The atomic bomb that detonated over Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6th, 1945, was a fission reaction. Two masses of volatile materials (uranium-235) were forced together quickly, causing neutrons to be released from the nuclei of a few of the atoms. Those neutrons careened off and smashed into the nuclei of other atoms, which in turn caused those atoms' neutrons to split from their nuclei and fly toward other atoms... and this continued in a chain reaction that within milliseconds spread from just a few atoms throughout the entirety of the mass of volatile materials. The result was an enormous explosion that killed and injured over a hundred thousand civilians and changed the entire course of human history.  

Perhaps the most disturbing part of that event is that it all started with subatomic particles no one could see. But enough of the volatile materials had been combined together so that the total amount of material reached "critical mass", the point at which merely one more wayward neutron added to the mix would start the chain reaction. Equally disturbing is that, once the reaction started, no one could predict exactly where those flying neutrons were going to go or which of the surrounding atoms they would hit, and yet everyone would soon know just how utterly devastating the overall results would be, regardless of the order in which the atoms were struck. 

When a father provokes his child to wrath (Eph 6:4), it can be like an atomic bomb denotating. A few small "neutrons" of barbed sarcastic comments, overly critical assessments, or snarky retorts from a father can penetrate into the core of a child who has been holding onto some resentment or bitterness for some time, setting off a chain reaction of emotions and events whose sequence is difficult or even impossible to predict, but whose effects will almost always leave a large crater where there was once life and vibrance. 

Now, it's easy to take this statement by Paul at face value and assume that he is addressing the father who is needling, nagging, or neglecting his child in a way that causes the child to simply lash out angrily back toward the father. And certainly, that is one possible scenario. However, Paul only tells fathers not to provoke their child to anger, but he doesn't tell the Ephesians how that provocation might occur, nor does he indicate the target(s) of the child's resulting anger. So how else might we envision this playing out? 

Let's examine the childhood of a hypothetical boy named Mike. Mike's father is a Christian, but one who struggles at times to emulate Christ as he should. Perhaps the father frequently runs down his wife when he's talking to Mike, pointing out all her flaws and deficiencies, or even giving Mike a very one-sided account of a disagreements the father and mother have had. Could this provoke Mike to become resentful toward the mother and blame her for being such a burden to his father?  Or maybe the father constantly talks up the accomplishments or talents of Nancy, Mike's sister, while completely overlooking Mike's successes and good qualities. Would it be possible that Mike could become envious of Nancy and embittered toward his sister? 
Or what if Mike and his dad are riding down the highway in the car, listening to Dad's favorite talk radio host mocking or railing against the current or previous political administration, and Dad is laughing heartily at all the jokes, or raging right along with the host? Isn't it likely that Mike could have his own rage stoked against leaders appointed by God, or that he might have anger stirred up in him against authority in general? 

What if Dad regularly comes home from worship and starts to systematically tear down the preacher's sermon over lunch, enumerating all the poor analogies, PowerPoint faux pas, and the preacher's perceived lack of energy while ignoring the truth and power of the message presented? Could it be that Mike might be provoked to anger toward the preacher, the elders, or even the church as a result? 

Worst of all, how might Mike react if he only ever heard his father talk about how terrible, corrupt, and unfair this world is, never hearing from his father about the unfathomable beauty and wisdom behind God's creations (including people, whom He created in His image)? Isn't it in the realm of possibility that Mike might be provoked to anger and a hardened heart toward God Himself for creating such a harsh environment for us to inhabit? 

Again, we mostly think about a child's anger being directed back toward the father because of the father's words and actions toward the child. But that's only one possible outcome. A child's anger can be launched toward mother, siblings, government or authority figures, church leaders, or even God because of his father's words and actions. Most often, these are said or done without forethought or consideration of their long-lasting impact. Unfortunately, that lack of forethought or intent doesn't do anything to reduce the damage to the child and those around him. 

James warns about this destructive power of the tongue: "How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!" (3:5, ESV). The course of a child's life (and even the lives of those around him and his descendants) can explode into chaos as a result: Children can grow up to treat their own spouses with the same contempt as their parents exhibited, become estranged from siblings who should be among their closest companions, turn against their friends, lose confidence in authority figures in government and the church, and even lose their faith in God altogether. 

Otherwise, unthinkable outcomes like divorce, emotional or physical abuse, chronic strife within extended families, divisions in the church, and total rebellion against God suddenly become very real possibilities, wreaking havoc among families, churches, and societies where there is a history of parents unintentionally provoking their children to anger through their careless words and deeds. 

So how do we parents prevent this from happening? 

First, clearly, we must take extra care of what we say and do, especially toward our children. But that is only one aspect of our responsibility toward our kids. Paul addresses the other aspect in the second half of Eph 6:4: we must "bring them up in the discipline (training) and instruction (warnings) of the Lord". 

