New World, New Corruption (9:18-28)

Aaron Sturgill

Exploring Genesis • Sermon • Submitted 3 years ago

Slavery

Ham (son of Noah)

Noah becomes drunk in his tent

Racism

Canaan (son of Ham)

0 ratings

· 29 views

Notes

Transcript

Introduction

If I were to ask you to summarize Noah with two words, would you use “righteous and blameless” or “drunk and naked?” And with that, welcome to another of the many odd stories in the book of Genesis.

[Read Genesis 9:18-28]

As we wrestle through another awkward story in Genesis, I would like to address a few questions and then offer some practical insight drawn from the narrative. (1) Why does Noah, the spiritual giant of the Flood, appear in such a bad light? Did Noah sin in this story? (2) What exactly did Ham do to Noah? Moses tells us that Ham saw the nakedness of his father. What does it mean that Ham saw his father’s nakedness? (3) Ham’s offense results in Canaan and his progeny being cursed. Who is Canaan and why should he be cursed for something he did not do?

Noah’s Shame

Let’s begin by addressing Noah’s character and actions in this story. Moses informs the reader that “Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent” (Gen 9:20-21).

Two different Noahs? At face value the Noah of chapter nine seems to be a different Noah than the Noah of chapter six. Moses describes the Noah of chapter six as “a righteous man, blameless in his generation.” A man who walked with God (Gen 6:9). In stark contrast, in chapter nine, we see Noah as a drunk and naked man lying in his tent (Gen 9:21).

The arresting contrast between the antediluvian Noah, rescued from death by his goodness, and the postdiluvian Noah, sprawled out in drunken disarray, has provoked a running controversy over the centuries between the apologists, who try to salvage Noah’s reputation as the man “blameless in his age,” and the more kindly critics, who regard him as perhaps the best of a degenerate lot.[1]

Naturally, biblical readers attempt to remedy this apparent contradiction. Either interpreters attempt to justify Noah’s actions in chapter nine, concluding he was either naïve of alcoholic potency, or they accept the dark painting of Noah in chapter nine and conclude he serves as an example of the best of broken people.

Either Noah was blameless and righteous and blameless and righteous people have moments of sinful behavior. Or Noah was blameless and righteous only when contrasted to the generations prior to the flood whose “every intention of the thoughts of [their] heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5). [Some have concluded that these two descriptions of Noah demand the reality of two distinct people (ie. Cohen[2] and Skinner[3]).]

Babylonian Talmud. Tract Sanhedrin. Mishnah 2. Noah was just, a perfect man in his generation;” in his generation, but not in others. According to Resh Lakish: In his generation which was wicked, so much the more in other generations.[4]

Did Noah sin? While we naturally desire to understand if Noah sinned, we need to recognize the point of the story does not revolve around Noah’s guilt or innocence. Instead, the story offers an account that explains why Abraham and his posterity are blessed and the Canaanite people receive the brunt of judgment. However, let’s briefly address Noah’s character.

Some have argued Noah was wrong to ever plant a vineyard.[5] However, hardly could a vineyard pose an inherent sinful problem for Noah, seeing that the symbol of the coming bliss in the Messianic age is the fruit of the vine (Zech 8:12, Isa 25:6).

More challenging to dismiss is Noah’s drunkenness. Some early church fathers (Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret of Cyr) and reformers (Andrew Willet) concluded Noah did not understand the potency or dangers of wine, therefore conclude Noah bears no judgment for his drunkenness.

