Could We Accuse God’s Anointed?

          Pastor Benny Hinn, during a Pastors conference in Lagos, Nigeria on February 10^th 2017, cautioned that God’s anointed should not be criticized.¹ He’s not alone in making such statements. Quite a few servants of God pummel their audience to submission with such threats.

            “Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm” (Psalm 105:15 & 1 Chronicles 16:22) is an oft resorted verse by fulltime Christian workers (Pastors, Evangelists etc.). This is to protect them against criticism.

            The Bible narrates instances of people being cursed for accusing God’s anointed. In Numbers 12, Miriam was cursed with leprosy for criticizing Moses. 2 Kings 2: 23-25 shares the narrative of the boys mauled by two bears because they cursed Elisha.

            Many Christian leaders are accused of immorality, false teaching, lack of financial accountability etc. So could we accuse these anointed servants of God who serve in HIS vineyard around the clock?

            Anointing is a prerequisite for God’s workers. However, our innate propensity to sin ensures that accusing God's anointed is indeed a complicated predicament.

            There are two broad categories of God’s servants – the true and the false servants of God. The true servant of God is called and anointed by God to employ his/her gift to serve God’s people in HIS Kingdom. Then there are false workers in God’s Kingdom, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.” (Matthew 7:15, NIV).

            These false workers need not be anointed by God, since they are not called by God, yet they serve God full time. These false workers undertake God’s work as their permanent vocation for selfish gains.

            If there are false workers in God’s Kingdom, would not our criticism of them be appropriate? Yes and no; this is not as easy as it seems. This is another complicated predicament.

            Consider this complication. How do we absolutely identify a false worker? Confessions and other investigative mechanisms do prove people’s duplicity. However, when confessions are missing and when there are no solid evidences to prove a person’s hypocrisy, we tread dangerously. We do not possess perfect knowledge. So with what certainty or authority do we accuse a servant of God as a false prophet? There is always room for error in our judgment.

            Some Christians argue that God’s workers could be criticized irrespective of Psalm 105:15 & 1 Chronicles 16:22 because these verses do not refer to criticizing God’s servants, “Christians are to hold one another accountable for one another's behavior (1 Jn. 3:17; Gal. 6:2; Tit. 1:9; 1 Tim. 1:3,4; 4:16; II Tim. 4:2; Matt. 18:15-16). … Christians are to be accurate and balanced when giving criticism. When a person or group that claims to be Christian and yet seriously departs from the historical biblical doctrines of orthodox Christianity, one cannot stand idly by in silence. (Matt. 18:15-16). To not speak out would be dishonoring to God and unloving, not only to Christians, but also to the propagators of the error.

            …They point to biblical proof texts such as Psalm 105:15, "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm" (KJV). But if one looks at the passage, it will reveal that it has nothing to do with questioning the teachings of church leaders.

            In the Old Testament the phrase, "the Lord's anointed", is used to refer to the kings of Israel (I Samuel 12:35; 24:6, 10, 16, 23; II Samuel 1:14, 16; 19:21; Psalms 10:6), and not to prophets. In the context of Psalms 105 the reference is to patriarchs in general (vv. 8-15; ef, I Chronicles 16:15-22).

            Psalms 105:15 has nothing to do with the issue of questioning the teachings of any of God's "anointed". In the context of this passage, the words "touch" and "do harm" have to do with inflicting physical harm upon someone.

            Specifically, in I Sam. 24:6, the phrase "touch not the Lord's anointed" refers to David's refraining from killing King Saul when he had the opportunity. It means in that context, "not to kill".

            The fact is that David did rebuke Saul publicly more than once and called him to account for his actions before God.”²

            You may be inclined to criticize the teaching of the person or the very character of that person. However, there is a word of caution associated with criticizing God’s servants when there are no confessions and/or no solid evidences against the said person.

            If you are inclined to slay the character of a God’s servant, then ensure that you “Try everything in your power to contact the person and have them or a representative explain themselves.”³ Do not blindly trust the media or ride the gossip bandwagon. We would be better off to err on the side of grace/caution. We should do our due diligence before attacking the character of God’s anointed.

