I’m reading the Mousers’ Story of Sex in Scripture, great so far. The book refers to the curse on Adam and Eve, which made me think of something I once read - though I can’t remember where:
I remember an author’s pointing out that only the serpent and the ground were specifically cursed, not Adam nor Eve.
Is this true in the original text? If so, are there any ramifications? Or was the author simply inferring “extra” hope from this? (Note: at first I thought I read this in Clark’s Man and Woman in Christ, but I can’t find it there)
I had a “Hebrew Bible” class in college, where the professor claimed that the Christian idea of "the curse” wasn’t in the text because of what you’ve said. I’ll say now what I said then, because the class was mostly young grad school women: “I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t call ‘increased pain in childbearing’ a blessing…”
I think it might be better to look at the curse as fallen life on earth is now cursed. Less that Adam and Eve are personally cursed as the serpent is (that difference is definitely there in the text), and more that their earthly lives are now wholly subjected to futility.
Man labours to provide for his family while the earth fights again him. Woman labours to bring life into the world with a body that fights against her. Man and wife now fight against each other. All this in contrast to the communion and bliss they had in the garden before. We all now live under the curse, subjected to futility/frustration.
Read Genesis 3 in light of Ecclesiastes and Romans 8.18-25.
Curse vs. consequences makes me think of this recent comment of mine on “Christian materialism”.
Perhaps many Christians today are uncomfortable with the notion of sin bringing a curse because curse implies personal corruption or future “bad luck” brought about by one’s foolish choices. If sin merely brings about judicial condemnation and natural consequences, then it is much more impersonal and mechanical and therefore more tame.
But back to the original question, yes. It is true that in the original text the serpent and the ground are specifically cursed, not Adam and Eve.
To notice this is not to deny the curse or the reality of life under this curse. Adam and Eve both live under this sentence, and their lives are both changed forever (as are the lives of all their posterity). But it does point out that man is treated in a different way than the serpent and the ground are. Calvin points this out in his comment that with man, ‘[God] acts rather as a physician rather than as a judge… for corrective punishments are of a different kind, and are inflicted with the design of leading us to repentance; but in this [with the serpent] there is nothing of the sort’ (Commentary upon the Book of Genesis, chap. III, p.165).
My mind goes to Romans 8, which speaks of creation’s longing to be set free from the bondage of corruption to which it was subjected, waiting for the revealing of the sons of God. “Creation” in this text is referred to as separate and distinct from man, though man himself is obviously part of creation. We as saints share in creation’s groaning, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons. But we are not part of the “creation itself” in the context of what Paul is saying. It also can’t be said that unbelievers share in creation’s groaning for the revealing of the sons of God.
A takeaway from this is that the earth (i.e. creation) was subjected to futility and corruption by God on account of man’s sin, in such a way that is distinct from the corruption of man, himself.
I don’t know that I have any real point, but the observation seemed relevant to the discussion.
Sorry, brothers, but “curse” is the proper and not at all unBiblical word to use for God’s condemnations of Adam and Eve, and the resultant curse of Original Sin on Adam’s race. Just open up Calvin’s Institutes where you’ll find it over and over again. For instance, “Therefore, since through man’s fault a curse has extended above and below, over all the regions of the world, there is nothing unreasonable in its extending to all his offspring.”
We have to be careful not to subject words to picayune distinctions they can’t bear. If the corruption of the Fall and Original Sin is not a “curse,” I have no idea what this English word means. Hence “far as the curse is found” and “He bore our curse upon the tree.”
There are many distinctions we might want to make between what God’s condemnations of the serpent and the ground were, and what his condemnations of the man and woman were, and why He explicitly says the Hebrew אָרוּר to the serpent without using that same word with Adam and Even, but saying Adam and Eve were not cursed isn’t something that communicates the truth to God’s people, particularly today. The words God used were different, but not the fact. Of Adam and Eve being cursed, also. Love,
PS: Revelation 22:1-3 Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, 2 in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 There will no longer be any curse…
Note here that “curse” is applied directly to “nations,” meaning race of adam.
Hang on, hang on…I thought we were arguing in another thread that verbal-plenary inspiration matters to how we translate and understand scripture. The original words, the very words…didn’t think a concern about the actual words was subjecting ‘words to picayune distinctions’! (please insert here a playful wink rather than furious keyboard warrior-ing!)
The question asked in this thread is about the original words. And the answer to that question is indeed yes, it is true that the word ‘curse’ is not given to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. It’s simply not there. It’s not even there in chiastic structure or in poetic parallelisms! I’m not denying the existence of the curse, the reality of the curse, or the personal nature of the curse to Adam and Eve and each and every one of their descendants - in fact I affirmed all of these and referenced other scriptures that further explain these themes! But if verbal-plenary inspiration matters over there, it also matters here. It matters both in what is written and in what is not written.
The original question also asked why it matters. Here’s a pre-critical commentary (ie not modern squishiness) giving what I think is a very good cash value of what God is communicating by the words He’s inspired in these verses:
‘As justice and mercy were combined in the divine sentence; justice in the fact that God cursed the tempter alone, and only punished the tempted with labour and mortality, mercy in the promise of eventual triumph over the serpent: so God also displayed His mercy to the fallen, before carrying the sentence into effect. It was through the power of divine grace that Adam believed the promise with regard to the woman’s seed, and manifested his faith in the name which he gave to his wife’ (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 1.66).
P.S: isn’t the earth also included in the removal of the curse as well as Adam’s race in the very verses you’ve referenced?
I don’t think I’m actually disagreeing with the theology you’ve given, just the exegesis. Is there something I’m missing? Some reason for concern in the answers I’ve given?