Theodoret of Cyr. Why was Noah not blamed for falling into drunkenness? His falling was not due to intemperance but inexperience. For he was the first man to press the fruit of the vine and was ignorant not only of the power of the drink but also of the kind of change it had undergone.[6]

Andrew Willet. Though Noah’s drunkenness may have some excuse, in that he was an old man and unaccustomed to this kind of drink, and being ignorant of its nature and power, he was more quickly overcome, nonetheless, he can have no just defense.[7]

[A Jewish rabbi, in the Midrash, proposed an interaction between Noah and Satan about the planting of the vineyard. This view is extravagant and bizarre, but worth keeping in a footnote😊. [8]]

From our New Testament perspective, we rely on passages such as in Ephesians, where Paul commands the believer to “not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph 5:18). However, the bible reader finds no condemnation for drunkenness prior to the law or in the law. However, wisdom literature does strongly caution against the abuse of alcohol (Prov 20:1, 23:31, 31:4-5).

The OT offers examples of the dangers of drunkenness. Lot gets drunk and his two daughters sleep with him (Gen 19:30-38). God commands the priests not to drink so they could distinguish between holy and unholy (Lev 10:9-11). Nabal dies after a drunken spree (1 Sam 25:32-38). The Israelites were able to defeat Ben Hadad and 32 other kings because those kings had gotten drunk (1 Kings 20:12-21). Proverbs warns kings, princes, and rulers to abstain from alcohol because alcohol perverts good judgment (Prov 31:4-5).

Moses describes intoxicating wine as the poison of serpents and the cruel venom of asps (Deut 32:33). Solomon refers to alcohol as the “wine of violence” (Prov 4:17) and states that “wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging” (Prov 20:1).

However, the fact that Nazirites were told to not drink wine infers the average Jew did drink wine (Num 6:3). Wisdom literature praises God for producing “wine to gladden the heart of man” (Ps 104:15) and offers wine as a sedative (Prov 31:6).[9]

Therefore, Noah planting a vineyard poses no problem. Noah’s drunkenness sheds a negative light on his character, and his resulting nakedness in his tent leave him in a position of shame. Consistently biblical authors couple drunkenness and nakedness and pose them in a negative and shameful light. This shameful position offers the backdrop to Ham’s sin. Clearly Noah, having lived for around 350 years after the flood, produced and accomplished a great many wonderful and positive feats for which he could have been left in a more positive light. However, scripture leaves Noah’s character in the negative light of being drunk and naked in his tent.

Luther. Of his life after the flood, Moses tells us very little. But is it not apparent that so noble a man, living for about 350 years after the flood, could not be idle, but must have been busy with the government of the Church, which he alone established and ruled? … Though reason tells us that Noah was burdened with these manifold duties after the flood, yet Moses does not mention them. It appears to him sufficient to confine his remarks to the statement that Noah began to plant a vineyard, and that he lay in his tent drunken and naked.[10]

Observation: As already stated, Noah’s shameful position offers a backdrop to Ham’s sin. The story is about Ham not really about Noah. However, in sharing Noah’s shameful moment we are offered an example of how drunkenness often leads to immorality, poor decision making, and shame.

Ham Extends the Shame

We leave the backdrop of Noah’s shameful drunken position and now confront the primary offense of the story. Moses writes, “Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside” (Gen 9:22).

Fringe interpretations. Before I propose the two most plausible interpretations, let me simply acknowledge a couple others. Some rabbis, attempting to explain why Canaan was cursed rather than Ham, conclude that little Canaan had gone into the tent and accidentally castrated his grandfather.[11] Additionally, one author in the Jewish Talmud discusses the proof for Ham castrating his father, [12] and another author writes, “All agree that Ham castrated Noah, and some say that Ham also sodomized him (Talmud, Sanhedrin 70a).[13]Those who argue such a position offer the potential motivation to be the desire by Ham to “prevent procreation in order to seize the power to populate the earth.”[14]

Option 1: Ham’s sin was sexual. Let us consider instead the first of two more likely interpretations. Potentially Ham sexually assaulted his mother. Such an interpretation would well explain the dramatic curse Noah offers following the incident. A section in Leviticus provides the basis for such an interpretation. In chapter 18 of Leviticus, Moses addresses unlawful sexual relations, and in a significant section addresses the sin of incest. Fifteen times within thirteen verses, Moses commands, “you shall not uncover the nakedness.” A few of these seem most clear (18:7, 8, 16)[15], however, let me offer Leviticus 18:14 as the most pertinent to our discussion. Moses writes, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt” (Lev 18:14). In these passages, sexually approaching a woman equates to uncovering her husband’s nakedness. Possibly, Ham, seeing his father passed out, sexually takes advantage of his mother – most likely the motivation being to shame his father and take some type of control [Cf. Ahithophel’s counsel to Absalom to sleep with David’s concubines so that “the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened” (2 Sam 16:11).]

