Читать книгу My Black Biblical Heritage - Chukwuemeka Livingstone - Страница 9

Chapter 3

The Fall and Its Consequences

Man therefore disobeyed and lost being in the image (the truthfulness and the holiness) of God. In other words, God’s spiritual attributes embedded in man during the time of creation was lost due to man’s disobedience. Man was now left with the physical attributes alone. Man rejected the substance (spiritual) and accepted the shadow (physical). But God in his mercy began man’s redemption from here in Genesis 3:14–15.

Before this, God made certain pronouncements to show that man had become spiritually dead. Let’s look at Genesis 3:15–19. Here, you find seven terrible disadvantaged positions Adam’s sin placed him based on God’s pronouncements. Reading through these verses, we find that in:

 verse 15, man inherited enmity;

 verse 16, man inherited sorrow as pains in birth;

 verse 17a, man inherited curse to the ground or his capital;

 verse 17b, man inherited sorrow as dissatisfaction in achievements;

 verse 18, man inherited thorns and thistles or much labor and less productivity;

 verse 19a, man inherited sweat of face or suffering;

 verse 19b, man inherited death.

If you compare the above verse with Genesis 1:28–30, we see a contrast from man created in God’s image to have seven positive, divine attributes to seven negative, satanic oppressions, from grace to grass. So man lost being in the divine form (Spiritual) but took the repressive form, subjected to satanic attacks, oppression, domination, and possession to being a slave instead of a master which God originally ordained for him. Mercifully, God still allowed man to retain his image in the physical. Man had all the attributes of a physical being to enable God’s divine plan to restore man be effected at the fullness of time. The human body and the five senses were allowed to continue so that man can have a chance to taste and see divine redemption.

For the pronouncement of God against man was meant as corrective measure and not punitive. Otherwise, man would not only have died spiritually (separation from God in the spirit); in the Garden of Eden, man would have also died physically. There would have been an immediate termination of life, and man’s (Adam’s) existence on this planet earth would have ended, thus providing no hope of redemption. For once one dies, there is no more remission for sins. So we see this death in the immediate as being spiritual (separation from God until the initiated time when Genesis 3:15 would be fulfilled), but man still died physically after a period of time.

This was because the death sentence in Genesis 3:19b. “In the sweat of thy face, shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground, for out of it was thou taken, for dust thou art, and unto dust, shalt thou return” was to effect and confirm the Word spoken in Genesis 2:17 as real. Real in the sense that prior to the disobedience, man was to live forever. But on the fall, a day was involved thereupon which the covenant of life was annulled because man disobeyed God. Since then, no man has ever lived to fulfill his day after the fall.

To explain more, the Bible says in 2 Peter 3:8, “But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.”

Since this is the case, from the day that Adam sinned, one thousand years (a day in God’s sight) is the day that the fallen man had within which he would live and die. From Adam, this passed unto all men as an inherited problem, Adam being the progenitor of all men. So based on God’s word, man never lived to fulfill that day, for Adam died at the age, 930. He never completed that day (one thousand years) according to God’s reckoning. He (Adam) died the same day. “The day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17). So it is with any other man born of Adam. From the day he is born, he is born in iniquity and according to God, man should die that same day. Therefore, one thousand years is reckoned to him before God (one day), and no man has ever lived to fulfill that day: even the longest living man (Methuselah) died at 969 years, thirty-one years short of that day. So we see, the deterioration of the human body to grow old and die below one day because of separation from God (spiritual death) who is man’s life and substance to live forever.

Thank God that through Jesus Christ our redeemer, man now has hope to live forever by the power of God as found in Revelation 21:3–4:

Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them and be their God, and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death neither sorrow nor crying. Neither shall there be any more pain, for the former things are passed away. Behold I make all things new.

Consequences of the Fall in Generalized Terms

And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose.

And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh, yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.”