            Whatever the case may be, if you are to criticize God’s anointed, do know that “…there is scrutiny and there is malicious intent—two very separate ideals. When you scrutinize someone, please make sure it's with 1) Godly intent about his or her teaching,  and 2) not against the person themselves. I've read many examples—especially on message boards—where a preacher's character is maligned because of something he or she taught or is NOT teaching…That's where people fail to take care when they "touch God's anointed." Their words are simply malicious.

            And, malicious intent against anyone, much less God's anointed, isn't without its consequences.

            We know from 2 Kings 2:23-24 what happened to 42 youth from Bethel who maliciously mocked Elisha, certainly one of God's anointed. "He went up from there to Bethel, and going up on the way, little boys came out of the city and made fun of him and said to him, "Go up, you bald head! Go up, you bald head!" He turned around, saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and ripped open forty-two of the boys."

             This type of mockery implied malicious intent, perhaps to maim or kill Elisha. At that time, the epithet "baldy" signified contempt in the East and showed severe disrespect for Elisha's message and God's power. God sent the bears as a judgment for their callous unbelief.

            God may not be so blatant these days. But again, there are consequences.

            So what should Christ followers do when they find themselves in disagreement with someone in the ministry? At least these three things:

            Make sure that what you are disagreeing with is something that person actually said. I've seen a lot of people comment on things they don't even investigate and simply assume it's true because they read something somewhere or heard it from someone else.

            Most importantly, check it against Scripture. This is the ultimate test.

            Don't go off half-cocked and rebuke anybody at time in any place—most specifically on the Internet—when you disagree with someone. Try everything in your power to contact the person and have them or a representative explain themselves. Matthew 18:15-16 says, "Now if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, then take with you one or two others, that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every word may be established" (MEV).

            There certainly isn't a lack of public rebuke on the Internet. A great deal of it is mean-spirited and not meant for godly correction, but as it appears, for some people to simply make themselves feel better…Pastor Kenny Luck calls it "spiritual nitpicking."

            It is important—nay, crucial—for Christ followers, as Hux says, "not (to) render a condemning judgment upon anyone (that alone is for God), but to render a discerning judgment upon all teachings. It is important for Christians to test all things by Scripture" as the Bereans did with Paul in Acts 17:11. "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, daily examining the Scriptures, to find out if these things were so" (MEV).”⁴

Endnotes:

¹https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyDaYlEIYM8  (Go to the 1:36:38 mark to listen to this caution)

²http://www.watchman.org/articles/other-religious-topics/accountability-the-way-to-touch-gods-anointed/

³http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/54342-be-careful-when-you-touch-god-s-anointed

⁴Ibid.

Are Generational Curses Valid? Can Christians Suffer From Generational Curses?

            A few years ago a Christian missionary said this to me about a Christian family I was well acquainted with, “…that family is suffering from that disease for many generations since they are under curse.” This implied a presence of unrepentant sin or unbelief. Because they are Christian, unbelief in Christ could be eliminated.

            From what was observable to plain sight, at least two people from that family, one who passed away and another who is under the clutches of that deadly disease, cannot be termed blatant sinners; instead I can honestly affirm their goodness.

            The Bible does indicate generational curses in Exodus 20:5, 34:7; Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9 and Lamentations 5: 7. If we concede that generations would be adversely affected because of the sin(s) of one or a few people belonging to that family, the question lingers rather bitterly in our minds as to why God would punish an innocent person for a sin that he/she did not commit.

            It seems perfectly reasonable if the person who sins, and remains unrepentant of that sin, dies. But the death of a person (offspring / child) who hasn’t sinned, especially when the children do not practice the sins of the ancestors, seems perfectly unjust and unreasonable. If this were to be true, then God seems very unjust.

            Punishment of the innocent for the sins of the parent / ancestors is grossly unjust. Only an unjust and a heartless God would punish an innocent child for the sins that he/she didn’t commit.

            The Bible, on the contrary, teaches that God is loving and merciful, “The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love” (Psalm 103: 8, NIV et al.). The God of the Bible is also a God who loves both the good and evil for HE, “…causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5: 45, NIV).

            If God loves both the evil and the good, HE would not punish the innocent for the sins they did not commit. In fact, the Bible posits a just God within the context of generational curses, “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18: 20, NASB).

