A view of Why Was Canaan Cursed

[Mazx67]

What do you think of this view of why Canaan was cursed?


ABSTRACT

Why did Noah curse his grandson Canaan? Genesis Nine records that Ham saw Noah’s nakedness, and as a result, Noah cursed his grandson Canaan. Then Canaan went on to become the patriarch of Israel’s longstanding enemies, the Canaanites. The story seems capricious on the surface, in contrast to so much reasonable history in Genesis. A common biblical figure of speech appears in Canaan’s story, and when Christians reread the story understanding this figure, the message of this account becomes compelling. Ancient Hebrew commonly speaks of a man’s nakedness to refer to sexual intercourse with the man’s wife. As Moses wrote in Leviticus, “The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness.” Canaan lived a cursed life because he was conceived by a perverse union. Thus the brief story twice reminds its ancient readers that Ham (not Noah) is the father of Canaan. So Noah cursed Canaan not as an evil spell or hex, but as recognition of cause and effect, reaping what is sown, and his tragic circumstance, and as a warning to others against following in Ham’s wicked way. And readers of Genesis find a clear and reasonable origin for the conflict that lasted for centuries between the Jews and the Canaanites.

by Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church



ARTICLE

Why did Noah curse his grandson Canaan? This boy’s father, Ham, saw Noah’s nakedness, and as a result, Noah cursed Canaan, who became the patriarch of Israel’s enemies, the Canaanites. The story seems capricious on the surface, in contrast to so much reasonable history in Genesis. Let’s take another look at what happened.

The various tribes of Canaanites are listed in Gen. 10:15-18, including the Sidonians, Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, and Hivites. The Canaanites settled in familiar areas including Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of Gaza (Gen. 10:19). The hostility with their namesakes (and mixed descendants) continued right up until Christ for example when He resisted ministering to “a woman of Canaan” (Mat. 15:22). But why did Canaan and therefore his descendants become cursed? Reading the account in Genesis 9, many suppose that after Noah became drunk, Ham saw his father naked, and as a result, Noah cursed Ham’s son Canaan. I submit that is not at all what happened. For that story, at least on its surface, would be an especially arbitrary and capricious origin for Canaan, Israel’s great nemesis. Here is what actually happened:

The story is not so much about Noah, or Ham, but about Canaan. As shown below, seeing the nakedness of a man is a common Hebrew expression for having sex with his wife (Lev. 20:11). Canaan lived a cursed life because he was conceived by a perverse union. Noah’s kids, Japheth, Shem, and Ham lived for about a century in the wicked pre-flood world. The statement that “Ham was the father of Canaan” (Gen. 9:18) begins this passage, which then quickly repeats “Ham, the father of Canaan” (Gen. 9:22), as though the author wants his readers not to miss the relationship. The story ends with three mentions of Canaan including “Cursed be Canaan” (Gen. 9:25). The first chapters of the Bible quickly cover 1,600 years of sinful human history. Yet, there is no mention of intoxication until after the flood, until Noah planted a vineyard and became drunk. While Noah was inebriated, one of his sons, Ham, committed incest with Noah’s wife. Taking advantage of his father’s drunkenness, Ham, who had lived before the flood in a sexually perverse society, had intercourse with his own mother, impregnating her and thereby fathering Canaan. So because Noah’s own wife bore Canaan, the story twice clarified for its ancient audience that “Ham was the father of Canaan,” not Noah, as the earliest Canaanites may have misrepresented their heritage!

Of Israel’s nearby enemies, not all were Canaanites. For example, the Moabites and Ammonites were the product of other parent/child relations. Again involving drunkenness, Abraham’s nephew Lot impregnated his daughters who gave birth to the Moabites and Ammonites (Gen. 19:36-38). Any child conceived in this way, regardless of mutational considerations, enters life set up to fail. Canaan had his grandmother for a mother, his grandfather for an uncle, his mother for a great aunt, his father for a cousin, and, worst of all, his brother for a father (half-brother, that is). Early humans reproduced with siblings and first cousins without harm because genetic deterioration had not become a significant factor. But mutation severity likely grew quickly after the Flood, moving God in the Mosaic Law to prohibit relations between close relatives (Lev. 18, 20). But even prior to the Flood, a parent/child relation would have produced a twisted family.