If we want to defuse the bomb of anger within our children, the most effective way is to reduce their volatility. We must train them up in the way they should go (Prov 22:6), and we must show them the examples given throughout God's Word of those who suffered the consequences of letting their anger go unchecked. After all, that's why we have God's Word--to get instruction from their examples (1 Cor 10:11). Teaching our kids through example to love all humans as Jesus loved us (John 13:34-35) and to forgive as we have been forgiven (Eph 4:32) will make them less prone to reaching "critical mass" as the result of an unintentional word or deed.

We live in a world full of discontented people, even though we are all surrounded by innumerable blessings. Why is that? Perhaps the answer lies in the definition the world gives for contentment--"a feeling of satisfaction with one's possessions, status, or situation" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). That might feel like a solid definition, but the unfortunate reality is that feelings are fleeting, especially when they are based on temporary things like possessions that break and decay. Status that depends on the ever-changing whims of the majority, and situations that ebb and flow like the ocean's tides.

So, defining contentment in this way sets us up for failure if we are hoping for long-term contentment. We find our possessions decaying, our status dwindling, and our situation deteriorating, and so our feeling of satisfaction is bound to dissipate if our focus is on those things. We will thus strive after new possessions to replace the old ones. New experiences to regain relevance and status, and new opportunities that will help us maintain our current situation... all so we can regain that feeling of satisfaction.

All this pursuit of "contentment", which is really just feeling-chasing, ironically leaves us feeling discontent -- the very thing we wanted to avoid. 

I recently stumbled upon a much more promising definition of biblical contentment while reading and meditating on Hebrews 13.5, which says, "Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, 'I will never leave you nor forsake you.'" (ESV)

I found this in reference to the Greek word translated as "be content":

**ἀρκέω:** *verb* -- be content, be enough, suffice. Apparently a primary verb (but probably akin to [αἴρω](https://biblehub.com/greek/142.htm) through the idea of **raising a barrier**); properly, **to ward off**, i.e. (by implication) to avail (figuratively, be satisfactory) -- be content, be enough, suffice, be sufficient. (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)

Perhaps what the writer of Hebrews is saying is that true contentment, then, can be seen as more than just enjoying a feeling of satisfaction about our current circumstances. Perhaps he is saying there is a “proactive”, “intentional” component involved in long-term contentment.

This idea of raising a barrier to ward off temptation reminds me of visiting my grandmother for lunch as a kid. In true grandmotherly fashion, my sweet Nanny would continue to push mounds of food in front of me, even though I was clearly already stuffed to the gills. Those conversations would usually go like this:

"More chicken, sweetie?"

"No, thank you."

"How about another roll?"

"I'm good, but thanks."

"Now you know you want some more green beans..."

"Seriously, I can't eat another bite."

This would go on for some time before she would eventually switch tactics to a less subtle approach. She would walk in with a massive slice of her signature chocolate pie and wave it in front of my nose to tempt me, until finally I would have to raise up the barrier of my hand and sternly declare, "Nanny, I am completely full. Please, I've had enough," warding off her mercilessly delicious wares (along with the bellyache that was sure to follow if I succumbed) and pushing the plate far away.

True biblical contentment, then, can be defined as **raising up a barrier against the temptation to take something "better" than what you already have, thus warding off unhelpful and potentially dangerous desires.  

Certainly, we see examples all throughout the Bible of people who failed to ward off that which was offered to them as better than what they already had, and we see the disastrous consequences that come from those failures. Of all those examples, though, Adam and Eve--the very first humans--offer up a perfect example of what can go wrong when we don't take a proactive, intentional approach in how we view our possessions, status, and circumstances. 

In Genesis 3, the serpent proposed to Eve the idea that God was holding out on her, and even lying to her, by saying she would die if she ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And Eve fell for the deception. The serpent's offer appealed to Eve as being "good for food", "a delight to the eyes", and "was desired to make one wise" (v. 6).  But the most deceptive part of the serpent's proposal was that Eve already had all these things **all around** her: plenty of beautiful trees that were filled with good food to eat and were a delight to the eyes that were provided by God (Gen 2:9), as well as being in the presence of God, the One who gives wisdom generously to all who ask (James 1:5). Eve already had access to the things she desired, and yet she was fixated on something she saw as being "better". So, she and her husband saw, they took, and they did what was right in their own estimation. The results were tragic.

Of course, not everything that is offered to us as "better" is a direct violation of God's commands. There are plenty of things in this world that are harmless, or maybe even good for us, in isolation. But the insidiousness of discontent is that the things of this world don't exist in isolation, and as we obtain more and more, the small weights of each desire add up to an overwhelming burden that can eventually crush us spiritually, as today's wants become tomorrow's needs. That result is just as tragic as the fates of Adam and Eve.

How can we maintain contentment, then? Certainly, in the middle of being tempted to obtain more, we can stop to evaluate and recognize that the cost of obtaining "just one more" often outweighs any gains experienced by obtaining it. But if we're being honest with ourselves, most of us are rarely that objective and level-headed in the heat of the moment. However, if we are willing to prepare ahead, it's much easier to avoid the temptation in the first place by putting up barriers in our lives to avoid seeing it altogether.