This interpretation seems to better explain the harsh curse placed on Canaan and, at first glance, seems to reflect well the prohibitions in Leviticus. Many argue Noah too harshly cursed Canaan if Ham simply saw his father naked. However, one slight difference between the wording in Genesis 9 and Leviticus 18 (and a couple other evidential points) make this interpretation less likely. In Genesis 9, Moses deliberately emphasizes how Ham “saw” (Gen 9:22) his father and again Shem and Japheth purposefully did not “see” the nakedness of their father (Gen 9:23). Whereas, in Leviticus, Moses restates the prohibition to not “uncover the nakedness.” Leviticus emphasizes the action of uncovering and Genesis emphasizes the sin of seeing.

Additionally, The solution to their father’s nakedness was for the two brothers to physically walk backward and cover their father with a garment. This solution seems odd if Ham seeing his father’s nakedness equates to his sexual impropriety with his mother.

Option 2: Ham’s sin was disrespect. While the first option remains plausible, the second interpretation seems most likely. According to this second view, Ham sinned against his father in a couple ways. As would be true today, drunkenness and nakedness would be looked upon with shame and a perception of weakness.

Ross. Nakedness thereafter represented the loss of human and social dignity. To be exposed meant to be unprotected; this can be seen by the fact that the horrors of the Exile are couched in the image of shameful nakedness[16]

After having seen his father naked, Ham does not take the opportunity to cover his father’s shame. Not only does Ham do nothing about his father’s shameful position, but Ham also goes and tells his brothers about it. In so doing, Ham increases his father’s shame. If Ham had accidentally stumbled upon his passed out and naked father, out of love, respect, and concern for his father; Ham should have immediately covered him and done all he could to minimize the shame. He doesn’t. Instead, he broadens the shame.

Westermann. With Noah and his sons living together it was the duty of the sons in such a situation to stand by the father, in this case to cover him, as the citation from Ugarit shows. It was a grave breach of custom when Ham saw his father lying naked in his tent, did not cover him, but left him there and went outside and told his brothers. This is narrated so clearly that it is difficult to understand how exegetes have missed the obvious meaning.[17]

This second interpretation better follows the natural reading of the story. Additionally, this interpretation better explains Shem and Japheth’s actions. Shem and Japheth’s actions become confusing if the first interpretation is accepted. If Ham seeing his father’s nakedness equates to sexual impropriety towards his mother, what does it mean that Shem and Japheth “covered the nakedness of their father?” Could this simply mean that Shem and Japheth “abstained from sexual relationship with their mother?[18] Unlikely.

Mathews. The expression in our passage is not a figurative statement since the two sons actually cover up the exposed nakedness of their father, who was in a drunken stupor in the tent. This is reinforced by the description “their faces were turned.”[19]

Therefore, the depth of sin comes from Ham’s immensely, disrespectful treatment of his father. Mosaic law demanded Israel to deal harshly with disrespect for parents (Ex 21:15, Deut 21, 18-21, Deut 27:16). Mathews writes the following:

In the ancient world insulting one’s parents was a serious matter that warranted the extreme penalty of death. Mosaic legislation reflected this sentiment. This patriarchal incident illustrated the abrogation of the Fifth Commandment, “Honor your father and mother.” To do so means divine retaliation, for the crime is not against parent alone but is viewed as contempt for God’s hierarchical order in creation.[20]

Ham, intentionally or unintentionally, stumbled upon his drunk and naked father. Instead of loving his father well and immediately covering him to minimize potential shame, Ham intensified and expanded his father’s shame by telling his brothers. As a result of this thoughtless and disrespectful behavior, Noah becomes aware of this offense and curses Ham’s son Canaan.

