DIVINE CURSING AND BENEFICENCE

By Eric Louw, December 5, 2018

Introduction

The Bible teaches us that God is a God of love (1 John 4:8). Belief in His beneficence is

maintained by Christians almost everywhere. Yet when we look at the first few chapters of

Genesis, we find God uttering curses upon the objects of His creation (Genesis 3:14, 17). What are

we to make of such curses, and what implications might there be upon our understanding of God’s

beneficence in light of such texts? The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the discussion

regarding the apparent conflict of ideas between God’s beneficence and the divine cursing in

Genesis 3:14-19. A closer look at this passage yields valuable insight into how we can reconcile

such apparently opposing ideas. First the meaning of the Hebrew term rendered “curse” will be

evaluated. Then, the punitive nature of God’s declarations will be observed, followed by further

evaluation as to how these punishments may also be seen as a picture of divine beneficence.

The Meaning of ‫ָא ַרר‬

Before delving into a study focused on the nature of the divine curses, an understanding

of definitions may be helpful in order to understand the limited semantic range in which the

Hebrew terms are used. The term ‫ ָא ַרר‬as translated “cursed” in English is generally used with

consistency throughout its 63 occurrences in the Hebrew Old Testament.1 The qal passive

participles seen in Gen. 3:14, 17 occur with a total of 39 instances in the Hebrew Old Testament.

How is this term used? They are used as a deterrent to warn if a certain course is pursued or in a

judicial manner following an action.2 There appears to be some degree of interchangeability

1. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: SESB Version., electronic ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2003).

2. Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 525.

0
between ‫ ָא ַרר‬and ‫( ָקַלל‬also rendered “curse”) when comparing God’s promise not to curse the

earth again in Gen. 8:21 with Gen. 5:29 (Gordon, 1997).3 It is worth noting that an argument

could be made for the curse of the ground in Gen. 8:21 referring to Gen. 6:7, 13, 17 where God

decides to destroy the earth with the flood, though this seems less likely by virtue of Gen. 5:29

where reference to God’s cursing of the ground is repeated as an echo of Gen. 3:17. In 1 Sam.

14:24, 28, we see Saul use ‫ ָא ַרר‬as a curse by which he puts the people under an oath or

agreement. As the ensuing narrative pans out, we see that Saul is also the one whose duty it is to

enforce punishment when the oath associated with the curse is broken. In Mal. 2:2 we see God

use ‫ ָא ַרר‬as a conditional threat of impending and immediate consequence. In Gen. 4:11 Cain is

cursed (‫)ָא ַרר‬, which results in him saying that his iniquities or punishment are too much to bear.

Punishment is an inherent part of sin as we see in Prov. 5:22 where it says that “The evil deeds of

a wicked man ensnare him, the cords of sin hold him fast” (Luc, 1997).4 Although we have

already seen that a curse can be uttered by human beings, most of the cases where ‫ ָא ַרר‬is used

show that it serves as a declaration of punishment in response to sin if a certain course is

pursued.5 In Num. 22:6, Moab recognizes that whomever Balaam curses is cursed. This would

suggest that in his understanding there is an automatic effect of a curse when uttered by the right

person. Of course, as a prophet of God, the only thing that made such curses effective was if they

were uttered at God’s direction in accordance with His will. It logically follows that God himself

3. Gordon, Robert. “Curse, Malediction” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology &
Exegesis, ed. Willem VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Pub. House, 1997) 492.

4. Luc, Alex. “‫ ”ָחָטא‬in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, ed. Willem
VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Pub. House, 1997) 90.

5. David J. Sigrist, “Sin,” ed. Douglas Mangum et al., Lexham Theological Wordbook, Lexham Bible
Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).

1
is the guarantor of a curse’s effectiveness.6 As far as this author can tell, no instances of the term

‫ ָא ַרר‬itself are inherently considered to be positive from a surface reading, so the immediate

literary context will have to define how it is understood and received on a case-by-case basis if

one is to consider the possibility of a curse being tied to any kind of positive intent or outcome.

Genesis 3:14-17 – The Punitive Nature of the Curse

Some of the immediate questions that arise when looking at this passage include those of

agency and divine intent. Is God arbitrarily uttering curses out of anger? Is He being vindictive

because humankind has acted contrary to His intent and will? Further evaluation of the passage

will help provide insight into the answers available for these questions.

