very backwards way of judging sin. The motivation behind God's judgments are to turn people from sin. Why would God judge sin by allowing or causing greater pressure within the family to continue the sin? It seems that this would not result in less sin, but more sin.
The generational curse doctrine relies heavily on this interpretation of visiting and iniquity; however, do these terms mean what the ministers say they do? I'll start with visiting. The terms comes from the Hebrew root word paqad. Paqad is translated in various ways in the Bible. The most common use of paqad is "to number". It is simply used to describe the act of counting things, or to describe a large number of people or things. The next most common uses of paqad are to visit or to punish. Most often when it is translated as visiting, it is in the context of someone going somewhere for a period of time to dwell there - just as we would normally use the term in modern English. Other times when visiting is used, it is in the context of God punishing. In these cases, the alternative transalation of to punish could be used instead of visiting- which is why many modern translations prefer translating paqad as to punish in these contexts instead of to visit. In the NIV, Exodus 20:5 is translated as "He punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation..."
The following is an example in the KJV where paqad is translated as to punish. “And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogance of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless.” ( Isaiah 13:11 ) As in Exodus 20:5, paqad is expressed in conjunction with iniquity; however, the context clearly indicates that the iniquity is being punished, not passed on.
Alternatively, the KJV translates paqad as to visit instead of to punish in some cases, even when the context indicates that to visit is conveying the same message as to punish.
For example Hosea 2:13 says “And I will visit upon her [Israel] the days of Baalim [or Baal], wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgot me, saith the LORD.” (KJV)
The sentence structure is very similar to Exodus 20:5. In one passage, the “days of Baalim” are being visited upon iniquitous Israel. In the other passage “the iniquity of the fathers” is being visited upon Israel. However, the Hosea passage isn’t saying that the “days of Baalim” will be passed on, it is saying that they will be punished. The NASB provides a clearer translation "I will punish her for the days of the Baals, when she used to offer sacrifices to them and adorn herself with her earrings and jewelry, And follow her lovers, so that she forgot Me," declares the LORD.”
It seems clear that the KJV's use of "visiting" in Exodus 20:5 is meant to convey the same message as "punishing" - just as many other translations prefer to punish in this passage. Some deliverance ministers like Chester and Betsy Kylstra seemingly apply both alternative translations of paqad by teaching that God's punishment for iniquity involves God's visiting iniquity. No only is this a bad mixture of circular reasoning and equivocation, it also imposes a meaning of visiting that isn't specified or implied in the text. You can't gather from this passage that visiting means the passing on of iniquity - you must read this passage with that alternative definition already in mind. But if this alternative understanding of visiting can't be derived from this passage, one must wonder why this understanding is valid at all.
Lastly, I will discuss the alternative understanding of iniquity that is taught by deliverance ministers. An attempt is made to distinguish acts of sin and rebellion from a heart condition called iniquity. This redefining of iniquity is the only way they can make "visiting the iniquity" become a phrase about generational curses. It makes more sense that a sinful tendency can be passed on to your children rather than an individual sin. For example, it wouldn't make much sense for the deliverance minister to teach that the one time you cheated on your SATs can be passed on to your children. It makes more sense to teach that your tendency to cheat can be passed on to your children. However, is iniquity ever used to describe something akin to a sinful tendency? Contrary to the teaching that iniquity is a tendency and not an action, the Bible teaches that iniquity is something that people plan (Micah 2:1). People plan sinful actions, not sinful tendencies. Furthermore, God punishes iniquity (Is. 13:11) and God forgives iniquity (Ps. 25:11), which is contrary to the teaching that one can have iniquity without being guilty before God until the iniquity is "acted out." The Bible does not support this unique understanding of iniquity that the deliverance ministers place on it. Instead, iniquity is often used as a synonym for sin.
All in all, it appears to me that teachers of generational curses have invented a theological concept based on a misunderstanding of visiting and iniquity. They do not understand how these words were originally used in the old English of the KJV, and they impose new meanings on the terms that are not Biblically justified.
1. What's all this "Generational stuff"? Dr. Paul L. Cox (LINK)
2. Restoring the Foundations. Chester and Betsy Kylstra. 2nd ed. 2001.
Exodus 20:5 is a key verse for the teachers of generational curses.