As all authors and peoples do, Moses and the Jews used figures of speech. Some of the Bible’s figures of speech are euphemisms that promote modesty. For example, instead of saying that Adam had sexual intercourse with Eve, the Bible more politely says that “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived” (Gen. 4:1). And Moses writes, “the man who lies with” rather than using the modern and more crude phrase, “has sex with.” The reader who misses these common figures of speech will misunderstand the plain meaning of various passages. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. And God through Moses used the same decency when describing other physical relations. For example, when prohibiting incest in the Mosaic Law, rather than saying, a man shall not have intercourse with his mother, Moses wrote that he shall not “uncover his father’s nakedness.”

‘The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness…’ Lev. 20:11

When Moses also wrote that Ham saw his father’s nakedness, that was a respectful (and appreciated) way of reporting that he copulated with his mother. See how frequently Moses and the Scriptures use this Hebrew figure of speech:

‘If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness. … ‘If a man takes his brother's wife… He has uncovered his brother's nakedness.’ Lev. 20:20-21

Committing incest with any female “near of kin” can be described as “uncovering his nakedness” (Lev. 18:6), referring to the appropriate male relative, including the nakedness of your father (with your mother, Lev. 18:7), or your sister, granddaughter, stepsister, aunt, daughter-in-law and sister-in-law (Lev. 18:9-15). Of course, this can also be described in more literal terms as uncovering the woman’s nakedness, but it can also be referred to, idiomatically, as referring to the husband’s, father’s, brother's, uncle’s, or son’s nakedness. Her nakedness can equal his nakedness because as Paul writes, your body is “not your own” (1 Cor. 6:19), and from this perspective, your mother’s body belongs to your father. Thus:

‘The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness’ Lev. 18:8

Again, “It is your father’s nakedness!”

Ezekiel used this figure of speech in this Hebrew parallelism:

“In you [O Israel] men uncover their fathers’ nakedness; in you they violate women…” Ezek. 22:10

And Habakkuk condemns not the sin of homosexuality but of getting your neighbor drunk in order to seduce his wife, when he warns:

“Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, pressing him to your bottle, even to make him drunk, that you may look on his nakedness!” Hab. 2:15;

Habakkuk warns against looking upon a neighbor’s nakedness, which is just the slightest alternate form of uncovering his nakedness. (See also Leviticus 18:10, 14, 17-18; First Samuel 20:30 and Ezekiel 22:10-11.)

So, understanding this common Hebrew figure of speech enables the reader to comprehend Moses’ 3,500-year-old account of why Noah cursed Canaan:

…Ham was the father of Canaan… And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent [his own drunkenness left his wife vulnerable and exposed to Ham’s wickedness]. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father [that is, he had sex with Noah’s wife, Ham’s own mother], and told his two brothers outside [as wicked people often brag of their sin, and as misery loves company, and perhaps even inviting them to do likewise]. But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father [refusing to molest her, and literally giving her a covering, probably with an animal skin, and in hopes of beginning the healing process for her and their family]. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness [i.e., their mother’s nude body]. So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him [because he found out from his wife and his sons]. Then he said [after he learned of the pregnancy]: “Cursed be Canaan [whose father was Ham]…" Gen. 9:18, 20-25

Why do Christian readers often miss this real story of Canaan? The undermining of Genesis as literal and rational history leads believers, even many authorities, to neglect serious study of Genesis and much of the Old Testament. Christians read that Ham saw his father’s nakedness and therefore Noah cursed baby Canaan. That may seem capricious and arbitrary to many, but millions of Christians are conditioned to take the Bible with a grain of salt. After all, if the masses assume that they cannot trust the Bible’s six literal days of Creation, nor its story of Noah’s Ark and a global flood, then why worry about a silly detail like Noah blaming his grandchild for his own drunken behavior.

