Continuing our exploration of God’s promise to Abram found in Genesis 12:3.

I will bless those who bless you,

I will curse those who treat you with contempt,

and all the peoples on earth

will be blessed through you.

Noting that the first couplet promises a curse on some while the second promises a blessing on all, we must work thru an interpretation that reconciled both couplets.

The first option rooted the second couplet in history and the first in eternity, and it is a pretty common interpretation by my gauge. Now, let’s look at the reverse.

Option #2: Temporal curse; eternal blessing

First, let’s talk about the curse. It is rooted in time and visited upon those who curse Abram. Like before, cursing Abram could be literal and limited to those who had opportunity act in Abram’s lifetime, or it could be extended vicariously to Abram’s descendants as a whole or to a particular descendent such as Jesus. Because the curse is rooted in time, limiting the scope to the historical Abram is a more viable reading than if the curse is rooted in eternity. Regardless, the effects of the curse are felt in history.

When searching to name the curse my mind immediately goes to economic, military, or socio-political effects. These are all rooted in history, and we can conceive of situations where some are blessed and others are cursed. Once you determine what it means to curse Abram (literal vs. vicarious among other considerations), you can appropriately identify the groups who have suffered, are suffering under, or will suffer from the curse. Similarly, you should also be able identify those groups who have received, are receiving, or will receive a blessing because they have blessed Abram, since we would expect the reasoning to be consistent.

Moving on, the blessing given to all is something that transcends time and lasts forever. If you’re attached to an eschatology that includes some sort of eternal curse, such as hell, then this interpretation will raise the hair on the back of your neck at minimum. Once again, however, our personal inclinations have no real bearing on whether or not a particular interpretation is correct. The consensus of all scripture, tradition, reason and spiritual insight are needed. (As I write this I’m discovering that I’m not probably a “sola scriptura” kind of guy. If you are, feel free to omit the portion of the above sentence between, but not including, “scripture” and “are,” correcting for subject-verb agreement.)

Interesting to say the least.