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of the heart was only evil continually. (Gen. 6:1–3 and 5)

From Genesis, chapter six, we see the consequences of Adam’s sin of disobedience in generalized terms. It was not limited to any particular tribe or people. Noah was the only emerging personality that was a just man, perfect in his generations and walked with God; hence, he found grace in the sight of God (Gen. 6:8–9). The flood promised in Genesis 6:17 was fulfilled in Genesis 7:10–24. This was the sixth hundred year of Noah’s life on earth. Noah and his family of seven became the only survivors of the flood, used for the destruction of the old world, perpetrated by wickedness as a result of the Adam’s disobedience. After the flood, Noah built an altar and offered a burnt offering unto the Lord of every clean beast and fowl.

The sweet savor so pleased the Lord that the Lord said in his heart, “I will not again curse the ground anymore for man’s sake.” Consequent upon which the Lord made a promise that “while the earth remaineth seedtime and harvest and cold and heat and summer and winter and day and night shall not cease” (Gen. 8:22).

In chapter 9:11, God blessed Noah and his sons and said unto them, “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.”

God even went further to reestablish a new covenant with Noah (see Gen. 9:8–17). Before this event, I want you to compare Genesis 9:1–3 with Gen. 1:28–30 and see the similarity of the divine injunction mandating man to reestablish his authority but this time, with additional laws of “don’ts” because of the excesses by which the heart of man can run to if not checked (Gen. 9:4–6). Before we discuss the controversy about the black man being cursed as propounded by some Bible scholars, I want you to look at Genesis 9:18–19 in relation to Genesis 9:1 for identification purpose.

It says, “And the sons of Noah that went forth of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah.”

In relation to Genesis 9:1, verses 18–19 are merely confirming “those” that God blessed with Noah. They were his three sons identified as Shem, Ham, and Japheth. These were joint heirs with Noah who survived the deluge as a result of the curse in Genesis 3:17b which witnessed a progressive act of negativity in the heart of man (Adam’s descendant) on earth. So in effect, Shem, Ham, and Japheth were blessed by God in the knowledge and presence of Noah.

Notice that in Genesis 9:18b, it particularly said, “And Ham is the father of Canaan.” There is a purpose as to why this particular scripture was added immediately after the identification of Noah’s three sons in the Bible. Ham is the father of the black race (Gen. 10:6). God had known that Noah’s pronouncement against Canaan (Ham’s son) in the Bible would be greatly misunderstood by some Bible scholars. Noah himself understood the pronouncements of the blessings of God upon Ham and his son and knew that you cannot curse the man that God has blessed (see Num. 22:12 and 23:8, 19–20).

Noah knew according to Genesis 12:3: “I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee.”

When Ham discovered his father’s nakedness, Noah himself knew that the circumstances were different and not grievous enough to bring a curse upon Ham. The one that would have brought a curse on Ham directly according to God’s Word is relative.

“The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover. It is thy father’s nakedness” (Lev. 18:8).

In the event of one committing such an error, a curse and a consequence follows as it is written: “Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife because he uncovered his father’s skirt, and all the people shall say, Amen” (Deut. 27:20).

Incidentally, the only two people whom the Bible specifically identified in the Old Testament times as those cursed for such related offenses were all from the Shemitic race. One was from the tribe of Reuben (with Reuben being the culprit himself) while the other came from the tribe of Judah (Absalom), the son of David. Rightly applied, the curse came upon them but in isolation. By this, I mean, that the curse did not go beyond the offender. Even if it did, it did not hinder their being partakers in sharing the inheritance promised them by God. Even though the kingship did not go to Reuben as the supposed owner, his tribe nevertheless partook of the inheritance of God, i.e., the Promised Land. Absalom who committed such crime paid for it himself. The scepter was not removed from Judah by reason of the curse on Absalom because according to Scripture, God’s purpose by election must stand, yet “the soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek.18:4c).

Every man must answer for himself, his sin against God. Also, in the New Testament times, there was a reported case of one uncovering his father’s nakedness in 1 Corinthians 5:1. This time, it was among the saints in the church. Even though he was censored by the church with Apostle Paul’s backing (of course, biblically speaking), it did not mean he was not reaccepted into the body of Christ as a joint heir when he repented after a godly sort. Thus, showing that God wants all men saved (Rom. 11:32).

