Pastor s Pen June 2007 The Analogy of Faith: Reading Noah s Nakedness and Ham s Curse in Light of Clearer Scriptures

Transcription

1 Pastor s Pen June 2007 The Analogy of Faith: Reading Noah s Nakedness and Ham s Curse in Light of Clearer Scriptures Pastor Doug Van Dorn I was recently discussing the story of Noah and his sons with some friends. I thought this would be an interesting place to show how important the principle Scripture interprets Scripture is when coming to difficult passages. When done properly, this Scriptural (Rom 12:16) 1 principle helps us to understand the passage in its immediate context as well as in the context of the rest of Scripture. In this case, we see how Moses is working the thread of the seed of the woman and of the serpent (Gen 3:15) through the story of Noah s sons (especially Gen 9:26-27). After the flood, a cryptic and obscure passage exists in Genesis 9: It is the story of Ham, Noah s son, who we are told went into Noah s tent, saw the nakedness of his [drunken] father, and went and told his two brothers outside. The other brothers, Shem and Japheth, took a garment and walked backwards into the tent (so as not to see) and covered the nakedness of the father. Verse 24 then recalls how Noah awoke from his drunkenness and knew what he youngest son had done to him. From here the story takes an even more bizarre turn. Rather than curse Ham, Noah curses Canaan, Ham s son (Gen 9:18)! This important story sets the stage for all future hostility between the Canaanites and the Israelites, including the reason for Israel s conquest of the land of Canaan and the command to completely destroy those from the seed of Canaan (cf. Gen 10:6, 15-19; 15:16-21; Deut 20:17). But it also gives rise to a precious gospel promise where, through the seed of Shem, Eve s promised Seed will come and the Gentiles will be allowed to participate in the blessings He will bring (Gen 9:26-27). This includes even many of the sons of Ham (Gen 10:6-14; Isa 19:23-24). In a few short chapters (with Abram and Isaac) this promise begins to grow. In Christ, it will flower. The remainder of this article will focus on the story of Ham and exactly what happened between him and his father Noah. We will also look at why Noah s cursed Canaan rather than Ham. Let me start with the phrase his father s nakedness (Gen 9:22, 23). Study Bible s usually take what seems like a very straightforward approach in their interpretation. For example, the Reformation Study Bible comments on Gen 9:22, Gazing at another s nakedness, either in lust or scorn, is morally wrong. Ham s scornful leering at the father whom he should have revered was particularly reprehensible. The NIV Study Bible adds, He broadcast, rather than covered, his father s immodesty. Certainly those explanations comport with what the English Bibles read in those verses, especially when this passage is taken in isolation from the rest of the text and Moses other writings. 1 Paul says that the person who prophesies is to do so in proportion [analogue] to the faith. This is where we get this principle often called the analogy of faith (analogia fidei or analogia Scripturae). Paul s meaning is not that a person prophesies as a result of his personal faith in God, but rather that prophesy must be in accordance with the content of the Faith (i.e. what the Scripture says and the Church teaches) that has already been revealed. For more see London Baptist Confession 1689, 1.9.

