Hi daq,
Since you wrote this,
I have been chewing on it, trying to make sense from my mainly Gentile-thinking New-Covenant-teaching perspective. Actually, I don't want to discuss generational curses, as although I've made the same jump-to-conclusion in the past as the one to which you refer, I think generational curses are something else, and God is more than able to break them. Of course, He is also able to pronounce curses which are totally binding.
What I
do want to discuss, is the limitation of the definition of 'scripture' to 'Torah'. Why?
Is not
all the word of God which has been recorded for us in writing, 'scripture'?
In my simplicity - and NOT in any way
'altering' Torah - the way I read the prophets quoted above, is with the emphasis on
'no more', in Jeremiah 31:29, and
'not ... any more', in Ezekiel 18:3. It seems unmistakable that God's intention is to
alter both understanding
and practice.
For instance, would Achan's children have been put to death with him (after Jeremiah and Ezekiel's
prophetic words? What about 'the houses', and 'households' pertaining to Korah, Dathan, Abiram and all those that joined themselves to them? It seems clear in the general revelation which God was making of Himself through His prophets after Moses, that He was increasing the level of grace He was willing to extend to His people.
Deuteronomy 23:2, 3 indicate that for certain people their fate was nothing to do with their own actions, but was entirely due to their first parents' behaviour. Could an Ammonite and a Moabite not be circumcised, and become accepted? Did not all the laws relating to the strangers living amongst Israel, apply equally to them? Does this mean that a bastard was not even circumcised? To what level was he excluded from
keeping 'the law'?
If I may put it this way... I have always understood that God was continuing to reveal Himself to mankind through His prophets. Eventually, our Lord came, and He closed some loopholes which had developed somehow, even more conclusively. You would not say that He 'altered' 'Torah', would you?
Okay. Now that I've written all this, I do see that you are
not saying that Torah was altered, but rather that
man's understanding was altered.
So... moving on to the four 'generations' of a man, please could you say more about the meaning of the fiery flying seraphs, and the sharp teeth? Are they references to death?
Also, please say more about the four generations when looking at it through the sons? What, in particular, do you see as important in the example which you gave, where Hezekiah was the 'fourth generation'?
If all these questions seem too many to tackle in one post, please take your time. I'm trying to keep up with you; and I have more questions, yet.