Why Canaan? Why not Ham?

Canaan cursed for the Shame

Moses writes, “when Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son[21] had done to him, he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers’” (Gen 9:24).

Why Canaan? Why does he curse Canaan rather than Ham? This question has baffled students of Scripture for millennia with no obvious answer. Gordon Wenham purposefully ignores any interpretation which places the blame on Canaan. He then offers three best possible interpretations. First, consistent with some Jewish rabbis, Noah could not curse Ham right after God had just recently blessed Ham (Gen 9:1).

Midrash on Genesis. Rabbi Yehudah said: Since it is written, 'And God blessed Noah and his sons' (Gen. 9:1), while there cannot be a curse where a blessing has been given, consequently. He said: Cursed be Canaan.[22]

Second, some interpreters, such as Keil and Delitzsch, conclude the curse was against a father because the offense was by a son towards his father. Keil and Delitzsch write, “It was not Ham who was cursed, however, but his son Canaan. Ham had sinned against his father, and he was punished in his son.”[23]

Finally, Wenham offers a third interpretation. He writes, “Noah’s curse on Canaan thus represents God’s sentence on the sins of the Canaanites, which their forefather Ham had exemplified.”[24] Ross agrees with Wenham and writes the following:

Ross. the Torah, which shows that God deals justly with all people, suggests that Noah anticipated in him the evil traits that marked his father Ham. The text has prepared the reader for this conclusion by twice pointing out that Ham was the father of Canaan, a phrase that signifies more than lineage. Even though the oracle of cursing would weigh heavily on Ham as he saw his family marred, it was directed to his distant descendants, who retained the traits.[25]

Therefore, in this curse, Moses offers an explanation as to why the lasting division and animosity exists between the Canaanites and the Israelites.[26]

[An alternative view: Some, who conclude Noah sexually sinned with his mother, conclude potentially Canaan was the fruit of Ham’s incest, thereby the fruit of the sexual sin carries the curse of the sin. [27]]

Important interpretive conclusions. (1) The father’s sin negatively impacts his family for generations. Scripture offers precedent for the sins of one man negatively impacting his posterity; after all, Adam sinned once leading all mankind into sinful darkness. Ham’s sin, similarly, extended to many generations to follow him. (2) The curse does involve slavery; however, the fulfillment of this curse plays out in the years of division, war, and servitude between ancient Israel and their Canaanite rivals. The curse does not forever condemn certain “races” to perpetual slavery.

Mathews. There are no grounds in our passage for an ethnic reading of the “curse” as some have done, supposing that some peoples are inferior to others. Here Genesis looks only to the social and religious life of Israel’s ancient rival Canaan, whose immorality defiled their land and threatened Israel’s religious fidelity. It was not an issue of ethnicity but of the wicked practices that characterized Canaanite culture.[28]

Finally, (3) and ultimately, following generations were not cursed because of what Ham did but because they chose to sin in the same way as their ancient ancestor. For generations, the Canaanites chose to abandon themselves to immorality and received the just consequences of such actions.

Theological Implications

This story’s position in Genesis. The story of Noah’s drunkenness and Ham’s sin offers an important setting to God’s choice to bless Abraham and his posterity and curse Canaan’s family line. As Israelites and Canaanites heard or read of Moses’ telling of Shem and Japheth’s blessing and Canaan’s cursing, they would quickly connect this story to their ongoing rivalry and enslavement.

Sin is prevalent in man. God had just destroyed the world due to its wickedness. Shortly after Noah and his family disembark from the mammoth vessel symbolic of God’s salvation and protection, mankind jumps right back into their sinful disposition. Over and over, throughout Scripture, mankind shows their natural tendency to choose corruption. Sin is prevalent in man.