I’m not inserting a word in the text of Scripture, but a concept, arguing with Calvin and most everyone until recently, that the Fall brought curses on man and nature. The point isn’t that the word should be added to the text of Scripture, but that we should not deny that the condemnation of God on the race of Adam directly resulting from the Fall was curses from God. Painful childbearing. Painful work. Death. Hell. Jesus came to bear the curse, not just of hanging on a tree, but adam’s curse “far as the curse is found.” Thus the clear statement of Revelation using the word “curse.”
The sentiment of this modern distinction so popular today (Google it) is well stated, here:
First, God never uses the word “curse” when describing what will happen to the woman and man. Second, God’s words towards them were not inflictions of punishment but rather explanations for how life will be on the other side of their rebellious actions.
Not only does this say it wasn’t a “curse,” but it wasn’t a “punishment.” That’s why I’m opposing anyone denying Original Sin and it’s associates are properly referred to in sermons and teachings as “curses.”
I’m confused: how did we get to a denial of original sin? That’s not the view I put forth, nor did I deny God’s sentence of condemnation against Adam.
And noting that the serpent receives a direct ‘cursed are you’ that Adam does not receive only heightens the beauty of Christ becoming a curse for us; it doesn’t lessen it. Our Saviour, though ‘holy, harmless, and undefiled’, not only submits himself to life under the curse in general, he also places himself under a direct ‘cursed are you’ (Gal. 3.10-13) to redeem us from the curse and Adam’s sin. To redeem Adam, Christ accepts a sentence even Adam did not receive.
There’s nothing contradictory in observing that Adam was not cursed in the same way the serpent was (as Calvin alludes to throughout his sermons/commentaries) and in agreeing with Calvin that Adam was cursed.
What I said is, I hope, more a product of careful exegesis than a product of modern sentiment. Matthew Henry on Genesis 3.17 ‘But observe a mixture of mercy in this sentence. (1.) Adam himself is not cursed, as the serpent was (v.14) but only the ground for his sake. God had blessings in him, even the holy seed: Destroy it not, for that blessing is in it, (Isa 65.8) And he had blessings in store for him; therefore he is not directly and immediately cursed, but, as it were, at second hand.’
(@StrongPointMC For what it’s worth, Clark’s contribution to this discussion is on the bottom of page 31 in Man and Woman in Christ. Matthew Henry might have something to say about Clark’s view of a ‘recent suggestion’. wink wink)
I think I’ve made my point clear twice or so, now. A preacher stating the curses of Adam and Eve are not explicitly stated to be curses in the text and proposing a reason why is good and go. I have no objection—just as long as the conclusion is not that what was not called a curse in the text there must be interpreted as not being a curse.
Preachers who speak of God’s “curses” which were the fruit of the Fall should not be contradicted by sheep who have read some guy online saying the word “curse” was not specifically used in the Hebrew for all the curses God meted out after the Fall, and that because the original doesn’t use the Hebrew “curse,” they weren’t curses.
The rest of the Bible indicates they were, as Revelation demonstrates.
I’ll leave it to you, dear brother, to have the last word.
A key to this discussion that has not been mentioned yet is “the Law”:
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— Gal 3:10-13
Adam and his posterity are cursed as lawbreakers, and the effects of that curse are explicitly stated by God in the Garden. I get what Matthew Henry is saying, but (trembling he types) I believe him to be wrong. The curse of the Law did not begin at Sinai. It began in Eden. It is not a “second hand” curse. Adam broke the Covenant of Works.
Don’t think Henry’s wrong. He’s not declaring that Adam and Eve aren’t cursed in the sense the rest of scripture says they are. His point about them not being cursed is a different point so no need to disagree with him. But your point from Romans is absolutely right and I would add the Creation Mandates to those under the curse because of breaking the law. Also the eating the forbidden fruit. Love
Incidentally, on FB, a friend just wrote a response to another post of mine, and I responded as below. I mention this b/c it demonstrates my commitment to noting and explaining why the word “curse” is not used in the text we’ve been discussing above.
Greek will commonly use the Genitive as a form of familial connection. Take the opening line of the Iliad:
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος
Rage, sing goddess (of) Peleus(gen) Achilles
The wrath sing, goddess, of Peleus’ son, Achilles,
Later, in line 7 it doesn’t even mention Agamemnon, just his father.
Ἀτρεΐδης τε ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν καὶ δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς.
(of) Atreus, a leader of men, and brilliant/shiny/godlike Achilles
Atreus’ son, king of men, and brilliant Achilles
All this to say, I think a native Koine Greek speaker would’ve understood this to be saying “wife of” and there’s nothing particularly uncommon in its construction. It could have been said differently in Greek, and more explicitly (that is, they could’ve “spelled it out”), but I don’t think there’s anything uncommon here.
I respond:
what? We’re not talking merely Koine Greek usage here, but God’s usage. This is a mistake made all the time by contemporary Biblical scholars, and it was made by my dear friend and conservative American Biblical scholars’ Master Linguist, Vern Poythress, who once, arguing against a certain male inclusive being kept in the modern English translations, said something like, “Well, that was the way Biblical languages’ cultures did it.” To which I responded, “Vern, did it ever occur to you that God chose those cultures’ languages as the inspired text of Scripture because of their linguistic habits?”
In other words, the very words of Scripture are inspired—not simply the meanings behind the words. So again, what is the significance of this specific usage bypassing Bathsheba’s name and referring to her as “her of Uriah?” Why do we not adopt this usage today? Are we ashamed of Jesus’ words? After all, we have the option of adopting Biblical usages which are inspired, do we not? And simply to confess our Biblical faith. Love,