|
The narrative of the Genesis chapter 9 text is quite perplexing.
It leaves the reader considering whether the biblical narrative may be
saying more than a surface reading may indicate.
After all, why should the mere issue of male nakedness in the company
of other men be a major issue of concern.
The presumption is that something of greater 'gravity' occurred.
Indeed many commentators have deeply considered the text and reached
a number of different speculations. Proposed conclusions that would
explain the reactions of all concerned. Conclusions that would provide
insight into why the offender was cursed.
Explanations that would justify the strong language directed toward
Canaan (a son of Ham). The curse stating, may Canaan be a 'servant
of servants', may Canaan be a servant of his brethren, may Canaan be
a servant of the descendants of Shem, may Canaan be a servant of
Japheth (Japheth, who will 'dwell in the tents of Shem').
Gen 9:25 Then he said:
"Cursed be Canaan;
A servant of servants
He shall be to his brethren."
:26 And he said:
"Blessed be the Lord,
The God of Shem,
And may Canaan be his servant.
:27 May God enlarge Japheth,
And may he dwell in the tents of Shem;
And may Canaan be his servant."
Who was Canaan?
Canaan was the 4th born son of his father Ham.
Gen 10:6 The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.
1Chr 1:8 The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.
Canaan was not the firstborn of Ham. Ham had three other older sons.
Canaan did not represent the firstborn strength of his father.
The curse on Canaan did not represent a curse on the entire ancestry
of Ham.
It is very important to notice that the curse was not placed on Ham!
The blame for the transgression in the 'nakedness of Noah' incident is
entirely placed upon Canaan!
When Scripture states, when Noah knew what his youngest son had done.
Gen 9:24 So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his
younger son had done to him.
This was not a reference to Ham!
This was a reference to a specific younger grandson of Noah! Why?
The Hebrew meaning for the word 'son' (or daughter) is not limited
to immediate family. It is an expression which can also include
children of children (or any other male descendant).
What we are being told is that a young male descendant had committed
a transgression against Noah.
The text then makes it clear that the offender was Canaan.
[NB: The text of Genesis chapter 9 is not a racial
discussion!
It is not contrasting white people (Shem), Asians
(Japheth) and those of darker skin colour (Ham).
Rather, it is a discussion of an incident which
focuses upon the unacceptable behaviour of only
Canaan.
Canaan who became the father of the subsequently
arising Canaanite nations! ]
While the text of Gen 9:24 mentions an offence against Noah,
"what his younger son had done to him",
it is not clear if this was an offence against the literal body of
Noah. Or a literal offence against another person, the nature of which
would be a strike against the honour, dreams and prestige of Noah (and
possibly against God's work itself).
Now let us focus for a while upon the introduction to the nakedness of
Noah incident.
Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a
vineyard.
:21 Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became
uncovered in his tent.
The text appears to clearly be saying that Noah simply drank too much
wine. As a result he became drunk and his nakedness was exposed inside
his tent.
For anyone living with men (or women) who drink excessively, such a
situation, at times, may seem to be a predictable outcome.
Hence, a simple reading of the text is not providing enough indication
as to what really happened. There is a lack of information as to what
the transgression of Canaan was. What had actually occurred?
The following two verses simply outline the actions of Noah's elder
'sons'.
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness
of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
:23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on
both their shoulders, and went backward and covered
the nakedness of their father. Their faces were not
turned away, and they did not see their father's
nakedness.
Ham is not being accused! It is simply that Ham first comes across
the situation being described as the 'nakedness of his father'.
Ham informs his brothers, and subsequently Shem and Japheth act in
a suitable manner to address the immediate situation.
The actions of Ham, Shem and Japheth make no sense if one is simply
talking about the nakedness of another male. For example we are not
being informed as to why Ham did not simply cover the nakedness of
his father.
However, the implied inference is that what Ham discovered had
shocked him and as a result he had to discuss the situation with
his brothers.
These two brothers then acted in a discreet manner to provide a
suitable literal covering.
When one considers the nature of the actions of Shem and Japheth it
seems as though they were covering over the exposed nudity of a woman!
The actions of Shem and Japheth imply that what Ham had discovered was
an uncovered naked woman. It also implies that this woman was not one
of their wives. It is apparent that Shem and Japheth acted appropriately
to cover the nudity of this woman, while not looking upon her.
So the question is whether the text is dealing with the nudity of a
woman? If so, who is she? Did Canaan force himself upon this woman?
If the text is really discussing what happened to a woman, why do
we encounter references to Noah's 'nakedness'?
The bible references nakedness in a rather unusual manner.
It talks about the nakedness of a husband's wife as the nakedness
of the husband himself.
Lev 18:8 The nakedness of your father's wife you shall
not uncover; it is your father's nakedness.
20:11 The man who lies with his father's wife has
uncovered his father's nakedness; ...
Deut 27:20 Cursed is the one who lies with his father's
wife, because he has uncovered his father's
bed, ...
So this raises the question of whether the nakedness of Noah's wife
was the focal point of the Genesis 9 incident.
The text appears to be talking about Noah himself, but could it
actually be talking about the exposing of the nakedness of Noah's
wife?
The bible also refers to the nakedness of a son's daughter or the
nakedness of a daughter's daughter as being the nakedness of their
grandfather. (A nakedness the grandfather is not to uncover (sexually)).
Lev 18:10 The nakedness of your son's daughter or your
daughter's daughter, their nakedness you shall
not uncover; for theirs is your own nakedness.
[NB: I would make more sense for Canaan to be
sexually attracted to a granddaughter of
Noah.]
|
Had Canaan previously expressed interest in a specific
granddaughter of Noah?
(Was this the reason Noah knew the transgressor was
Canaan.)
Had Canaan forced himself upon this granddaughter
and left her in a rather 'poor' state?
Normally one would expect a granddaughter to dwell
in the tent of her parents.
Was there a reason why she was dwelling in the tent
of Noah? |
|
 |
What does all this speculation mean?
It means there is a range of possible explanations.
So, how is the uncertainty to be resolved?
By looking elsewhere in Scripture!
A discussion which sheds light upon the Genesis chapter 9 incident is:
| |
----------------------------------------------------------