Man’s sin has devastating and lasting repercussions. We underestimate the severity of consequences to our sin. This story offers one more instance in which a seemingly minor action results in dramatic consequences. Even if Ham simply saw his father’s nakedness and told his brothers – why does Canaan and following generations need to be cursed. Of course, Ham was wrong, but doesn’t this curse seem to be a bit over the top?

Ross. It seems almost incredible that a relatively minor event would have such major repercussions. But consistently in the narratives of Genesis, one finds that the fate of both men and nations is determined by occurrences that seem trivial and commonplace.[29]

God punished all mankind because Adam ate some fruit. David gave into lust one time and destroyed his family. We way underestimate the destructive power of our sin.

A life of ongoing blessing follows a life of obedience to God’s design. When we ignore God’s expectations, laws, and design for life, we should expect a destructive life pattern.

Christ covered our shame. Christ covered our shame by becoming shame for us. I would not argue that Moses was attempting to make this point. However, we can connect to Noah’s position. We find ourselves in a position of shame. We aren’t drunk and naked in a tent – at least not right now. However, we have plenty of sin in our lives which produces shame. Unlike Ham, Christ saw our shame, and not only did he simply cover our shame, he took our shame upon himself so we would experience none of it.

Additional Exhortation

Some Jewish interpreters have concluded Canaans children would be black and carry specific physical attributes. Graves and Patai offer succinct and startling summary of this egregious view.

Graves summary of Midrash interpretation. Others say that Ham himself unmanned Noah, who awakening from his drunken sleep and understanding what had been done to him, cried: ‘Now I cannot beget the fourth son whose children I would have ordered to serve you and your brothers! Therefore it must be Canaan, your first-born, whom they enslave. And since you have disabled me from doing ugly things in the blackness of night, Canaan’s children shall be born ugly and black! Moreover, because you twisted your head around to see my nakedness, your grandchildren’s hair shall be twisted into kinks, and their eyes red; again, because your lips jested at my misfortune, theirs shall swell; and because you neglected my nakedness, they shall go naked, and their male members shall be shamefully elongated.’ Men of this race are called Negroes; their forefather Canaan commanded them to love theft and fornication, to be banded together in hatred of their masters and never to tell the truth.[30]

Each aspect of this summary can be found in the Jewish Talmud and Midrash.

Talmud, Sanhedrin 70a. The Gemara explains: The one who says that Ham castrated Noah adduces the following proof: Since he injured Noah with respect to the possibility of conceiving a fourth son, which Noah wanted but could no longer have, therefore Noah cursed him by means of Ham’s fourth son.[31]

Talmud, Sanhedrin 70a. All agree that Ham castrated Noah, and some say that Ham also sodomized him.[32]

Midrash, Tanchuma, Noach 15.3. Our sages stated: While Noah was in the ark, he said to himself: Would that my sons possessed slaves so that they might remain seated while being served. When I depart from this place, I shall produce a descendant who will be their slave. Following this incident, he said to Ham: You prevented me from begetting a fourth son who would serve you, therefore your fourth son shall become a slave. Hence, he said: Cursed be Canaan. This is the opinion of those who contend that Ham castrated his father.[33]

Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 13.5. Thereupon Noah cursed his seed, saying: Cursed be Canaan (Gen. 9:25). Because Ham had glanced at his naked father, his eyes became red. Because he related (what he had seen) to others with his mouth, his lips became twisted. Because he turned his face away (ignored his father’s condition), the hair of his head and beard was singed. And because he neglected to cover his naked father, he went about naked, with his prepuce extended. This happened to him because the Holy One, blessed be He, exacts retribution measure for measure.[34]

Babylonian Talmud, Tract Pesachim 10. Five things Canaan the son of Ham the son of Noah commanded his children; viz.: “Love ye one another, love robbery, love lasciviousness, hate your masters, and never tell the truth.”[35]

There interpretations have been used by some Jews and Christians for at least, if not more, than the last 2200 years to justify racism and perpetual slavery.

