I read an article on The Gospel Coalition website today regarding 'The Curse of Ham' from Genesis 9:20-27. The article was a worthy examination of the consequences of bad exegesis - but the author himself presents something that is a bit puzzling. His argument, which I would say is the classical treatment of this passage, is that Ham saw his drunk father naked, told his brothers about it, and in seeing his father naked, somehow sinned against him and invited a curse upon his son Canaan. When you think about that explanation though, it doesn't make much sense. If anyone has children of their own, they know it is certainly not uncommon for children to see their parents naked (up to a certain age, of course) and in the circumstances of living very close to one another, as Noah and his sons undoubtedly did on the Ark, its tough to imagine them never seeing each other naked, if even accidentally. Regardless - even if this was true, it seems like an awfully harsh punishment for such an offense.
It's a fascinating passage and it merits a serious look to figure out what is going on here. Here's the passage:
"Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated. Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his brother outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it up on both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers."" (Genesis 9:18-25, NASB)
I started a couple of verses before the main passage because it struck me as odd that the writer, covering nearly 2,000 years of history from Genesis 1-11, would go out of their way to blurt out that Ham was the father of Canaan, in a place where it seemingly doesn't have much of a connection to anything else. The writer doesn't mention any sons or descendants of Shem of Japheth, or the other descendants of Ham - just Canaan - and then Ham shows up in the very next story, and Canaan is cursed. It seems plausible that the writer is connecting Canaan with whatever happened between Noah and Ham. More on that later.
"The Nakedness of his father..."
Let's get weird for a minute. The phrase 'the nakedness of his father' in Genesis 9 is not the only place we see this phrase in the Old Testament. There are 4 other verses that use this phrase or something very similar, and they all occur in Leviticus:
1. Leviticus 18:14 - "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother; you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt."
2. Leviticus 20:11 - "If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
3. Leviticus 20:17 - "If there is a man who takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness; he bears his guilt."
4. Leviticus 20:19 - "You shall also not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister or of your father's sister, for such a one has made naked his blood relative; they will bear their guilt."
What is made clear from these passages is that to "uncover the nakedness" of someone is a euphemism for heterosexual intercourse. What is also made plausible in these passage is that, as it relates to Noah in Genesis 9, his nakedness is actually the nakedness of his wife - the passages in Leviticus 18:14 and 20:11 make it clear that the nakedness of your father's brother is your aunt, and that the nakedness of your father, is your mother. These ancient cultures were very male-centric and so it makes sense that the nakedness of a woman would be related through her relationship with a man.
This, to me, really helps to clear up what is going on in Genesis 9. Ham, perhaps seeking to fulfill God's command to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the Earth" (Gen. 9:1) does something that is outside the boundaries of God's design. Or, perhaps this was a power play...Noah was advanced in years - Ham saw an opportunity to establish dominance over his brothers? Regardless of the reason - what I see here, using the interpretive key just presented, is that Ham had heterosexual intercourse with his own mother, and that the offspring of that union was Canaan. Noah, seeing what happened, curses the offspring of this incestuous union, relegating Canaan to servant status within the bloodline. The passage also indicates that Shem and Japheth did not participate in this charade, choosing not even to look. The severity of this curse is further reinforced when we examine the role of Canaan (and the Canaanites) in the Scripture that follows. Here is just some of it:
Their land was also the land of Sodom and Gomorrah (and we all know that story):
"The territory of the Canaanite extended from Sidon as you go toward Gerar, as far as Gaza; as you go toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha." (Genesis 10:19)
Abraham makes Isaac's servant swear that he will not take a wife for Isaac specifically from among the Canaanites; doesn't mention any other people group:
"Please place your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of Heaven and the God of earth, that you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites..." (Genesis 24:2)
God gives the land of the Canaanites (and the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, and Hivites as well) to Israel, and then destroys the Canaanites:
"The Lord heard the voice of Israel [Jacob] and delivered up the Canaanites; then they utterly destroyed them and their cities. Thus the name of the place was called Hormah [destruction]." (Numbers 21:3)
"But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 17-18)
It seems reasonable to suggest that a curse with this level of consequence would be in response to something truly egregious - simply seeing one's father naked doesn't seem to rise to that level of egregiousness, even within the scope of Biblical sin and punishment. Sleeping with your dad's wife and potentially attempting a family power-play, however, does seem like something that would merit a more severe punishment.
-------------------
I borrowed heavily here from a couple of fellow brothers who recently put together a podcast series covering Genesis 1-11. David Gordon and David Rickman are part of a group down in North Carolina called 'The Ark' and they cover this same story in their series, examining some of the common ways this passage has been looked at and then presenting this point of view.
Sometimes I find myself asking "ok, so what - that's cool in the sense that is makes sense of something that seems weird when I've read it before, but why does it matter?" I think the answer to that question has more to do with the exercise of interpreting it than it does with the outcome. Sometimes, maybe often times, Scripture is a useful tool in interpreting and understanding Scripture. Our euphemisms are not their euphemisms. Our cultural context is different. Understanding Biblical euphemisms and idioms can be useful to figuring out what is going on. Being willing to do a little extra work can pay dividends when it comes to understanding. For me personally - seeing a story like this and seeing how that narrative continues to play out, increases the cohesiveness of the Biblical narrative and ultimately, increases the believability of the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment