The Curse of Canaan: Genesis 9

[Speks]

Commentaries may be of interest.
__

The basic question concerns what Ham, Noah's youngest son, did (9:22, 24) and why Noah cursed Ham's "son" Canaan (vv. 25–27). Many fanciful ideas have been proposed. The rabbis said Ham castrated Noah, thus explaining why Noah had no other sons. Others claim that Ham slept with his mother, thus uncovering his father's nakedness, and that Canaan was the offspring of that union. Others have said that Ham was involved in a homosexual attack on his father. But the Hebrew expression here means what it says: Ham … saw his father's nakedness (v. 22). He was not involved with Noah sexually, for in that case the Hebrew would be translated "he uncovered (causative form of galâh) his father's nakedness." Instead Noah had already uncovered himself (wayyitgal, reflexive form, v. 21), and Ham saw him that way.

To the ancients, however, even seeing one’s father naked was a breach of family ethic. The sanctity of the family was destroyed and the strength of the father was made a mockery. Ham apparently stumbled on this accidentally, but went out and exultingly told his two brothers, as if he had triumphed over his father...

In all but one of the verses in Leviticus 18:6–19, Moses used the causative form of the verb galâh to refer to the Canaanites’ (Ham’s descendants) “uncovering” another’s nakedness (rendered in the NIV, “have sexual relations”). This euphemism reports the actual licentious and repulsively immoral behavior of the descendants of Ham (cf. Lev. 18:3). Ham’s disposition toward moral abandon thus bore fruit in the immoral acts of his descendants, the Canaanite.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary

__

Modern readers fail to see the gravity of Ham's sin and ask what is wrong with gossiping or joking to your brothers about your parents' failings? So attempts have been made to suggest Ham was guilty of incest or other sexual impropriety. But these notions are wrong and fail to appreciate how seriously the OT and other ancient cultures took filial duties. ‘Honour your father and mother' comes next to the Godward commandments in Ex. 20, and striking or cursing your father or mother could be punished by death (Ex. 21:15, 17; cited by Jesus, Mk. 7:10).

Why was Canaan cursed for the sin of Ham his father? There is no clear answer. Possibly he participated in his father's sin in some way. Possibly it was a mirroring punishment. As Ham, Noah's youngest son, sinned against his father, so Canaan, Ham's youngest son, was punished. Possibly, it was because Ham's sin foreshadowed that of the Canaanites, who were notorious for their immorality in the OT (Lv. 18:3).

The New Bible Commentary

__

Noah “uncovered himself,” and Ham saw Noah naked. This passage does not say that Ham “uncovered the nakedness of Noah,” which would be a euphemism for perverted sexual activity (Lv 18:6–19). A parent’s sin often becomes a child’s stumbling block (Ex 34:7). In this case, Ham dishonored his father and thus sinned (Ex 20:12; Dt 5:16) in two ways: First, he dishonored his father by staring at his nakedness (Hab 2:15). Second, he increased both his sin and his father’s shame by reporting his father’s condition to others. Later, the law stipulated curses for dishonoring a parent (Ex 21:17; Dt 27:16).

CSB Study Bible

Edited October 18, 2020 by Speks

[teddyv]

That seems reasonable.

[Speks]

This reasoning doesn't quite make sense...

Yes, it can be a good idea to think things through. But when we "go find it out what it means" aren't we reading the thoughts of those who may well have thought it through themselves anyway? They believe (perhaps) that they have some understanding based on careful thought and study, and extensive background knowledge in various contexts, including languages.

In many cases these people are published experts in their fields. That doesn't mean we blindly buy into what they tell us, but it carries weight.

Or should we depend more on someone who shares in this thread? We weigh up what we discover and draw conclusions, if we can.

 

[leah777]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

The curse being a prophetic utterance does not explain why it happened. 

