Generational Gymnastics (1)

who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”  Exodus 34:7 NASB

Visiting – Does God pass iniquity to the children of sinful fathers? Or to the grandchildren and great grandchildren? If this is true, aren’t we all in terrible shape, suffering for sins committed long ago, perhaps without even knowing what they were? Is this a God of proleptic vengeance, making sure that someone pays?

The text in this most-crucial passage about the very nature of God seems to support a Greek view of reprisal, not a Hebraic view of a God of mercy. Scholars have had a difficult time with this verse. In fact, in my opinion, if I mistranslate what Moses says here I can easily misunderstand what Yeshua accomplishes on the cross centuries later. If I believe that someone must pay for sins committed in the past, it’s easy to conclude that Yeshua dies for all those past sins since Adam, sins that we inherited because of the iniquity of our fathers all the way back to the first human father. In other words, if this is really a statement about God’s future punishment of the innocent because of the guilty, then the entire theological construction of the original sin of Adam as the federal head of the human race leads us to the necessity of payment on the cross. We end up with the Reformer’s penal theory of atonement.

But is this really true? Does God really exact punishment from those who did not actually commit the offense? TWOT notes:

The basic meaning is to exercise oversight over a subordinate, either in the form of inspecting or of taking action to cause a considerable change in the circumstances of the subordinate, either for the better or for the worse.

It has been said of this verb, which occurs more than three hundred times in the ot; “There is probably no other Hebrew verb that has caused translators as much trouble as pqd” (Speiser, BASOR 149:21).

Speiser considers the root meaning to be “attend to with care” or “take note.” It is impossible to prove whether this is the actual origin, but the fact that at least half of the occurrences involve positive action by a superior in relation to his subordinates strongly suggests that such action is a vital part of the meaning of the word, an idea that is supported by the fact that the LXX most frequently translates it by episkeptō or a similar word.^[1]

Despite these linguistic concerns, important commentators continue to view paqah as retributive punishment. For example, Hamilton cites the use in Hosea 1:4 as evidence that the word means punishment. He goes on to say, “There is no such thing as iniquity without consequences, either for the perpetrator or for the perpetrator’s kin.”[2] Other Christian commentators take a similar approach.

But Jewish scholars have a different view. “Divine forbearance does not mean that sinners can expect wholly to escape the consequences of their misdeeds. Yoma 86a interprets the sentence to mean: ‘He remits punishment for the penitent, but not for the impenitent.’”[3]           Thus, this action of YHVH is incorporated in the Thirteen Attributes of God (shelosh ‘esreh midot) of Jewish liturgy with the intention of emphasizing the importance of repentance and the corresponding compassion of God. Thus the Jerusalem Targum renders the verse as, “Remembering the sins of the wicked fathers upon the rebellious sons . . .”, i.e., those who remain unrepentant following in their father footsteps.

Given the linguistic evidence and the character of YHVH throughout Scripture, it is my opinion that this verse speaks about the oversight of God through four generations. That oversight, as pahad demonstrates in other verses, is designed to attend to the consequences of past sinful acts. It does not assign guilt to those who experience these consequences. Hamilton is right. Every sin has consequences. But he is wrong to suggest that consequences are the equivalent of guilt. We all know that wicked actions of past generations affect us. That is plainly obvious. But Scripture is quite clear that no man is guilty for another man’s sin. I believe that this statement, given in the context of a God who is above all compassionate and merciful, is a declaration that God’s oversight will be present even in those consequences. In other words, God does not abandon us to the results of what our fathers or our fathers’ fathers did. He watches over the inevitable chain of consequences so that we are not left without succor. This God, who is compassionate, gracious, full of hesed and faithfulness, does not hold the innocent accountable for the guilty. That is a Greek idea arising from the Greek notion of ultimate justice. This God, the God of Israel, protects and provides for those who inherit the results of past sins.

There are no generational sins even if there are generational consequences. Generational curses are Greek mythology.

Topical Index: paqad, visiting, generational curses, Exodus 34:7

^[1] Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., Jr., & Waltke, B. K. (Eds.). (1999). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 731). Chicago: Moody Press.

[2] Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, p. 574.

[3] Nahum Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, p. 216