However, suffice this argument thus far, lest we digress. The bone of contention is not to justify sinners but to clarify the meaning (biblically), the uncovering or discovering of one’s father’s nakedness.

To uncover here (based on this bible passage) is a willful sin of moral instability while to discover or see could be an accidental occurrence or an event unprepared. This was not Ham’s sin against Noah. As a matter of fact, the discovery of Noah’s skirt was the mistake of Noah who got drunk and could not hold fast to his integrity. The Bible says, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby, is not wise. Prov, 20:1.

Wise men in the Bible are never associated with taking strong drink (see Prov. 31:4–5). Even where a man had been known to be wise, if he takes strong drink and is deceived thereby, his action is not considered as being wise. Strong drink and wine can make one to err and take away the heart (Isa. 28:7, Hosea 4:11). Noah’s wisdom testified of him by God as being just, perfect, and upright found it’s being ridiculed by strong drink. By being drunk, his act of exposing his nakedness showed foolishness on his part. This same problem became the lot of Lot. By being drunk, Lot unknowingly slept with his daughters (Gen. 19:31–38 and therefore erred according to Isa. 28:7a), but they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way, not accounting that incest is a deviant attitude.

I want to limit the drunkenness by strong drink and wine to those that have drinking problem. I know there are areas of drunkenness whereby one may have a morbid desire to sin tantamount to being drunk with iniquity, but specifically in this case, reference is made to strong drink or wine. So Noah drank wine and was drunken and therefore was uncovered within his tent. When Ham came in, he saw his father’s nakedness (which was not his fault). The only fault, which I suppose, was traced to him is that he (Ham) did not cover Noah up but went and told his two brethren instead. Noah’s anger toward Ham is that of a secret being made open because of indiscretion. Indiscretion in the sense that Ham should have secretly covered him and kept quiet without letting his brethren know. But is the fault more with the man (Noah) who displeased God than with Ham that displeased man? Noah’s pride was hurt when he knew what Ham had done (probably by the report of his two brethren which I consider as gossip or reporting a case also without discretion); this incurred Noah’s wrath. I don’t rule out that Ham may have mocked and his brethren may have gossiped and their father in outrage, reacted because he felt ridiculed. In consequence, he looked at Ham to address him, but remembering that Ham had been blessed by God which he (Noah) could not reverse, Canaan came into the picture. Noah cursed Canaan instead. Now we know that if God has blessed a man, it affects his third and fourth generation (2 Kings 10:30) as this also applies to his curse (Exod. 20:5). But the blessing will last as long as the chain of obedience and faithfulness to the Word of God continues.

Ham by circumstances became a victim of disobedience and by being indiscreet, paved way for his brethren covering their father’s nakedness to inherit added blessing. God allows you to bless the man that he has blessed, and by doing so, he blesses you, but don’t you curse him. That would be contrary to God. In the same vein, where one is cursed by God, it goes down to his descendant even unto the third to fourth generation as long as they continually remain rebellious. But where there is repentance and a forsaking of the evil ways of their fathers, God changes the curse to blessing based on a new covenant of peace (Exod. 20:6), sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ (see Ezek. 18:1–4, 14–20, Eph. 2:12–20, 1 Cor. 11:25). Ham’s circumstantial shortcomings (I say circumstantial because he saw his father’s nakedness possibly by walking into the tent unannounced or by knocking of which there was no answer, which also may have heightened his curiosity to find out what’s happening.) brought about a curse on Canaan (Ham’s fourth son by biblical placement), but the curse on Canaan was not unto his generation. It was an isolated incident. This is in the sense that Canaan’s descendants and generation were blessed, progressive (and may have worshiped God in righteousness) who occupied the Promise Land before the handover to Israel. In fact, from Canaan’s territory arose a very respected and mysterious personality in the Bible whom even God himself recognized and separated for divine service in the person of Melchizedek.