In 1700, Samuel Sewell addressed the common understanding that “these Blackamores are the posterity of Cham, and therefore are under the curse of slavery.”[36] Sewell didn’t agree with this conclusion, but he acknowledged that this view was the prominent view and instead offered a counter understanding.

In 1869, Edward Blyden argued African Americans should return to Africa and redeem it.

But it may be said the enterprising people, who founded Babylon and Nineveh, settled Egypt, and built the pyramids, though descendants of Ham, were not black – were not negroes; for, granted that the negro race have descended from Ham, yet, when these great civilizing works, were going on, the descendants of Ham had not yet reached that portion of Africa, had not come in contact with those conditions of climate and atmosphere which have produced that peculiar development of humanity known as the Negro.[37]

In the late twentieth century, Thomas Peterson wrote a book addressing the Antebellum understanding of Ham’s curse. He wrote the following about the proslavery position.

Proslavery writers also joined the argument with the abolitionists in terms of biblical exegesis. They contended that Noah’s curse was not mere prediction, but an ordinance of God and that Noah spoke by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; they held that the decree was not a special dispensation, applying only to the Israelites, since it referred to the future relations among Ham, Shem, and Japheth; a few believed that Canaan concurred in Ham’s sin, while others maintained that the Hebrew text was corrupt and that “Ham, the father of Canaan” was the object of the curse; and they argued that both polygamy and divorce had been specifically prohibited by the New Testament, whereas slavery was explicitly sanctioned by Paul in his Epistle to Philemon, and never condemned by Christ.[38]

It is important that we acknowledge a couple of things.

Christians (and Jews) have justified racism and gruesome slavery due to a horrific interpretation of Genesis 9. America still suffers from the results of such racism and slavery.

This interpretation has impacted generations up through – at least – the twentieth century. I recall growing up hearing about the curse of Canaan being the basis for the enslavement of black people.

The twisting of Scripture can result in horrific and long-lived erroneous practices.

This twisting of Scripture offers one example for the need for consistent and faithful bible study. It appears Christians adapted a very old and erroneous Jewish interpretation of Genesis 9 and used it to justify American slavery.

We must reject lazy bible study and bible study that tends to justify our already perceived opinions.

Resources for Bible Study

Bassett, Frederick W. “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan: A Case of Incest?” Vetus Testamentum 21, no. 2 (April 1971): 232–37.

Cohen, H. Hirsch. The Drunkenness of Noah. Judaic Studies 4. University: University of Alabama Press, 1974.

Goldenberg, David M. The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2003.

Graves, Robert, and Raphael Patai. Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis. London: Cassell, 1964.

Ross, Allen P. “The Curse of Canaan: Studies in the Book of Genesis, Pt 1.” Bibliotheca Sacra 137, no. 547 (July 1980): 223–40.

