The Pastor's Page - 12/18/09
William is listed as an authority on Generational Curses by RadioGuestList and is available for interviews and speaking engagements.
For more on Generational Curses,
see excerpts from Pastor Shifflett's
book Friendly Fire, below. See
more details, excerpts, and a
video trailer on the Friendly Fire page.
The book is
now available from
Amazon and Tate Publishing.
The Fallacy of Generational Curses
There are a number of well known ministries which feature in their teachings the idea that Christians suffer from being under curses. In addition there are followers of these ministries who in turn share these concepts which gives the impression that the doctrine is correct. Yet while popular they are not Biblically accurate. The teaching is quite involved and cannot be addressed adequately in this small format but let’s look briefly at the concept and its flaws.
What It Teaches:
The position holds that problems like sickness, financial lack, business or ministry failure, family dysfunction, and a host of other issues are not normal for Christian people. Among the many causes listed is the idea that an ancestor committed a repeated sin in this area thus creating an iniquity which is passed down from generation to generation. This is a curse and it must be broken.
What's Wrong With the Teaching?
- Distinctions Which Do Not Exist
The teachers insist that there is a difference between a sin and an iniquity, or sins and trespasses. This is a distinction that does not exist. Three Hebrew words are translated iniquity in the Old Testament. According to the “Vine’s Expository Dictionary”, these three words are synonymous with the other Hebrews words for sin, transgression or wickedness and are sometimes used interchangeably.
- Rewriting Scripture
The teachers ignore passages which flatly contradict their position. In a Voice Magazine interview Larry Huch misused a verse to teach the reality of generational curses. However the passage from Jeremiah 31:29-31 actually denies the concept. “In those days they shall say no more: 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.’ But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant” In the New Covenant in Christ we are held accountable for our sins and no one else’s.
- Contradictory Examples
Marilyn Hickey suggests that Nehemiah confessed his and his fathers sins and that as a result “the most prosperous time that Israel had was the next four hundred years.” This conclusion ignores both Scripture itself and history. Nehemiah chapters five and thirteen detail ongoing problems with enemies and financial lack as well as ongoing moral failure. The events of Nehemiah 13 occur only five years before the ministry of Malachi, and we see the same ongoing problems, and then God is silent for the next four hundred years. Apparently breaking the curse didn’t help as much as these teachers insist.
These are but a few of the many problems resident in this unbiblical teaching.
Generational Curses
Generational Curses and the Grapes of Wrath
Confessing Generational Curses and Iniquities
The Lies of Generational Curse Deliverance
For more on this topic please see the comments of Ray Waldo.
Excerpts from Pastor Shifflett's book Friendly Fire:
First, let’s be clear: I am not suggesting that there aren’t patterns of behavior or genetic traits that are passed down from one generation to another. A host of physical ailments are passed down from parents to children. And, of course, no one disputes the fact that we all inherited Adam’s sin nature. No, the problem isn’t in the evidence for generational effects; the problem is in the above claim of how to fix the generational problem. As we survey that, we find ourselves well off the path of Bible instruction, and all because we have rejected the normalcy of trials.
Another illogical aspect in this reasoning is found in the things we are freed from by our confession. Our author cites Psalms 121:6, “the sun shall not smite thee by day,”10 as support for freedom from burns. Am I really to believe that sunburn or any other burn is the product of a generational curse? Fair-skinned people like my wife sunburn easily. Will confessing a family sin free her from her need for SPF 700? Has our proclamation of the gospel become as trite and foolish as this? God forbid!
And what do we say about the multitudes who line the world’s beaches, some in complete nudity, many with sexual aspirations, who never suffer such a burn simply by using precautions? Many of the freedoms suggested by our author are enjoyed every day by thousands who have never confessed their own sins, much less those of their ancestors. Why doesn’t this principal work on them?
Another area of contradiction surfaces in our sample author’s citation above of three men inheriting the iniquities of their fathers: Saul’s son, Jonathan; David’s son, Amnon; and Solomon’s son, Rehoboam. The problem with this assertion is that all of these men were fully grown and responsible for their own conduct when their fathers sinned. Jonathan had already established himself as a warrior before his father rebelled against the Lord. Amnon’s rape of his sister Tamar is recorded just two chapters after David’s sin with Bathsheba at which point Amnon has his own house and servants, obviously a fully grown self sufficient man. Rehoboam was also a grown man before his father, Solomon, turned to other gods. We are told that Solomon reigned over Israel forty years, (1 Kings 11:42), and that Rehoboam was forty-one when he began to reign (1 Kings 14:21). In other words, Rehoboam was born shortly before Solomon came to the throne. The Scripture says Solomon did not turn to other gods until his latter years. Rehoboam would have been between twenty and thirty years old when Solomon fell into idolatry. In fact, it is possible that Rehoboam’s son, Abijah, was also a grown man when Solomon fell. Yes, they could have yielded to Solomon’s example, but we are introducing a new idea when we say that they inherited this iniquity as grown men.
We should also examine the issue of a woman passing on a curse to her children, the claim made above in regard to Rahab. This presents a deep and troubling theological issue. If it is possible for a woman to pass on a curse that causes sinful acts, then what do we do about our claim that Christ was sinless? Remember that Mary was also a descendant of David. If we embrace the idea that a woman can pass on a curse, which causes sinfulness, then Mary must have passed sin on to Christ. Clearly, this cannot be if we are to be saved by a spotless Savior. Yet, this is exactly where we end up when we embrace flawed teachings that try to lead us away from the character-building benefits of trials.