The major characters apart from God in this narrative include the serpent, Adam, and the

woman (only named Eve later on in Gen. 3:23). God addresses each of them in differing, yet

relevant ways. In Gen. 3:147 God begins by cursing the serpent. This verse is introduced with the

word ‫ ִ ֣כּי‬, commonly translated "because," which effectively explains the cause for which the curse

is being uttered. This explanatory clause initiates the clause preceding the curse so that the reader

can have clarity as to why the curse is given.8 It is the serpent’s action alone that has warranted this

particular curse, and as a result, he will bear the consequences of that curse. It is evident from the

text that this curse likely extends further than to serpents as a species in general because this

serpent is elsewhere described as Satan (Rev. 20:2). No part of the curse is good news for the

serpent, though hope and promise are hinted at with the eventual demise of the serpent when his

6. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated,
1998), 78.
7. Unless otherwise stated, verses referenced are taken from the New American Standard Bible.

8. Christo H. J. VanDerMerwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference
Grammar, Biblical languages Hebrew 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 301.

2
head is eventually bruised (v.15) as further referred to in Rom. 16:20, Heb. 2:14, and eventually

Rev. 20:9-10). This bruising is more clearly defined as a crushing as noted by Cornelis Van Dam.9

This brings us to Adam and the woman. Gordon J. Wenham notes that Adam and the

woman are not cursed like the snake is. In fact, no human is cursed by God until Cain who later

commits murder.10 Instead, the soil is cursed and a disruption in Adam and the woman’s roles are

pronounced.11 Richard M. Davidson further differentiates between God’s pronouncements in this

passage as curses which apply to the serpent and ground (vv.14, 17) contrasted with judgments

that apply to Adam and the woman (vv.16-19). Some might infer that this inherently suggests a

difference in culpability, but this author would suggest that it instead speaks to God’s

beneficence when all three characters are culpable. It was through the exercise of free choice that

Adam and the woman chose their side by trusting the serpent in rejection of God’s word. Further,

the serpent’s presence was presumably allowed by the installation of the tree of the knowledge of

good and evil (Gen. 2:9, 17). One might, therefore, observe that the serpent’s punishment seems

unusually harsh given the circumstances. This further suggests a need for the broader picture

introduced by the understanding that this serpent is Satan and not merely a snake.

Turning to the judicial pronouncement made towards the woman, God begins with “I

will…” suggesting personal agency and prescription in the judgment and action of multiplying

her pain in childbirth (v.16a). As for the rest of the verse, it is within the realm of possibility to

interpret it as descriptive of the natural course of things to come following the introduction of sin

9. Van Dam, Cornelis. “‫ ”שׁוּף‬in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, ed.
Willem VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Pub. House, 1997), 66–67.
10. K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 1996), 243.

11. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated,
1998), 81.

3
along with its implications (v.16b). Why pain in childbirth is singled out is not readily apparent

in the immediate context, though there is an interesting parallel in Rom. 8:22 where Paul refers

to the entire creation as going through similar pains. It is possible that the resulting vulnerability

partially contributes to the woman’s shift in relationship with her husband (Gen. 3:16b), though

further study outside the scope of this paper would probably be needed.

Finally, we come to Adam. As with the curse that falls upon the serpent, God gives the

explanation for the curse He is about to express as being based on Adam’s action of listening to

his wife’s voice in disobedience to the command not to eat of the tree (v.17). What follows is

almost unexpected, however, as the punishment that follows falls not upon Adam directly, but

the ground instead. What will the effects of this curse be? There are several outlined from

vv.17b-19. How much of this section is prescriptive is not explicit, but one might reasonably

conclude that all of it qualifies. Of the elements included in this curse we see first the toil by

which he will eat (v.17b), then thorns and thistles (v.18a), then eating from the plants of the field

(v.18b, as opposed to the trees in Eden), and finally exertion to eat by the sweat of his face

(v.19a). He will also return to dust, a fulfillment of the warning that they would die if they ate the

fruit of the forbidden tree (cf. 2:17). Some might wonder if work, then, is a result of sin? Gordon

J. Wenham points out that work preceded the fall in the cultivation of the garden in Gen. 2:15.

Instead, the resulting hardship and frustration associated with that work comprised the curse.12

As Millard J. Erickson notes, it is probable that this passage represents only a sample of the

effects of the curse on the earth.13

12. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated,
1998), 82.

13. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 1998), 452.

4
 Following Erickson’s line of thought a step further, it seems possible that the defects and

natural chaos found on the earth in nature could be a result of the curse in response to the fall,

whereas character and relationship deficiencies could likely have been a natural result of sin itself

when Adam and the woman gained a knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). Such an

interpretation might tend to favor the idea that ‫ ֲאָדָמה‬translated “ground” in Gen. 2:19 might be

better translated “earth” as in Gen. 28:14 where ‫ ֲאָדָמה‬is seemingly used in parallel with ‫( ֶ֫אֶרץ‬earth).

The major caveat here would be that the immediate context in Gen. 3 seems to imply a preference

for “ground” on the basis that God sends Adam out to cultivate that same ‫( ֲאָדָמה‬3:23). The premise

that the curse may have been much more widespread, however, does not rise or fall on that point

alone. Further study of passages beyond the focus of this paper could perhaps prove valuable.14

Where is Divine Beneficence?

At this juncture, it is fitting to ask the question: How do the curses and judgments

explicitly outlined in this narrative relate to the idea of a beneficent God? From the data

considered thus far, it is clear that both are pronounced as a response to the actions performed by

the serpent, Adam, and the woman. God is not being arbitrary but claims to be doing what seems

to be necessary in response to each individual’s action. The serpent receives the brunt of the first

curse and the ground receives the brunt of the second in the difficult work that results.15 Adam

receives punishments related to the curse upon the earth and the woman receives punishment

through increased pain in childbearing. The picture painted appears bleak, since humanity must

now somehow survive with the odds against it, rather than naturally flourishing in Eden.16 So,

14. For example, a cursory reading of Romans 8:20-22 would seem to suggest that God subjected the earth
to the curse with positive intent.

15. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 180.

5
what of God’s beneficence? On the part of the serpent as the instigator of the situation in which

all parties find themselves, there is no hint of a positive outcome, yet the story is different when

it comes to Adam and the woman.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer eloquently points out that “the curse is the Creator’s affirmation of

the world that has been destroyed.” Yet this isn’t the end of the story. He goes on to explain that

even though there is a curse, humankind is still allowed to live in the world and is not fully

deprived of God’s word. This, he affirms, is the promise, and Adam will now live between those

two realities of curse and promise.17 Taking another look at the text, hope is visible on multiple

additional accounts. First, Gen. 3:15 hints at hope in the fact that Satan’s time will eventually

come to an end as previously discussed when he is crushed. More importantly, this text is also

seen as the first gospel text as noted by Norman Gulley, since Jesus is ultimately the one who

will save humankind.18

Richard M. Davidson notes that the desire the woman has for her husband may be

considered a blessing in parallel with his servant leadership as well.19 Davidson further suggests

that even the cursing of the ground is “for the sake of” Adam based as a semantic probability of

this Hebrew expression (‫ )ַֽבֲּעבוֶּ֔רָך‬in v.17.20 How might such a suggestion be understood in the

broader context though? One line of reasoning might be implied by the other effects of sin hinted

16. Bruce Norman, “The Restoration of the Primordial World of Genesis 1–3 in Revelation 21–22,”
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 8, no. 1 & 2 (1997): 163.
17. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1–3, ed. Martin Rüter,
Ilse Tödt, and John W. de Gruchy, trans. Douglas Stephen Bax, vol. 3, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2004), 132.

18. Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: Creation, Christ, Salvation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University Press, 2012), 144.