If that means we need to schedule times to turn off the TV, close our laptops, or sign off from social media, putting up those barriers is a small price to pay to ward off the temptations by advertisers, influencers, and even our friends and family to obtain something "better" than what we already have.

Actions like those will dramatically increase our chances at true, long-term contentment.

The book of Genesis is full of examples of how not to handle interpersonal relationships. Envy, rivalry, bitterness, hatred, lying, and many more atrocities saturate the pages of the first book of the Hebrew Bible. One story tucked into the fourth chapter of Genesis is that of a boastful, violent womanizer named Lamech who pronounced a curse upon any who might cross him. We don't know much else about this evil man; his curse, however, became the seed from which a deep, fundamental truth would grow centuries later.

But first, a little backstory is in order.

Lamech was a descendent of Cain, who was guilty of the first recorded murder in human history, seen earlier in Genesis 4. As a result of Cain's evil deed, God told him he was cursed from the ground, that the ground would therefore no longer yield its strength to him, and that he would be a wanderer and a fugitive upon the earth. Cain feared that his actions would cause God to hide his face from him and also lead others to kill him if they found him. In a sign of mercy toward Cain, God put a mark on him and proclaimed that if anyone murdered Cain, vengeance would be taken on that person sevenfold.

Now, fast-forward to Lamech. Apparently wanting to be a trailblazer for sin like his forefather, Lamech was the first person recorded as being a polygamist, taking multiple wives for himself. And the only words of his we have recorded are an arrogant announcement to his wives that he had killed a young man for striking him, and that if Cain's revenge was sevenfold, his revenge would be seventy-sevenfold (Gen 4.23-24 ESV). 

The implication behind that curse reveals just how arrogant Lamech was. Remember that God placed the mark on Cain and declared that vengeance would be taken on him sevenfold. The underlying sentiment there is that God would be the one to exact that revenge on any person who wronged Cain. But now Lamech was declaring that not only would he (Lamech) be the one to exact revenge on anyone who wronged him, but also that he would exact that revenge even more completely than God would, implying that Lamech's strength and power surpassed God's.

This idea of holding onto grudges and of total revenge toward one's enemies was the prevailing worldview for most humans (even many Jews) by the time the period of the Old Testament came to a close. And so when Jesus entered the scene and started to teach about loving one's enemies and turning the other cheek when wronged, it was probably (ahem) a slap in the face to most of his followers. Why would a person allow another person to wrong them without exacting revenge or retaliating? But the starkest contrast of Jesus' thoughts on grudge-holding and revenge-seeking compared to the world's thoughts can most easily be seen in an exchange with his disciple Peter.

In Matthew 18, we read of Jesus teaching his disciples about how they should react when a brother wrongs them (address it privately first, then take a couple of witnesses to establish the charges, and then bring it to the church's attention before taking any action against the brother). In reaction to this teaching, Peter asks, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” (Mt 18.21) Peter must have thought he was being exceedingly generous in forgiving his brother seven times. Or perhaps there was even a bit of exasperation in his voice as he asked this, thinking to himself, "Surely he doesn't expect me to be that forgiving of someone!" But Jesus had a different perspective: "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times." (Mt 18.22)

The numbers 7 and 77 are referenced in the same passage... just like back in Genesis 4. In point of fact, these two accounts are the only times in the entire Bible where the number 77 is used.** Jesus' use of that number here is more than mere coincidence or use of a common idiom. It is almost assuredly a peek into Jesus' knowledge not only of the text of Hebrew Bible, but also the profound wisdom it contained.

Lamech invoked use of the number 77 to display his pride and power through his willingness to **completely destroy** someone who wronged him. Jesus, on the other hand, used that same number to teach his disciples how to do the exact opposite--to display their humility and meekness through their willingness to **completely forgive** and restore someone who had wronged them. By using the number 77, Jesus deftly pulled up Lamech's words in the minds of his disciples and juxtaposed it against his own words. In doing so, he was able to masterfully demonstrate the dramatic contrast between complete revenge and complete forgiveness: 

• In seeking revenge, we put ourselves in the place of God by defining what's right based on our own self-centered wisdom and by dictating punishment on those who don't walk in step with that definition. 
• In offering forgiveness, we maintain our proper positions below God and others by leaving to God the responsibilities of defining what's right based on His wisdom and allowing Him to be the one to exact justice on those who don't walk in step with that definition.

Thus, the question for us when we are wronged is whether we will walk in the footsteps of Lamech and allow our pride to drive us to seek total revenge, or whether we'll walk in the path of Jesus and allow our humility to point us toward total forgiveness instead.

** (There are questions about whether the original languages should be translated as "seventy times seven" (i.e., 490), or "seventy-seven times". Regardless of where you land on that, the Septuagint uses the same Greek phrase for the number in Gen. 4 as what Jesus uses in Matt 18, so the connection between those two texts remains.)