Footnotes

[1] H. Hirsch Cohen, The Drunkenness of Noah, Judaic Studies 4 (University: University of Alabama Press, 1974), 1. [2] Cohen only offers this as a possible interpretation and then offers Skinner as an interpreter of this view. Skinner writes, “There is the righteous Noah, and there is the drunken Noah – two entirely different people who bear not the slightest relationship to one another. They simply come from two disparate traditions where the only thing they have in common is their name.” [Cohen, 3.] [3] Skinner writes, “Noah is here introduced in an entirely new character, as the discoverer of the culture of the vine; and the first victim to immoderate indulgence in its fruit….The Noah of vv. 20-27 almost certainly comes from a different cycle of tradition from the righteous and blameless patriarch who is the hero of the Flood. The incident, indeed, cannot, without violating all probability, be harmonised with the Flood narrative at all.” [John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 181–82, http://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic00skinuoft.] [4] Michael L. Rodkinson, trans., The Babylonian Talmud: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English, vol. 1–10, 10 vols. (Boston: The Talmud Society, 1918). [5] Chrysostom wrote, “Perhaps, on the other hand, someone might say, “Why was vine dressing, source of such terrible wickedness, introduced into life?” Do not idly blurt out what comes into your head, O man: vine dressing is not wicked nor is wine evil—rather, it is use of them in excess.” Additionally, The Reformer, Andrew Willet, wrote, “It is mentioned that Noah planted vines rather than that he sowed corn (with which he was also undoubtedly occupied) not because he intended to leave the invention of necessary things to God and of pleasurable things to humans (as Ambrose supposes), for there is no doubt but that wheat was in use before the flood. Rather, [the mention of vines] furnishes the occasion for the story that follows. Nor is there any ground for saying that there was no use of the vine before the flood, when the people were given to such sensuality and pleasure. Rather, Noah brought the grape to more perfection (and therefore it is said he planted a vineyard, not vines) in order to make drink from that which might have been used otherwise before.”[Louth and Conti, Genesis 1-11, 157; George, Timothy, Manetsch, and Thompson, Genesis 1-11, 1:304–5.] [6] Louth and Conti, Genesis 1-11, 156. [7] George, Timothy, Manetsch, and Thompson, Genesis 1-11, 1:306. [8] “Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 13.4. What did Satan do? First, he obtained a lamb and slaughtered it beneath the vineyard. Then, he took a lion and slaughtered it there, and after that he obtained a pig and an ape and slaughtered them in the same place. Their blood seeped into the earth, watering the vineyard. He did this to demonstrate to Noah that before drinking wine man is as innocent as a sheep: Like a sheep that before her shearers is dumb (Isa. 53:7). But after he drinks a moderate amount of wine he believes himself to be as strong as a lion, boasting that no one in all the world is his equal. When he drinks more than he should, he behaves like a pig, wallowing about in urine and performing other base acts. After he becomes completely intoxicated, he behaves like an ape, dancing about, laughing hysterically, prattling foolishly, and is completely unaware of what he is doing. All this happened to the righteous Noah. If the righteous Noah, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, praised, could behave in such a fashion, how much more so could any other man!” [Sefaria. “Midrash Tanchuma.” n.d. https://www.sefaria.org/Midrash_Tanchuma%2C_Noach.13.4?lang=bi] [9] “Genesis does not stop to moralize on Noah’s behavior. It is neither condemned nor approved. To be sure, wine was not forbidden in Israel. It was used to cheer the heart (Judg. 9:13; Ps. 104:15), and as a sedative (Prov. 31:6). The Nazirite vow of abstention from wine would be meaningless if Israel as a nation already abstained. Nevertheless, the Bible does not hesitate to condemn winebibbing (Prov. 23:29–35), and even equates it with harlotry (Hos. 4:10–11, 18), which numbs the longing for God. The two incidents in Genesis describing drunkenness (here and 19:31ff.) become the occasion for sins of debauchery.” [Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, 321.] [10] Martin Luther, Luther on Sin and the Flood: Commentary on Genesis, trans. John Nicholas Lenker, vol. 2, The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther (Minneapolis, MN: The Luther Press, 1910), 304–5. [11] Graves and Patai footnote the following Jewish literature. I was unable to find these documents. “Tanhuma Buber Gen 48-49, Gen. Rab. 338-40.” [12] Talmud, Sanhedrin 70a. “The Gemara explains: The one who says that