19. Richard M. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2007), 72.

20. Ibid.

6
at in the Genesis narrative. Adam’s fear response due to his nakedness (3:8, 10) in contrast to

Gen. 2:25 where he and the woman were not ashamed of their nakedness gives us a helpful

insight into the nature of the change that occurred with the introduction of sin. Previously,

because sin was not known there existed no possibility for one taking advantage of another. After

sin is introduced, nakedness is associated with what appears to be a sense of fear and a need to

avoid exposure as they seek to try remedy the situation with coverings of fig leaves (3:7). So,

how is this at all related to explaining why cursing the ground was a good thing? Simply in this:

Because human nature has apparently shifted towards being inclined to prioritize self-interest

even at the expense of others (cf. 3:12), it follows that the introduction of more difficult labor

and the increased toil necessary to gain the food needed to survive (17b, 19a) would naturally

limit and prevent over-indulgence. Thus, this curse may actually be an example of God’s

beneficence in seeking to place a limiter upon sin. Along the same line of thought, it is also

possible that God was interested in scattering the people from coming together at Babel (Gen.

11:6-9) since congregating together may have provided for more opportunity for indulgence as

work was distributed and the potential for idleness increased. Even the reduction of lifespans

seen in Gen. 6:3 may be seen as a delimitation placed by God to prevent evil from developing

too extensively as seen in the antediluvian world (v.5).

Although Adam and the woman are immediately banned from the garden of Eden

following the curses and judgments so as to prevent them from partaking of the tree of life (Gen.

3:22-24), two additional related blessings are seen in Gen. 3:20-21 according to K. A.

Matthews.21 First, Adam names his wife Eve. This may be seen as a blessing in the fact that she

is named Eve as the mother of the living. This idea connects back to the thought that they are

21. K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 1996), 254.

7
alive when they should have died (Gen. 2:7). Second, God provides animal skins as garments

which demonstrate God’s continued care and loving interest in their survival. More than that, the

composition of the garments from skin or leather implies that something else died, perhaps in

their place as a foreshadowing of the sacrificial system (Gen. 4:4, 7) which served as a type

foreshadowing Christ’s death for sin (John 1:29).

Conclusion

At the outset of this study, the goal was to contribute to the discussion regarding the

apparent conflict of ideas between God’s beneficence and the divine cursing in Genesis 3:14-19.

As has been shown, although God utters curses and judgments, these are directly in response to

the actions of the guilty parties in Gen. 3. Further, the nature of these curses and judgments

appear to be for the long-term benefit and prosperity of humankind in a world now marred with

sin. To a great extent, these curses appear designed to place limitations on sin so as to prevent it

from expanding too aggressively. Rather than contradicting the idea of God’s beneficence, such

curses would appear to be in harmony with what a beneficent God would do in order to

maximize the individual potential, harmony, and survival of humankind in an environment

tainted by sin. It is impossible to estimate how things might have been different without them,

but it is clear from this passage that God seeks to preserve humankind from the destruction and

ruin that one might have otherwise expected if He had simply destroyed them. Without these

curses and judgments, the beneficent promises inherent in each of them might also have

remained unknown. Speaking of the eventual destruction of sin and death itself in fulfillment of

the beneficent promise given in Gen. 3:15, Bonhoeffer frames it well: “The final and most

terrible of curses that oppresses humankind is death, having to return to dust. Yet now death

8
becomes for human beings, who live because they are preserved in compassion, a promise held

out to them by the God of grace.”22

22. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1–3, ed. Martin Rüter,
Ilse Tödt, and John W. de Gruchy, trans. Douglas Stephen Bax, vol. 3, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2004), 135–136.

9
 Bibliography

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: SESB Version., electronic ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society,

2003.

Bruce Norman, “The Restoration of the Primordial World of Genesis 1–3 in Revelation 21–22,”

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 8, no. 1 & 2, 1997.

Christo H. J. VanDerMerwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference

Grammar, Biblical languages Hebrew 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

David J. Sigrist, “Sin,” ed. Douglas Mangum et al., Lexham Theological Wordbook, Lexham

Bible Reference Series. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1–3, ed. Martin

Rüter, Ilse Tödt, and John W. de Gruchy, trans. Douglas Stephen Bax, vol. 3, Dietrich

Bonhoeffer Works. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.

Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word,

Incorporated, 1998.

K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary. Nashville:

Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 1998.

Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: Creation, Christ, Salvation. Berrien Springs, MI:

Andrews University Press, 2012.

Richard M. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Peabody, Mass:

Hendrickson Publishers, 2007.

10
Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.

11