Do you know what Ham did to warrant a curse in the first place? Seeing someone's nakedness is an idiom, a euphemism; do you know what it means? Please don't look it up before answering. I'm asking if you already know what it means, not can you go find out what it means. A simple no will do for now and if the answer is yes then do please provide the meaning, otherwise let's begin the conversation with a little authenticity and knowledge. 

Why would Noah curse the progeny for something the father did? 

Do you know the meaning of the word or name "Canaan"? 

Who is Canaan? There were eight people on the ark (Noah, his three sons, and their four wives), so where did Canaan come from? How does Noah know the name of Ham's son? 

Do you know how the Jews viewed this passage? Do you know the rabbinical view? Again, I ask for the now-known answer, not that you go look it up and tell me/us after having done so. We can cover all this content as the conversation unfolds. 

 

The answers were surprising to me. I don't believe the question "Why was Canaan cursed for something the father did?" can be answered without knowing and understanding the answers to these questions in light of the rest of scripture, especially passages like Dt. 24:16, Dt. 25:11-12, Eze. 18:20, and the soon subsequently occurring (repeatedly) blessing of progeny that exists in scripture.

I am looking forward to your explanation of these questions.

[Speks]

 

Are any of the above quotes relevant to what you mean? 

"...the Hebrew expression here means what it says: Ham … saw his father's nakedness (v. 22). He was not involved with Noah sexually, for in that case the Hebrew would be translated 'he uncovered (causative form of galâh) his father's nakedness.' Instead Noah had already uncovered himself (wayyitgal, reflexive form, v. 21), and Ham saw him that way";

"In all but one of the verses in Leviticus 18:6–19, Moses used the causative form of the verb galâh to refer to the Canaanites’ (Ham’s descendants) “uncovering” another’s nakedness (rendered in the NIV, “have sexual relations”). This euphemism reports the actual licentious and repulsively immoral behavior of the descendants of Ham (cf. Lev. 18:3). Ham’s disposition toward moral abandon thus bore fruit in the immoral acts of his descendants, the Canaanite"; 

"Noah 'uncovered himself,' and Ham saw Noah naked. This passage does not say that Ham 'uncovered the nakedness of Noah,' which would be a euphemism for perverted sexual activity (Lv 18:6–19)."

There are other sources that take another view, but maybe you can help our understanding further. I'm all for knowing Scripture better.

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Speks

[Marathoner]

I felt this was worthy of discussion by interested parties. I started this topic in an effort to transplant the dialogue from one thread to another seeing as how we drifted off course from the topic of giants (Nephilim). I maintain that Noah's curse of Canaan was prophetic and because prophecy is of the Lord, the reason why Canaan (and not his father Ham) was cursed is known only to Him. Even after learning about the euphemism regarding uncovering nakedness we find no mention of Canaan's involvement in the relevant passage. 

It's not my custom to argue with other members of this forum let alone my brothers and sisters in the Lord so my invitation for others to join in this discussion is transparent: each of us knows only in part. I believe coming together is what it's all about. Iron sharpens iron.   

 

[Marathoner]

9 minutes ago, Josheb said:

That does not explain why Noah cursed Canaan. Noah being prophetic does not answer your own inquiry. In other words, you haven't answered your own question; you've just given it some context. Why did Noah curse Canaan? Why did Noah speak prophetically about Canaan?

Neither does this post answer any of the questions I asked. 

And no one is arguing. You posted a question and in an effort to open that question up to the richness scripture provides the matter of arguing is somehow being insinuated into the conversation in an abject absence of collaboration. Could have just answered the questions and we'd be moving the conversation forward collaboratively, not argumentatively. 

So here they are again: 

Do you know what Ham did to warrant the cursing of his progeny? 
Do you understand the meaning of the idiom "knowing someone's nakedness"? 
Why curse the progeny and not the wrongdoer? 
What's the meaning of the name "Canaan" and do you know or see any relevance or correlation between the sin, the curse, and its prophetic nature? 
Only eight people went on the ark; from where did Canaan come?