Canaan’s true story shows the tragic reality of a child being set up to fail by the wickedness of his father. Thus Noah cursed Canaan as a statement of that reality, not as a hex or evil spell, but as a warning to others against following in Ham’s wicked ways. Canaan was cursed inherently by being conceived through incest. The law of reaping and sowing inexorably applies to the children of fallen men. A father's alcoholism punishes his child, not by fiat from God (nor Noah) but by the cause and effect that children suffer under bad parenting, an unavoidable part of man's fallen existence until God ends this phase of human history. So incest set the background for centuries of conflict between Noah’s Hamitic descendents, especially those through Canaan, against the descendants of Shem, the Semites, especially the Jews, to whom God promised the land of the Canaanites.

While the story of Canaan’s curse follows the Creation and Flood accounts, rightly understood it helps us to see that all throughout, Genesis is a rational book of history.

From Bob Enyart’s unpublished manuscript, The Plot.

[Mazx67]

Anyone? Does this view seem totally off base from what scripture says or could it hold water?

[Paidion]

It makes sense to me.

[RND]

Honor, not Ridicule, Your Parents

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. So what seems to be a trivial incident turned out to be a major event. Noah’s oracle (vv. 25-27) showed that the natures of his three sons would be perpetuated in their descendants.

The Bible Readers Companion adds that “Here the text suggests that Ham’s sin was one of ridiculing the father he should have honored (cf. Ex. 20:12).

And the SDA Bible Commentary adds: The sin of Ham was not an unintentional transgression. He may have seen his father’s shameful condition accidentally, but instead of being filled with sorrow over his father’s folly, he rejoiced in what he saw and found delight in publishing it.

Ellen White gives us additional insights when she writes, The unnatural crime of Ham declared that filial reverence had long before been cast from his soul, and it revealed the impiety and vileness of his character. These evil characteristics were perpetuated in Canaan and his posterity, whose continued guilt called upon them the judgments of God. {PP 117}

So I think we can safely conclude that Ham:
1. Failed to protect his father’s vulnerable condition in his drunken stupor.
2. Went out to tell his brothers – you could even say he publicized it loudly.
3. He ridiculed his father

Application: The Lord is very clear and specific in the Ten Commandments when He wrote with His own finger, “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex. 20:12). Shem and Japeth took this command very seriously and respectfully when they covered their father’s nakedness in a very careful and almost ceremonious way. Any of us who have been parents know we are not perfect and there are times when we have seen our parents’ real self, before us they have been, so-to-speak, naked before us. It is our choice to follow Ham’s example and publicize our parents’ mistakes and shortcomings, to maybe even ridicule them for those moments of weakness, or we can protect them from others and thus show them we honor, respect, and love them.


From the book Patriarchs and Prophets:

To repeople the desolate earth, which the Flood had so lately swept from its moral corruption, God had preserved but one family, the household of Noah, to whom He had declared, "Thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation." Genesis 7:1. Yet in the three sons of Noah was speedily developed the same great distinction seen in the world before the Flood. In Shem, Ham, and Japheth, who were to be the founders of the human race, was foreshadowed the character of their posterity.

Noah, speaking by divine inspiration, foretold the history of the three great races to spring from these fathers of mankind. Tracing the descendants of Ham, through the son rather than the father, he declared, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." The unnatural crime of Ham declared that filial reverence had long before been cast from his soul, and it revealed the impiety and vileness of his character. These evil characteristics were perpetuated in Canaan and his posterity, whose continued guilt called upon them the judgments of God.

On the other hand, the reverence manifested by Shem and Japheth for their father, and thus for the divine statutes, promised a brighter future for their descendants. Concerning these sons it was declared: "Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." The line of Shem was to be that of the chosen people, of God's covenant, of the promised Redeemer. Jehovah was the God of Shem. From him would descend Abraham, and the people of Israel, through whom Christ was to come. "Happy is that people, whose God is the Lord." Psalm 144:15. And Japheth "shall dwell in the tents of Shem." In the blessings of the gospel the descendants of Japheth were especially to share.

The posterity of Canaan descended to the most degrading forms of heathenism. Though the prophetic curse had doomed them to slavery, the doom was withheld for centuries. God bore with their impiety and corruption until they passed the limits of divine forbearance. Then they were dispossessed, and became bondmen to the descendants of Shem and Japheth.