Ham castrated Noah adduces the following proof: Since he injured Noah with respect to the possibility of conceiving a fourth son, which Noah wanted but could no longer have, therefore Noah cursed him by means of Ham’s fourth son.” [Sefaria. “Talmud, Sanhedrin.” n.d. https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.70a.19?lang=bi] [13]Sefaria. “Talmud, Sanhedrin.” n.d. https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.70a.20?lang=bi [14] Ross references Philo Biblius’ discussion. “Greek and Semitic stories occasionally tell how castration was used to prevent procreation in order to seize the power to populate the earth.” [Allen P Ross, “The Curse of Canaan: Studies in the Book of Genesis, Pt 1,” Bibliotheca Sacra 137, no. 547 (July 1980): 229.] [15] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. (Lev 18:7). You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. (Lev 18:8). You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. (Lev 18:16). [16] Ross, “The Curse of Canaan,” 230. [17] Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 488. [18] Hamilton writes, “For example, when Shem and Japheth “covered their father’s nakedness” (v. 23), does this mean simply that they abstained from sexual relationship with their mother? Basset himself is forced to admit that v. 23 is awkward, and that it comes from the hand of a later redactor who failed to understand the subtleties of the event.” [Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, 323.] [19] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, NAC (Broadman & Holman, 1996), 419. [20] Mathews, Genesis 1-11, 1a:420. [21] Let me acknowledge an irrelevant (to me) but potentially confusing phrase – “his youngest son.” At two previous points, Moses names Noah’s sons. In each instance, Moses places them in the order of “Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” This order has resulted in most assuming Ham to be the middle son. In chapter ten they are in a different order (Japheth, Ham, and Shem). Neither text seems to indicate that Ham is the youngest. While most commentators acknowledge this potential confusion, drawn from their discussion, I offer the simple acknowledgment that likely Moses either does not place them in order of birth or the Hebrew term qatan means smaller or younger rather than youngest. Many translations offer “his younger son” (KJV, LXX, DR, Geneva). [22] Sefaria. “Bereishit Rabbah.” n.d. https://www.sefaria.org/Bereishit_Rabbah.36.7?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en [23] Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 1:99. [24] Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 1:201. [25] Ross, Creation and Blessing, 217. [26] Cynically, Graves and Patai write, “The myth is told to justify Hebrew enslavement of Canaanites.” Similarly, Bassett writes, “The story seems clearly designed to discredit the Canaanites and justify the Israelite and Philistine hegemony over them.” [Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis (London: Cassell, 1964), 122. Frederick W Bassett, “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan: A Case of Incest?,” Vetus Testamentum 21, no. 2 (April 1971): 232.] [27] “On the basis of the above references which establish the idiomatic meaning of the expression under discussion, it is possible that the statement that Ham saw the nakedness of his father originally meant that he had sexual intercourse with his father's wife. If so, this would explain the seriousness of the offense which led to the curse. It would also explain why Noah cursed only one of Ham's several sons, if it is further assumed that Canaan was the fruit of such a case of incest…. Idiomatically understood, Canaan bears Noah's curse of slavery, because he is the fruit of Ham's incest.” [Bassett, “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan,” 235.] [28] Mathews, Genesis 1-11, 1a:423. [29] Ross, “The Curse of Canaan,” 224. [30] Graves and Patai, Hebrew Myths, 121. [31]Sefaria. “Talmud, Sanhedrin.” n.d. https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.70a.19?lang=bi [32]Sefaria. “Talmud, Sanhedrin.” n.d. https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.70a.20?lang=bi [33]Sefaria. “Midrash Tanchuma.” n.d. https://www.sefaria.org/Midrash_Tanchuma%2C_Noach.15.3?lang=bi [34]Sefaria. “Midrash Tanchuma.” n.d. https://www.sefaria.org/Midrash_Tanchuma%2C_Noach.13.5?lang=bi [35] Rodkinson, The Babylonian Talmud, 1–10:236. [36] Samuel Sewell, “The Selling of Joseph, A Memorial” (Bartholomew Green and John Allen, 1700), 2. [37] Edward Blyden, “The Negro in Ancient History,” Methodist Quarterly Review, no. January (1869): 8. [38] Thomas Virgil Peterson, Ham and Japheth : The Mythic World of Whites in the Antebellum South, ATLA Monograph Series: No. 12 (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1978), 6.

Related Media

Related Sermons