I'll leave out the question about the rabbinical views because it's extra-biblical. I asked it because it provides a Judaic context and provides insights into the answers to the questions above. 

Are these not valid, op-relevant inquiries that could quite powerfully inform the answer to the question this op asked? If so then answer them! 

Brothers, sisters, since Marathoner has declined to answer I invite you all to respond. It is my hope, Mar, that you will answer the questions asked but I won't let you get in the way of answers being provided to the question of your own op. 

Thank you for sharing.

[Deborah_]

26 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Only eight people went on the ark; from where did Canaan come?

There is no indication of the length of time that elapsed between the end of the Flood and the incident under discussion. It could well have been several decades.

[leah777]

51 minutes ago, Josheb said:

That does not explain why Noah cursed Canaan. Noah being prophetic does not answer your own inquiry. In other words, you haven't answered your own question; you've just given it some context. Why did Noah curse Canaan? Why did Noah speak prophetically about Canaan?

Neither does this post answer any of the questions I asked. 

And no one is arguing. You posted a question and in an effort to open that question up to the richness scripture provides the matter of arguing is somehow being insinuated into the conversation in an abject absence of collaboration. Could have just answered the questions and we'd be moving the conversation forward collaboratively, not argumentatively. 

So here they are again: 

Do you know what Ham did to warrant the cursing of his progeny? 
Do you understand the meaning of the idiom "knowing someone's nakedness"? 
Why curse the progeny and not the wrongdoer? 
What's the meaning of the name "Canaan" and do you know or see any relevance or correlation between the sin, the curse, and its prophetic nature? 
Only eight people went on the ark; from where did Canaan come?

I'll leave out the question about the rabbinical views because it's extra-biblical. I asked it because it provides a Judaic context and provides insights into the answers to the questions above. 

Are these not valid, op-relevant inquiries that could quite powerfully inform the answer to the question this op asked? If so then answer them! 

Brothers, sisters, since Marathoner has declined to answer I invite you all to respond. It is my hope, Mar, that you will answer the questions asked but I won't let you get in the way of answers being provided to the question of your own op. 

I would love to respond,but I don't have the knowledge. I am hoping to learn from what everyone shares on here.

[leah777]

5 minutes ago, Josheb said:

The phrase of "seeing someone's nakedness" is an idiom for sex. It is an idiom used throughout scripture to indicate sex, especially adultery, prostitution or illicit sexual activity, carrying with it the connotation of shame due to shameful conduct. Culturally, it is associated with the symbol of a hand or a baton, staff or pole (phallic symbols). In days of the prophets the prostitutes would put a stripe or the symbol of a hand on their lintel, door, or window. 

The idea being Ham either had sex with his mother or sodomized his father (the latter being the generally accepted interpretation). In the Talmud it the passage is interpreted to indicate Ham did something to prevent his father from bearing more offspring, thereby ending his ability to further the bloodline but that takes liberties with the text, imo. 

However, the principle of bloodline is salient because it is Ham's or Canaan's bloodline that is cursed. All one needs to do to understand this is to read all that scripture brings to bear on sexual immorality, especially that of sodomy. 

It should also be noted Noah had sinned! He got drunk. Neither he nor his wife could have been raped had he been sober and in possession of his faculties. 

It's also worth noting that it did not take very long for the verdict of Genesis 6:5 to return, and that I suggest is the overarching point of the passage, a text that takes three or four chapters to recount and covers a passage of time likely to be at least three years. It's also worth noting God gave Noah much the same command he gave Adam and Eve and the authority to do it. 

 

So Noah cursed Ham's bloodline because Ham raped his father and while that curse does have prophetic significance prophesy is not necessary to understand why Noah cursed Canaan. That bloodline was excluded but that is a recurring theme throughout the OT, not something specific to Ham's son.

 

 

.

Thanks. My confusion remains as to why the youngest son of ham was cursed, though. Why not any of the other three sons? Unless the sin and curse came after the birth of the first three sons of ham, perhaps?