            The context of Ezekiel 18: 20, found in Ezekiel 18: 2, is “generational curse.” God, in this chapter, clearly states that the children will not suffer because of the sins of parents, “What do you people mean by going around the country repeating the saying, The parents ate green apples, The children got the stomachache? “As sure as I’m the living God, you’re not going to repeat this saying in Israel any longer. Every soul—man, woman, child—belongs to me, parent and child alike. You die for your own sin, not another’s”” (Ezekiel 18: 1-4, MSG). Thereby, God demolishes any notion of generational curses.

            In face of an explicit assertion that the person who sins will only die and not the child who does not practice the sins of the father, we confidently claim that generational curses does not exist in the lives of God’s people. Therefore, it is clear and concrete that if the child does not commit the sins of the parent, then the child remains unaffected by the sins of the parent.

            But this is not it. We need to explain the verses that indicate generational curses. Christian theologians have already explained it rather reasonably. If a parent is a chronic liar it’s more likely possible that the child would resort to lying. If a parent is an alcoholic, then it’s more likely that the child could also be an alcoholic.

            But that’s not it. When children consciously repeat the sinful practices of the parent, it is imperative to note that the child who sins, sins on his/her own accord.

            However, when parents’ sins are consciously repeated by the children, do we say that generational curses are active? In other words, can we invoke generational curses when the children commit the sins of the parent?

            Before we proceed further we need to bring a certain distinction into picture. Within our context, let’s analyze the state of a Christian family and not a non-Christian family.

            Being born into a Christian home does not imply that the child is a Christian. The child does not become a Christian because the parents are Christians. The child becomes a Christian when he/she consciously repents of sins and believes only in the Lord Jesus as God and Savior.

            Therefore, when a person believes in the Lord Jesus, every curse, including the generational curse, is broken. The generational curse that every person suffers from is the curse of sin that is communicated down the generations.

            The Bible teaches us that the generational curse of sin is broken when a person believes in the Lord Jesus, “You know the story of how Adam landed us in the dilemma we’re in—first sin, then death, and no one exempt from either sin or death. That sin disturbed relations with God in everything and everyone….. If death got the upper hand through one man’s wrongdoing, can you imagine the breathtaking recovery life makes, sovereign life, in those who grasp with both hands this wildly extravagant life-gift, this grand setting-everything-right, that the one man Jesus Christ provides? Here it is in a nutshell: Just as one person did it wrong and got us in all this trouble with sin and death, another person did it right and got us out of it. But more than just getting us out of trouble, he got us into life! One man said no to God and put many people in the wrong; one man said yes to God and put many in the right…” (Romans 5: 12-19, MSG).

            Thus we are simply left with this – the person who sins shall die (from an eternal perspective) provided he/she does not believe in the Lord Jesus. If he/she believes in the Lord Jesus, then they will live, and live eternally.

            Can we appeal to generational curses when children commit the sins of the parent? While we ask this question, we also need to examine if there are children in the non-Christian households who do not commit the sins of the parent.

            Presence of children who do not commit the sins of their parents among the non-Christian households is an indication that generational curses are virtually non-existent.

            Consider this argument in a theoretical sense, if generational curses are valid, then shouldn’t it first affect the non-Christian households for the simple fact that they do not believe in the Lord Jesus? But if there are instances where non-Christians households are not affected by generational curses, then is it not utterly ridiculous that the God of the Bible would punish HIS children, the Christians, despite their belief in HIM?  

            Can we appeal to generational curses when families are plagued by genetically heritable diseases such as diabetes (type 2), certain heart diseases, Early-onset Familial Alzheimer Disease (eFAD) etc? Not at all, for verses such as Ephesians 1: 3 (Christians are blessed with every spiritual blessing), Colossians 1: 13, 1 John 5: 18 teach that those who believe in Christ have been delivered from darkness and satan cannot harm them.

            If you think about it, generational curses can be deviously used to wriggle out of many an unpleasant situation. For instance, if we want to get out of a particular relationship, and if we find a particular disease lingering in that family for generations, we could simply cite our unwillingness to be a part of that family that is plagued by generational curse (disease), and wriggle out of that relationship. Generational curses then seems to be a legitimate Christian means to abandon relationships. But this is a deceitful act even by the corrupt standards of this world, let alone the high moral standards defined by the Bible.

            So to conclude, the Bible does not provide me with reasons to believe in generational curses. Hence the notion of generational curses is utterly invalid, and those who proclaim it are merely revealing their biblical misunderstandings. Amen.