The prophecy of Noah was no arbitrary denunciation of wrath or declaration of favor. It did not fix the character and destiny of his sons. But it showed what would be the result of the course of life they had severally chosen and the character they had developed. It was an expression of God's purpose toward them and their posterity in view of their own character and conduct. As a rule, children inherit the dispositions and tendencies of their parents, and imitate their example; so that the sins of the parents are practiced by the children from generation to generation. Thus the vileness and irreverence of Ham were reproduced in his posterity, bringing a curse upon them for many generations. "One sinner destroyeth much good." Ecclesiastes 9:18.

On the other hand, how richly rewarded was Shem's respect for his father; and what an illustrious line of holy men appears in his posterity! "The Lord knoweth the days of the upright," "and his seed is blessed." Psalm 37:18, 26. "Know therefore that the Lord thy God He is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations." Deuteronomy 7:9.

[Joan]

What do you think of this view of why Canaan was cursed?

I don't like it. Does uncovering his fa's n. necessarily have to be taken only the one way? Instead of being a euphemism for incest, doesn't the phrase better fit the context of the story when taken literally? Otherwise, why did Shem and Japheth have to go in backward with a cover? Had it been their mother (violated as the article claims) who needed covering, would she not have covered herself? Genesis 9:21 says that Noah drank of the wine, was drunk and became uncovered, not that Ham did the uncovering. Note also that in Genesis 35:22, where a son does violate his father's wife (Jacob's concubine Bilhah) it simply states that he lay with her. I know this is an old thread, put to bed (sorry), but now that I've read it, I can't in good conscience let the article go unchallenged. I think the Reverend has made an unnecessary stretch.

[Singalphile]

That is interesting (the OP). I would say that it's likely that Noah's wife was involved to some degree. The general idea makes as much sense to me as any other opinion about it that I've heard, and more sense than some.

A review of the OT pairing of the words "uncover" and "naked" makes it apparent that "a man's nakedness" can mean "the man's wife's nakedness" and uncovering nakedness or simply seeing the nakedness can refer to "lying with someone" (to use another euphemism). The context of this story makes that interpretation plausible. And if that is the correct interpretation, then the overall story makes sense.

In any case, the account is very abbreviated so it's not very clear. I will give my answer to some of Joan's questions, just for fun:

1. "Does uncovering his fa's n. necessarily have to be taken only the one way?"

No. I don't think so.

2. "Instead of being a euphemism for incest, doesn't the phrase better fit the context of the story when taken literally? Otherwise, why did Shem and Japheth have to go in backward with a cover?"

First, nobody is saying that the phrase is a euphemism for incest (see Lev 20:18), but, no. I would think that a man's of-age sons would literally see their father's nakedness many times. The context of the story suggests that Ham did something unusually wrong to his father. We have to read more into it one way or another in order to make sense of it, I think. If Noah's nakedness refers also to his wife's nakedness, then that would be a good reason for Shem and Japheth to not look at the scene. By the way, we don't know if any of them were biologically related to Noah's wife.

3. "Had it been their mother (violated as the article claims) who needed covering, would she not have covered herself?"

As noted, she may not have been their biological mother. We don't even know to what degree she might have been violated. The wife may have been drunk or asleep herself alongside Noah. There is not enough detail to know, but there are reasonable possibilities.

4. "Genesis 9:21 says that Noah drank of the wine, was drunk and became uncovered, not that Ham did the uncovering."

Good observation. Ham is said to have seen the father's nakedness, not that he uncovered it. It may be that he only inappropriately saw his father's wife and reported that to his brothers. A "man's nakedness" can clearly refer to the "man's wife's nakedness", and "uncovering nakedness" can clearly refer to sexual activity, but "seeing a man's nakedness" might or might not refer to any actual act, but it could (Lev 20:17).

5. "Note also that in Genesis 35:22, where a son does violate his father's wife (Jacob's concubine Bilhah) it simply states that he lay with her."

True. Though she was a concubine, which is apparently different than a wife. (Also, Bilhah may have been fully complicit, i.e., not violated.) In any case, I don't see that this proves anything one way or the other. There is usually more than one way to say something.