"You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor 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 them that hate me;" (KJV)
I want to take a close look at how some deliverance ministers interpret and apply this verse. When confronted with the teaching of generational curses based on this passage in Exodus, people question whether or not this Old Testament warning even applies to Christians today. This is a very important question that I believe has a very direct answer, but for the purpose of brevity, I will not discuss it here. Let us assume that this passage reveals an unchanging picture of the way God must relate to mankind. If so, what exactly is this saying?
There are two key words that we must deal with: visiting and iniquity. We will start with iniquity. Deliverance minister Dr. Paul Cox defines iniquity in this way: a twisted response to God that comes from an inner crookedness. (1.) He distinguishes iniquity as something different than both sin and rebellion. To Dr. Cox, we sin when we take our eyes off God and go astray. Dr. Cox says there is not necessarily any malicious intent behind sin. Rebellion, on the other hand, occurs when we knowingly do that which God has commanded us not to do. Dr. Cox is essentially saying that sin and rebellion are actions that result from an inner twistedness he calls iniquity.
In this way Dr. Cox attempts to differentiate between sin, rebellion, and iniquity. While the Bible often uses iniquity as a synonym for sin, Dr. Cox describes it as something more akin to a sinful tendency, not sin itself.
Similarly, deliverance ministers Chester and Betsy Kylstra define iniquity as a pressure to sin. (2.) According to them, iniquity is not something you do, it is something that influences what you do. They say that having iniquity doesn't condemn a person. It is only the sins you commit under the influence of iniquity that condemns you. Here again, iniquity is seen as something akin to the sinful nature, but it is not the direct act of sinning.
This redefining of iniquity is a very important pillar of the generational curse doctrine. If the deliverance minister's interpretation of iniquity is incorrect, the doctrine takes a serious hit.
Now I will examine how deliverance ministers interpret the word visiting. To them, this word describes the act of "passing on." When the parents' iniquity is visited upon their children, they interpret this to mean that the parents' iniquity is passed on to the children. This is taken to literally mean that the sinful tendencies of the parents will result in a strong influence upon the children to repeat their parent's sins. The pressure for the children to sin like their parents is what is called the generational curse. However, to the deliverance minister, the generational curse not only results in a pressure for the child to sin like the parents, but it can also bring a host of other negative things into the child's life, such as sickness and hardships.
There are various interpretations on how this increased pressure to sin comes to be. One minister described it this way: "As a result of a sinning parent's severe transgressions against the Lord, sometimes demons will be allowed to attach to the sinning parent. Once they attach to the sinning parent, they will then attempt to try and jump and transfer onto some of the children in the family to form out a curse line. If this curse line ends up getting formed, then the demons will follow that child into his adult life and try to get him to commit the same type of sins that his sinning parent had been committing."
Despite the fact that Exodus 20:5 specifically says that God is the one who will "visit the iniquity", this minister prefers the idea of demonic forces being involved in bringing added pressure to sin. The minister has good reason for putting the blame on demons, for James 1:13 is clear that God does not tempt people. However, even if this minister does not say that God is directly involved in bringing the curses of sinful tendencies and negative consequences, the passage clearly states that God is ultimately behind it. If demons are involved in perpetuating sinful tendencies and bringing generational curses, it must be allowed by God in accordance with His will if the deliverance minister's interpretation of this verse is correct.
Most of these ministers don't have any problems admitting God's involvement in bringing the generational curse of sinful pressures. Dr. Paul Cox states "We believe the Father visits the iniquity of the fathers on the sons not because He has a heart to burden people, but so that they may be confronted with this twisting of the truth, rise to the challenge and overcome it...We believe this occurs so that the sons may be presented with this wrong response, perceive this sin, and be given the opportunity to 'master it' that their fathers squandered."
Similarly, Chester and Betsy Kylstra say that generational curses are a matter of God's justice. They assert that God's justice results in the children being affected by the pressure of inherited iniquity as well as the pressure of possible curses because of their parent's sin. In other words, they are saying that God's method of judging sin is to bring upon the children an increased pressure to commit the same exact sins as their parents. To me this is a very backwards way of judging sin. The motivation behind God's judgments are to turn people from sin. Why would God judge sin by allowing or causing greater pressure within the family to continue the sin? It seems that this would not result in less sin, but more sin.
