Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JohnD

Why did God curse Ham's Son?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Sonshine☀️ said:

It seems, though, that Noah proclaimed the curse out of extreme anger.  …but the fact remains that it was not God that cursed Canaan; it was Noah.  

the head of the family had authority to pronounce blessings or cursing from God which was irrevocable.

Edited by Worship Warriors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Worship Warriors said:

the head of the family had authority to pronounce blessings or cursing from God which was irrevocable.

Scripture please. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leviticus 20:11 (AV)
11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Just so folks are clear the idiom is about having sex.

The only logical conclusion is that the account in Genesis 9 is a generalization that left out specific details and at least a 9 month gap of time... in that Canaan

is the byproduct of Ham and his mother doing just what Leviticus 20:11 says.

Apparently, Lot and his daughters are not the first time something like this has happened.

No telling what all took place prior to the flood with all the other people who perished.

The Bible spares us many vile details, but we cannot lapse into a Pollyanna mentality over just

how wicked human beings are / can be.

To do so is one of the problems Jesus faced with the Sanhedrin over their own self righteousness. 

Jesus did not even bother with them. "I came to heal the sick." he told them.

They needed salvation. But they needed to face that need and not deny it.

Our denial lowers our guard, causes us to be unprepared, adds to the severity of our

dilemmas, and leads us to utter bewilderment when we wake up one day and ask "How did

I end up here?"

Human nature is satanic. That's the gist of Matthew 16:13-23 (note the comparisons between the ways of God and the ways of man ← which Jesus attributes to the devil

(this is why he called Peter Satan). John 8:44 calling those who oppose him sons of the devil. 1 John 2:22.

We believe in Jesus. Hallelujah!

But that does not mean our fallen sin nature is anything less than it was before.

We are fronted  the righteousness of Christ.

Why?

To focus on this phase of God's plan God's mission:

Evangelism. Taking part in getting others saved.

And part of what hinders this focus is the denial about ourselves and each other.

Couple that with ignorance about this focus, blend in the seduction of worldliness,

and we have a world going to hell with an organized tradition of man church posing as

the true body of Christ (and believers supporting it rather than being the True Body of Christ

Church ← which would require us to serve God rather than ourselves).

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Oy Vey! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did God curse Ham's Son?

9 hours ago, JohnD said:

But why did Noah curse Canaan only of all Ham's children?

Good question. Perhaps when Noah came to, he had one doozy of a hangover? :40:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, JohnD said:

 

Just so folks are clear the idiom is about having sex.

 

No, it is not solely an idom about procreation. 

This is why i advise people to steer clear of rashi commentary. In such an instance of a very poor exegesis method a single cause is being applied to nakedness. 

Personally, I go to the Master first and foremost on matters of clothing.

"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'

If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Nakedness

Edited by pinacled
  • This is Worthy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JohnD said:

Leviticus 20:11 (AV)
11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Just so folks are clear the idiom is about having sex.

The only logical conclusion is that the account in Genesis 9 is a generalization that left out specific details and at least a 9 month gap of time... in that Canaan

is the byproduct of Ham and his mother doing just what Leviticus 20:11 says.

 

That is making assumptions and reading more into the bible than it states. 

  • Thumbs Up 3
  • This is Worthy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, pinacled said:

No, it is not solely an idom about procreation. 

This is why i advise people to steer clear of rashi commentary. In such an instance of a very poor exegesis method a single cause is being applied to nakedness. 

Personally, I go to the Master first and foremost on matters of clothing.

"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'

If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Nakedness

With what is shared above from our Lord. I believe a clear exegesis will reveal that shem, and japheth had faith with works.

Hence one of four being punished for their fathers(ham) transgression in shaming Noach.

Then with further exegesis. The question is Why 1 of 4? 

Hint; when exegetically building. Using multiple parellels with a plethora blessings from the Lord will help strengthen a house against the winds.

Also, there is mention of a 1/4 of trees that I 'll leave others to discover for themselves. I also suggest reading zechariah.

Blessings Always

Edited by pinacled
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Takoda said:

In the literary tradition of that time and place the term "nakedness of the father" suggests that Ham took advantage of Noah's drunken state to have sex with his father's wife. To simply accidentally see his father drunk and naked seems insufficient for the punishment inflicted on Ham.

 

No punishment was inflicted upon Ham. Only Canaan was punished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JohnD said:

Agreed.

But why did Noah curse Canaan only of all Ham's children?

Canaan was the guilty person. Ham only discovered what had happened. He was not part of the actual crime/sin.

  • Oy Vey! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

(uncovering someone's nakedness in the Hebrew means to have sex with their wife
Leviticus 18:5-8 )

Keep in mind this states that Ham saw this, not that he did the uncovering which suggests he might have seen someone who was "uncovering" Noah's wife.


K&D

The laws against incest are introduced in Lev_18:6 with the general prohibition, descriptive of the nature of this sin, “None of you shall approach to any flesh of his flesh, to uncover nakedness.” The difference between flesh, and flesh, is involved in obscurity, as both words are used in connection with edible flesh (see the Lexicons). “Flesh of his flesh” is a flesh that is of his own flesh, belongs to the same flesh as himself (Gen_2:24), and is applied to a blood-relation, blood-relationship being called  (or flesh-kindred) in Hebrew (Lev_18:17). Sexual intercourse is called uncovering the nakedness of another (Eze_16:36; Eze_23:18). The prohibition relates to both married and unmarried intercourse, though the reference is chiefly to the former (see Lev_18:18; Lev_20:14, Lev_20:17, Lev_20:21). Intercourse is forbidden (1) with a mother, (2) with a step-mother, (3) with a sister or half-sister, (4) with a granddaughter, the daughter of either son or daughter, (5) with the daughter of a step-mother, (6) with an aunt, the sister of either father or mother, (7) with the wife of an uncle on the father's side, (8) with a daughter-in-law, (9) with a sister-in-law, or brother's wife, (10) with a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her granddaughter, and (11) with two sisters at the same time.

 

 

Now, if Ham secretly had sex with his own mom, he wouldnt go and tell his brothers about it right? "Hey guess what, I just had sex with Mom!" I mean, either Ham is utterly retarded and SICK or we are blaming him for a sexual crime he never committed.

See, it is written that Ham only SAW the nakedness...not that he did the uncovering so it is likely someone else uncovered it especially since Ham told his brothers what he has found. That's a BIG difference. Ham was the first to discover the crime!

 

Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.


Heres the key. When this says "his younger son" we have to figure out what Noah meant. The word "younger" really means the youngest here.


Genesis 42:32 We be twelve brethren, sons of our father; one is not, and the youngest is this day with our father in the land of Canaan.

Anytime there are more than two, the word means the youngest else there would be no way to tell which was meant especially if the speaker is the father as all his children would be "younger" than he is.


Noahs youngest son is Japheth and Japheth didnt even see the nakedness but helped to cover it back up so it couldnt be him. The companion bible makes an error and says that Shem is the youngest but again he isnt guilty of anything either. And Ham is the middle son and was the one who first reported the "crime" so it wasnt him.

but what if Noah said "his younger son" and meant Hams youngest son? Or even his youngest grandson as the Hebrew makes no distinction between son and grandson.


Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what HAMS YOUNGEST son had done unto him.

or it can be translated this way:

Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his [youngest] [grand]son had done unto him.


Hams youngest son and Noahs youngest grandson is Canaan...the same Canaan we were told two strange times that Ham was the father of!


Genesis 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.


This is why Noah cursed Canaan and not Ham because Canaan was the guilty one!

  • Oy Vey! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...