Terminology Tuesday: Curse

CURSE. A term associated with a substantial semantic range of concepts and vocabulary in the Bible. The English verb “to curse” renders several Hebrew words (ʾārar, qālal, ʾālâ, heḥĕrı̂m, nāqab, qābab, bārak [a euphemism, lit. “bless”]), and Greek verbs (kataraomai, anathematizō, katanathematizō, kataraomai, katalaleō). The English noun “curse” may render any of the Hebrew nouns ʾalah ḥerem, meʾērāh, and taʾalah, as well as the Greek nouns katara, epikataratos, anathema, and katathema. We may summarize the predominant usage of the various verbs as follows: to curse is to predict, wish, pray for, or cause trouble or disaster on a person or thing. Correspondingly, the predominant noun usages may be summarized in the following manner: a curse is the expression of such a prediction, wish, prayer, or causation; or the result thereof; or, rarely, the object (person or thing) thereof.

In the Mosaic Law, one means of divine enforcement of the covenant stipulations incumbent on Israel was the curse. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28–32 contain the sanctions portions of the covenant structure relative to their respective statements of the Law, and in these passages much is made of the many types of curses that will attend the Israelites if they abandon the covenant. Twenty-seven types of curses are found in these contexts, representing virtually all the miseries one could imagine occurring in the ancient world (Stuart Hosea-Jonah WBC, xxxi–xlii), but these may be summarized by six terms: defeat, disease, desolation, deprivation, deportation, and death. Such curses are warnings of what God will cause to happen to Israel if they sin. Thus, Jeremiah speaks of the curse that attends the Law (e.g., Jer 11:3) as does Paul (Gal 3:13), with the ultimate curse being that of death, as Rom 6:23 implies. The close relationship between covenant and curse led to a metonymic use of “curse” for “covenant” in Deut 34:12 and Zech 5:3.
As the arbiter of values, God was free to curse those who offended him. Human beings did not have that prerogative. Cursing by people could have serious consequences for themselves depending on who or what it was they had cursed. Cursing one’s parents (Exod 21:17; Lev 20:19), the handicapped (Lev 19:14), a king (because he is God’s anointed; 2 Samuel 16), or God (Lev 24:11–23) were all crimes or sins punishable by death. In such cases it was the object of the curse that made it wrong rather than the process; pronouncing harm on the innocent was forbidden; pronouncing harm on the evil was appropriate. Thus prophets could utter a curse sinfully (e.g., Balaam against Israel; Num 22:6–17) or righteously (e.g., Joshua on Jericho and Gibeon; Josh 6:26 and 9:23) depending on the object.It was assumed in ancient times that curses derived their power from the gods (1 Sam 17:43). Merely expressing negative wishes had little force. For the orthodox Israelites, whose God Yahweh was universally sovereign (Gen 12:8, 9; Exod 9:14; Ps 95:3; Amos 1–2), no curse could have effect without Yahweh’s superintendence, including that of a foreign or false prophet (Num 23:8). Yahweh could turn a curse against its speaker (Gen 12:3; 27:29) or turn a curse into a blessing (Deut 23:5). In the latter sense he is said by Paul to have made Christ “a curse for us,” i.e., a blessing via his taking the penalty of the Law’s curse upon himself in his crucifixion (Gal 3:13).
God’s word is his deed; it was inconceivable to orthodox believers, whether Christian or Jew, that what God ordered or predicted would not come true either instantly or according to whatever timing he chose. His curses dominate nature (Gen 3:14, 17; Isa 24:6; Mark 11:21) and nations (Gen 9:25; Jer 24:9). They can affect the family (Prov 3:33) or the individual (Matt 25:41; Acts 5:1–11).
When a divine curse has been announced as generally applicable (e.g., Deut 11:26, “I set before you this day blessing and curse …”) violators of the warning automatically bring upon themselves the miseries implied in the curse (Deut 28:15; Zech 5:1–4; 2 Chr 34:24). Indeed, whenever God so chooses, he may as a punishment bring the intended effect of a curse upon the very individual who uttered it against someone else (Gen 27:12, 13; Ps 109:17).Curses could accompany any sort of covenant, as part of the oaths made to bind all parties. Individuals who then broke such covenants would be subject to the curses they had agreed to in binding themselves to the covenant (Judg 21:18; Neh 10:29; cf. Matt 26:74; Acts 23:12). A ceremony related to the covenant of marriage could involve the uttering of curses as a part of the process of determining marital infidelity (Num 5:18–27).
Individuals could compose their own curses against other individuals, desiring thereby to hurt them (Job 31:30). They could, as well, give strength to a promise (Gen 34:14) or a legal testimony (1 Kgs 8:31) by an oath.
Words involving the Hebrew root ḥrm are sometimes translated “curse” in the sense of a thing banned or made off-limits from society, thus bringing a curse upon the person who breaks the ban and makes contact with it. In so-called Holy War, the enemy and anything belonging to him was ḥerem, off-limits, and under penalty of death could not be taken as plunder by victorious Israelite soldiers (Josh 7:1, 12; 1 Sam 15:23). The curse of Mal 4:6 uses the term ḥerem in reference to the fate of the land if the future Elijah is not heeded, implying that those who reject the word of God will suffer the same fate as did those who violated the ban in Holy War, i.e., death.
Because cursing was intended to produce negative results, the notion of reversal of cursing in the NT conveys the sense of the dawning of a new age of behavior and expectations. Jesus’ teaching, “Bless those who curse you” (Luke 6:28), called for a reversal on the part of his followers of millennia of tradition about personal response to cursing. Revelation 22:3 predicts the cessation of “the curse,” i.e., the results of the Genesis fall (sin, disease, death).
  Bibliography  Blank, S. H. 1950–51. The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath. HUCA 23: 73–95.  Brichto, H. C. 1963. The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible. Philadelphia.  Fensham, F. 1962. Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal-Treaties and the OT. ZAW 74: 1–9.  Hempel, J. 1925. Die israelitischen Anschauung von Segen und Fluch im Lichte altorientalischer Parallelen ZDMG n.s. 4: 20–110.  Herbert, A. G., and Snaith, N. H. 1952. A Study of the Words “Curse” and “Righteousness.” BTrans 3: 111–14.  Mowinckel, S. 1923. Segen und Fluch in Israels Kult und Psalmendichtung. Kristiana.  Pedersen, J. 1914. Der Eid bei den Semiten. Strassburg.  Scharbert, J. 1958. “Fluchen” und “Segen” im Alten Testament.  ———. 1958. Solidaritat in Segen und Flucht im Alten Testament und in seiner Umwelt. Bonn.  Schottroff, W. 1969. Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch. Neukirchen-Vluyn.

Written by

Mark A. Lester has been a dedicated movie reviewer since the age of 13, from the classics of the golden age to the blockbusters of the 21st century. He currently lives in the western suburbs of Chicago.

Type at least 1 character to search
Catch the AP315 Team Online:

The mission of Apologetics 315 is to provide educational resources for the defense of the Christian faith, with the goal of strengthening the faith of believers and engaging the questions and challenges of other worldviews.

Defenders Media provides media solutions to an alliance of evangelistic ministries that defend the Christian worldview. We do this by elevating the quality of our members’ branding to match the excellence of the content being delivered.