Worldview

Another day, another Gospel Coalition article that I can’t help but comment on. Today’s issue is with an article entitled, “How To Go Deep into Bible Study without Getting Lost”. The author, Ryan Martin, presents 3 main ideas, 1) Words are flexible and contextual, 2) Details can distract from the flow of a text and 3) An individual text doesn’t need to carry the whole weight of Christian theology. By the first one, he means, words can mean different things in different contexts and its important to understand the context of a word or passage before we can figure out what the meaning of the word might be. He uses the example of the English word ‘trouble’ and how that word can be used to mean very different things, depending on the context. By the second, he means, “don’t lose the forest through the trees”. We can have a tendency to zoom in to break down specific words or small phrases, and miss the main message of a book or epistle. The third is a little bit of a stretch, but it seems like a variation on “don’t lose the forest through the trees” – he is exhorting his readers to appreciate the nuance and diversity of voices and perspectives within Scripture and not try to oversimplify things. Overall, not a bad directive – especially his comments about trying to make a single verse or passage carry the entire story of theology.

I would like to add one more to his list, and I would make it the first bullet point – before all of the recommendations about words, context and exegesis. The bullet point would look something like this:

What's Happening in Genesis 9?

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.