Shortly after I posted my latest article
(in my estimation not enough time had passed for it to have even been read), a critic posted his previously stated position that Revelation 22:3 ("there shall be no more curse") could not be referring to the curse of Genesis 3 because "the curse on the ground" of Genesis 3 (which is associated in that context with sin and death)
was removed immediately after Noah's flood. As I and others have thoroughly pointed out, this position is exceedingly erroneous in that it contradicts numerous Old and New Testament prophetic texts. And it cannot be overstated how it does violence to the beauty and glory of the cross of Christ, rendering it a vain show rather than the actual performance
of the mercy promised to the Fathers (and thereby contradicting more Scripture), much the way that "preterist idealism" does.
The "curse on the ground" of Genesis 3 (ie, the Adamic curse of sin and death, of which the "cursed ground" is an integral part) was not removed at the time of the flood, nor at any time prior to the cross. (Please pause to consider the implicatons of denying this.) God forbid that such a shameful thing should even be suggested. In fact, contrary to another preterist who actually claims that the flood is never even called a curse in the text, the "curse of the ground" of Genesis 8:21 is
Let's look at this context (You see, not only did my critic give no consideration for the analogy of Scripture when he made his erroneous claim and "proof-texted" with this passage, he didn't even acknowledge the immediate context of the passage itself.)
Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.
Look at the two things in this verse which are equated:
1. never again will I curse the ground
2. never again will I destroy every living thing as I have done [by the flood!]The flood was the curse
of the ground to which this verse refers.
Now look at some very particular wording which should sound familiar:I will never again curse the ground, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth
Compare it to this:
Gen 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually
Gen 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."
Man's evil intentions and thoughts
(ie, the imaginiation of his heart
) is stated as the reason for the flood, the reason that God would destroy man from the face of the earth. And after the flood, even though this evil imagination remains (in those very ones who were saved on the ark!) God promises to never again "curse the ground," or destroy them as He has done by the flood.
The claim that Genesis 8:21 "proves" the Adamic curse was removed prior to the cross is falling apart, just with the simplest and most surface-level read. Even for those who place credibility in such a shallow argument as a single text pulled out and interpreted in a way that contradicts Scripture so pervasively as has been exposed here, this should now be clear.
As we have also discussed, there are prophetic aspects of the flood account, and what immediately follows it, including dominion prophecies of the gospel echoing the words of Genesis 1. And it is certainly possible that God's promise to never again curse the ground as He had done by the flood, in addition to referencing what physically happened with Noah, is prophetic of the ultimate removal of the "curse of the ground" pronounced at the fall by the cross of Christ. We see this suggested in Genesis 5:29 when "Noah" (a type of Jesus Christ) is said to bring comfort and rest from the toil which existed as a result of the Genesis 3 curse. There can be little doubt that this statement is prophetic of the New Covenant.
So we could discuss this text from a number of angles, and dismantle the erroneous paradigm of redemption from the Adamic curse apart from Christ's cross.
But here, because of the extremely loud clanging currently resonating from those associated with this falsehood (which has resulted in some vicious attacks on my character), I just wanted to lay out a simple and straighforward refutation, and again remind people of why these things matter so much. Hopefully some will be encouraged to think through the implications of their statements before spewing them forth so recklessly.