The generational curse doctrine relies heavily on this interpretation of visiting and iniquity; however, do these terms mean what the ministers say they do? I'll start with visiting. The terms comes from the Hebrew root word paqad. Paqad is translated in various ways in the Bible. The most common use of paqad is "to number". It is simply used to describe the act of counting things, or to describe a large number of people or things. The next most common uses of paqad are to visit or to punish. Most often when it is translated as visiting, it is in the context of someone going somewhere for a period of time to dwell there - just as we would normally use the term in modern English. Other times when visiting is used, it is in the context of God punishing. In these cases, the alternative transalation of to punish could be used instead of visiting- which is why many modern translations prefer translating paqad as to punish in these contexts instead of to visit. In the NIV, Exodus 20:5 is translated as "He punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation..."
The following is an example in the KJV where paqad is translated as to punish. “And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogance of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless.” ( Isaiah 13:11 ) As in Exodus 20:5, paqad is expressed in conjunction with iniquity; however, the context clearly indicates that the iniquity is being punished, not passed on.
Alternatively, the KJV translates paqad as to visit instead of to punish in some cases, even when the context indicates that to visit is conveying the same message as to punish.
For example Hosea 2:13 says “And I will visit upon her [Israel] the days of Baalim [or Baal], wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers, and forgot me, saith the LORD.” (KJV)
The sentence structure is very similar to Exodus 20:5. In one passage, the “days of Baalim” are being visited upon iniquitous Israel. In the other passage “the iniquity of the fathers” is being visited upon Israel. However, the Hosea passage isn’t saying that the “days of Baalim” will be passed on, it is saying that they will be punished. The NASB provides a clearer translation "I will punish her for the days of the Baals, when she used to offer sacrifices to them and adorn herself with her earrings and jewelry, And follow her lovers, so that she forgot Me," declares the LORD.”
It seems clear that the KJV's use of "visiting" in Exodus 20:5 is meant to convey the same message as "punishing" - just as many other translations prefer to punish in this passage. Some deliverance ministers like Chester and Betsy Kylstra seemingly apply both alternative translations of paqad by teaching that God's punishment for iniquity involves God's visiting iniquity. No only is this a bad mixture of circular reasoning and equivocation, it also imposes a meaning of visiting that isn't specified or implied in the text. You can't gather from this passage that visiting means the passing on of iniquity - you must read this passage with that alternative definition already in mind. But if this alternative understanding of visiting can't be derived from this passage, one must wonder why this understanding is valid at all.
Lastly, I will discuss the alternative understanding of iniquity that is taught by deliverance ministers. An attempt is made to distinguish acts of sin and rebellion from a heart condition called iniquity. This redefining of iniquity is the only way they can make "visiting the iniquity" become a phrase about generational curses. It makes more sense that a sinful tendency can be passed on to your children rather than an individual sin. For example, it wouldn't make much sense for the deliverance minister to teach that the one time you cheated on your SATs can be passed on to your children. It makes more sense to teach that your tendency to cheat can be passed on to your children. However, is iniquity ever used to describe something akin to a sinful tendency? Contrary to the teaching that iniquity is a tendency and not an action, the Bible teaches that iniquity is something that people plan (Micah 2:1). People plan sinful actions, not sinful tendencies. Furthermore, God punishes iniquity (Is. 13:11) and God forgives iniquity (Ps. 25:11), which is contrary to the teaching that one can have iniquity without being guilty before God until the iniquity is "acted out." The Bible does not support this unique understanding of iniquity that the deliverance ministers place on it. Instead, iniquity is often used as a synonym for sin.
All in all, it appears to me that teachers of generational curses have invented a theological concept based on a misunderstanding of visiting and iniquity. They do not understand how these words were originally used in the old English of the KJV, and they impose new meanings on the terms that are not Biblically justified.
1. What's all this "Generational stuff"? Dr. Paul L. Cox (LINK)
2. Restoring the Foundations. Chester and Betsy Kylstra. 2nd ed. 2001.
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...