2 But should we take this incident in isolation? I do not think so for several reasons. While it may seem straightforward to some, this explanation has never set well with me since the first time I read about it. For, it cannot account for several other things said in the text. The most glaring problem is why would Noah curse Canaan (9:25) when Canaan did nothing wrong? Or more foundational, why is Canaan even mentioned at all, especially before the story even begins (9:18 s parenthetical comment Ham was the father of Canaan )? Next, let us not quickly forget that this story becomes the foundation for the deep hostility that takes place between Israel and Ham s descendants (the Philistines, Babylonians, and Egyptians) as well as the total annihilation at the command of God of the Canaanites and their descendants (stop and take the time to really let that sink in). Also, Noah says that Ham did something to him (9:24). These facts seem to point to something extraordinarily terrible occurring here. Does the scornful tattletale interpretation really fit that bill? If it was a terrible sin, what might have been Ham s motive in committing it? The traditional explanation provides no motive. Finally, this explanation tends to make me read what Ham did as a moralistic tale (i.e. don t be like Ham ) that is basically unrelated to the historic-redemptive curse and blessing that takes place in the next verses. While what Ham did is surely wrong and we should not emulate Ham, how does a story about Ham and a curse about Canaan even fit together? There is a better explanation if we let the Scripture interpret itself. The Hebrew construction of the phrase in question is rā āh erwāh (to see nakedness). Uncovering nakedness (gālāh erwāh) is a slightly different phrase used many times in Leviticus 18:6-19. This section of Scripture contains 13 different sins relating to uncovering the nakedness of close relatives. In each instance, sexual relations are involved (see also Lev 20:11-21). Interestingly, but not incidentally, God gives these laws because he is setting Israel apart from the Canaanites, whose land they will be capturing (Lev 18:3). The Canaanites were the ancestors of Canaan, the grandson cursed by Noah. A lot is made in the Scripture about how sexually perverse the descendants of Canaan were. 2 Isn t it prudent to at least consider the possibility that this was their way from the very beginning? Two of these many verses relating to uncovering someone s nakedness are relevant to our discussion. First, Leviticus 20:11 says, If a man lies with his father s wife, he has uncovered his father s nakedness. Now, granted, the text says that Ham saw (not uncovered ) his father s nakedness. To this objection two things should be noticed. First, (and this is the second verse that relates) Leviticus 20:17 says, If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace. This verse comes square in the middle of a list of sins where sexual relations are involved. To take a sister and see her nakedness is synonymous with lying with her in the other verses. Thus, several English translations outright say it is a physical consummation of a relationship (NAB, NIV, NLT). Second, we read that Shem and Japheth covered their father with a (lit. the ) cloak. Granted again, the Hebrew word here is not the 2 They were bent towards homosexuality (Gen 19:5). Among them were many giants (Gen 32:33), which possibly was the result of perverse behavior (Gen 6:4). And they did many other detestable practices that Israel was not to follow (Lev 18:3-20).

3 same as uncovering someone s nakedness. But the idea seems to fit quite well with my contention that Ham had not only gazed upon, but uncovered his father s nakedness. If the Law (that which is clear) is allowed to have some say on this passage (that which is unclear), what then would it mean was Ham s sin? From the list of laws it is reasonable to assume it means that Ham had relations with someone in Noah s family. Perhaps it was with Noah himself, and this was a gross act of homosexuality. 3 The ancestors of Ham certainly participated in such abominations (Gen 10:19; 19:5). Perhaps it was Noah s wife, Ham s mother, and Canaan was the offspring of the union. If either was the case, then it would certainly justify such a radical curse on Noah s part. Based upon other Scriptures, the most reasonable conclusion is that Ham had relations with Noah s wife, for in the Torah the phrase a father s nakedness always means taking a man s (particularly, your own father s) wife (Lev 18:8, 20:11; Deut 22:30; 27:20). 4 How can it be a father s nakedness when it is someone else being violated? Perhaps the principle in 1 Cor 6:19 (cf. Gen 2:24) has something to do with it. When a man and a woman are married, their bodies belong to one another. Thus the Law can say, You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father s wife; it is your father s nakedness. Ezekiel picks upon on this, In you men uncover their father s nakedness; in you they violate women who are unclean in their menstrual impurity (Ezek 22:10). 