Confessing the Sins of our Predecessors

[Grant]

Good Morning,

I just finished up reading Chapter 2 (The 2nd Commandment) within James Durham's A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments. (Sidenote: Buy the Book Today!)

One of the things Durham spends some time on towards the end of the chapter regards the promise/curse our Lord attaches to the 2nd Command. In this section he encourages and even comes to requiring that part of the duty of a Christian is to be aware and even confess the sins of our predecessors. Exodus 20:4-6

Durham pg. 97 on ways we can be guilty:
"(9) In not being humbled before God for the sins of predecessors, nor confessing them to him (as Lev. 26:40)"

1. How do we compare this with the modern call today for many American's to repent of American Slavery?

2. What does a healthy outworking of the principle Durham is getting at look like today?

 

[Von]

Repentance is not by proxy - you can only repent of your own sins, because biblical repentance leads to salvation. So in the passage in question, there are (according to me) two options:

1. Their iniquity was the same as that of their fathers. So in denying the one they are denying the other.
   
   
2. If the fathers did something that was wrong and we do not acknowledge it as such, we are guilty of the same sin:
   Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
   (Romans 1:32 ESV)

 

[Taylor]

How does Durham define "confess"? Does he simply just mean "acknowledge"? If that is the case, then sure, it is a good thing to acknowledge the sins of our predecessors. But if by "confess" he means "repent," I am not even sure how one is supposed to do that.

 

[TylerRay]

Good Morning,

I just finished up reading Chapter 2 (The 2nd Commandment) within James Durham's A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments. (Sidenote: Buy the Book Today!)

One of the things Durham spends some time on towards the end of the chapter regards the promise/curse our Lord attaches to the 2nd Command. In this section he encourages and even comes to requiring that part of the duty of a Christian is to be aware and even confess the sins of our predecessors. Exodus 20:4-6

Durham pg. 97 on ways we can be guilty:
"(9) In not being humbled before God for the sins of predecessors, nor confessing them to him (as Lev. 26:40)"

1. How do we compare this with the modern call today for many American's to repent of American Slavery?

2. What does a healthy outworking of the principle Durham is getting at look like today?

It's important for the mushroom to remember the rot from which he has sprung.

If our predecessors were prone to certain sins, we may well have weaknesses in the same areas. If we are cognizant of the sin of those who came before us, and we continue in their sins, our sin is rendered the more heinous.

We don't bear the guilt of our predecessors, but knowledge of their sins should drive us to the throne of grace, first, to beg strength to be kept from the sins of our fathers, and, second, to beg forgiveness if we have perpetuated the sins of our fathers.

 

[Tom Hart]

I'm fairly confident that Durham didn't have in mind any modern notions of reparations (or confession to plants, etc.).

 

[Grant]

I'm fairly confident that Durham didn't have in mind any modern notions of reparations (or confession to plants, etc.).

So am I and I hope you did not read me as implying such. I think @TylerRay has hit the nail on the head.

Further, as others have pointed out, it is also important to correct those that throw an "=" sign between confessing our predecessor's actual sins and repentance of our own actual sins. There is a difference.

 

[lynnie]

King David had to make restitution to the Gibeonites for the sin of Saul towards them. The principle is there.

As far as woke calls to pay reparations for slavery, over 350,000 Union soldiers lost their lives during the civil war. Many had limbs amputated. In my opinion the debt was paid in full during that war by northerners. My ancestors came from the north and some were serious abolitionists and some died. Many in the Confederacy died as well of course, but people would say they were part of the slavery evil to fight for the south, even if they generally were not slaveowners.

Personally, in light of the modern sex trafficking of millions of girls into the most horrific form of slavery, and all the millions of slaves today in African nations, I just can't get into the left woke focus on what Americans are owed because of pre civil war slavery. I don't understand the lack of seeming concern for those caught in slavery right now. Then there is the subject of all the free black slave owners in the south...and how does that fit into the subject. In some places there were more slaves owned by blacks than by whites.

Maybe if somebody feels concerned about this, the best thing to do is find a good inner city black church and do something to support that church somehow. I know a church that tried real hard to reach out to the local black church. Personally I could not stand the TD Jakes influence and women elders and so forth, but there are some black churches that are doctrinally ok.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

1. How do we compare this with the modern call today for many American's to repent of American Slavery?

That issue has been dealt with sufficiently, as the United States emancipated those held in bondage. The refusal to move on from the subject is indicative of a lack of forgiveness, which should concern us far more.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

A "woke" response to the OP would be as follows: "Hi, I would just like to take this opportunity to apologise for being white. Next apology tomorrow."

 

[timfost]

Repentance is not by proxy - you can only repent of your own sins, because biblical repentance leads to salvation. So in the passage in question, there are (according to me) two options:

1. Their iniquity was the same as that of their fathers. So in denying the one they are denying the other.
   
   
2. If the fathers did something that was wrong and we do not acknowledge it as such, we are guilty of the same sin:
   Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
   (Romans 1:32 ESV)

It may be helpful to remember Daniel's prayer. I could quote the first 20 verses of Daniel 9 where he acknowledged the sin of his people, saying "we" not "I.". Verses 19 and 20 give a good idea, though.

"'O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, listen and act! Do not delay for Your own sake, my God, for Your city and Your people are called by Your name.' Now while I was speaking, praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God..."

You are correct that Daniel cannot pray individuals into eternal salvation without them personally putting their trust in the Savior, but the idea of confessing the sins of a nation is thoroughly biblical.

 

[bookslover]

Ezekiel 18 goes to great lengths (all 32 verses) to emphasize that each person is responsible ONLY for his or her own sins - not anyone else's.