5 If Ham had relations with Noah s wife, then it is reasonable to assume that Canaan was this child. Twice the narrative points out that Ham was the father of Canaan (Gen 9:18; 22). The first instance tells us this, though we have not yet been introduced to Canaan! Why did Moses make such a big deal of this? One commentator suggests that he makes it clear to the Israelites that Noah was not the father of Canaan, as the Canaanties themselves might have wanted to claim given that Noah s wife was his mother. 6 This then helps us answer the question of why Noah would curse Canaan and why God would eventually want Israel to occupy their land. Canaan was the son of an unlawful union between Noah s wife and his youngest son! How did this all happen? Noah was naked in his 7 tent. Besides the historical reality of the event, this language perhaps signifies that Noah was sinfully laying down his righteous authority 3 This is the view of O. Palmer Robertson, Current Critical Questions Concerning the Curse of Ham, in JETS (41.2, June 1998). Robertson is silent, as if not even aware of the position I set forth in the next paragraph. But the fact that he sees Ham s sin in relation to the Law of Moses and that he sees it as more than lust shows that we are on the right track. 4 See the informative article by John Sietze Bergsma, Noah s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan (Gen 9:20-27), in Journal of Biblical Literature 124/1 (2005), pgs Available online: 5 Our story is not completely dissimilar to Tamar, Judah s daughter-in-law, who tricked and seduced Judah and gave birth to Perez and Zerah (Gen 38). It is even more similar to the story of Lot and his daughters in Gen 19: Bergsma notes, It is somewhat awkward to explain why the apparently related passages of Gen 6:1-4 and Gen 19:30-38 concern the production of wicked offspring through illicit sexual union, but Gen 9:20-27 produces no offspring (p. 36). Our view corrects this problem. All three periscopes (Gen 6:1-4; 9:20-7; and 19:30-38) concern the production of wicked offspring through illicit sexual union. 6 Bob Enyart, Why was Canaan Cursed, 7 The Hebrew is not conclusive on this, but there is some reason to believe that he was actually in her tent. The word appears to have the feminine possessive suffix. Compare with Gen 24:67 where Isaac brings Rebekah into the tent of his mother. The word is identical.

4 through this moral lapse of getting drunk and then naked (I ll discuss this more when I ask about the brothers covering their father). Or perhaps it signifies that he was with his wife in a tent but his drunken condition knocked him unconscious (these are not incompatible options). It is interesting to compare this text with Habakkuk 2:15 which says, Who to him who makes his neighbors drink - you pour out your wrath and make them drunk, in order to gaze at their nakedness. In this verse, a man will get his friend drunk in order to sleep with his wife. Lot s daughters do this very thing to him (Gen 19:32). In the Noah story, Noah got himself drunk. At the very least, Noah is guilty of a great sin. 8 Either way, because of Noah s inebriation, Ham could slip in unnoticed and impregnate Noah s wife without Noah even being the wiser. (Perhaps Ham had even justified his actions because his father was a moral failure, no longer worthy of carrying on the covenant promise. This makes a lot of sense to me, considering that God has just wiped out the entire world because of sin. Is it really plausible that Ham would do such a thing so soon after the flood without justifying his actions as righteous?). Now verse 24 makes sense! Noah awoke 9 from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him. Notice, it says that Ham did something to Noah. It is a strange to think that Ham s look (if that is all it was) was interpreted by Noah as something done to him. But it is not strange at all for Noah to say this if in fact Ham had done something to Noah, namely becoming the father of Canaan in an unlawful manner with Noah s wife the night that Noah got drunk in his tent. So if all of this is true, then why would Ham have been so willing to tell his brother s about what he had done? One commentator says, If Ham had committed incest with his mother, he would not likely have told his two brothers, nor would the Torah pass over such an inauspicious beginning for the detested Canaanites. 10 But I might reply that if Ham had lusted after his father in his heart, what makes this a more likely thing to boast about in front of your brothers? In our day it is only a liberal that would actually suggest that such a gaze would be something you should want to tell your brothers about! That doesn t solve anything. Furthermore, it seems quite possible that Moses is telling us that the origin of the Canaanites has this very inauspicious beginning. 11 Only if we presuppose that they don t would we come to such a conclusion; especially when the text seems to point us in this direction. Why would Ham have been so boastful towards his brothers about what he had done? The reason seems obvious if you take the time to think about it from the perspective I am suggesting. Ham wanted to make it clear that Noah would not be the father of any baby his wife would conceive. The line would go through Ham, not Noah! In this regard, there is good reason to believe that Canaan would have been the first-born child after the flood. Remember, only eight people were on the ark, meaning there were no children for Shem, Japheth, and Ham 8 In the parallels between the Noah story and the Adam story, we would not be wrong to call this Noah s Fall as James Boice does in his commentary. 9 How long it took Noah to awake we may not know with certainty. If Canaan was not there the night of the unspeakable event (because he was not yet born), then there must be some lapse between the awakening and the curse. 10 Allen P. Ross, The Curse of Canaan, Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September, 1980): 220, In the ancient world, the Canaanites were in fact regarded as children of incest. See Bergsma, p

5 yet 1 Pet 3:20. Ham, the youngest, might have wanted to find a way to claim the blessing himself. Thus, as oldest grandson, Canaan would be the legal son (though not God s determining plan) to become the heir of the promise, especially if his mother is Noah s wife; so Ham might have thought (see section on authority below). This would be one of the most deceptive attempts at usurping the covenant promise in the Bible! 12 Isn t this exactly what Satan has been trying to do since the beginning? Is it a wonder Noah was so upset? What then about Shem and Japheth covering their father? Obviously, the covering was a literal covering that took place that night. This covering in a garment reminds us of the LORD covering Adam and Eve in the Garden after they had sinned (Gen 3:21). Herman Gunkell, Robert Gagnon, John Bergsma and others suggest that this garment was actually Noah s garment that Ham had taken from the tent. 13 If so, then Ham s uncovering of his father s nakedness would intensify the meaning of stealing the covenant so that it also means stealing Noah s authority. 14 Garments in Scripture (and outside of it) often remind us of a person s authority. Notice the relationship between a covering and authority in Ex 28:2 [NIV] and 1 Cor 11:6-10. In our culture we say the phrase, under the mantle of so-and-so s authority. In cultures where there are kings, they wear royal robes as signifiers of their authority). As the last remaining patriarch of the old earth, we could certainly consider that Noah would have been viewed as a king after the flood. When Noah s other sons covered their father, this kind and exceedingly righteous act was a signifier of their submission to Noah s authority (as opposed to Ham s theft of it), it was an act of modesty and sexual purity on their part, and it was a wake-up call to Noah. Now we know why Noah cursed Canaan. The line would not go through Canaan, for he was the child of incest and an unlawful heir to become Eve s Promised Seed. Instead, the line must go through a faithful servant, either Japheth or Shem. In fact it would go through Shem, and Japheth would receive the blessings if he would come into the tents of Shem. Canaan, however, must become the servant of both. In the curse, Canaan stands in relationship to Noah s two righteous sons. He takes the place of Ham. In this way, Canaan is like a son to Noah, albeit a cursed one. It is not unheard of in the Genesis narrative for something like this to be the case (Gen 31:43; 48:5-6; 50:23). Through the blessing of the two and the cursing of Canaan (which 12 F. W. Bassett writes, A son who has sexual relations with his mother or step-mother commits a rebellious sin against his father, since the possession of a man s wife is seen also as an effort to supplant the man himself (p. 236). In, F. W. Bassett, Noah s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan: A Case of Incest? Vetus Testamentum 21 [1971]: The Hebrew has the definite article ( THE garment ) rather than merely a garment. 14 In the Scripture, a man will often take another man s woman in an attempt to steal his authority. Consider Absalom with his father s concubines (2 Sam 16:20-23); Reuben with Bilhah (Gen 35:22; 49:3-4); and David taking Saul s concubines (2 Sam 12:8). This seems to be the thing Ezekiel is chastising his people for doing as well (Ezek 22:10). Closer to our story, notice how the line of Ham results in the birth of Nimrod the mighty hunter who was possibly the founder of Babylon and the builder of the tower of Babel (Gen 10:8-10; 11:2, 9). Nimrod was a great king and ruler, but he was wicked. It is clear from the Genesis narrative that Babel was about making a name (Heb: shem) for themselves (Gen 11:4) and this is a play off of Noah s son Shem whose name means Name. In this way, Nimrod is trying to steal the name (or authority and power) of God in building his tower in the same way that his grandfather stole the authority of Noah by uncovering his nakedness. Clearly, the authority of Noah is on the line. Greek Mythology often depicts its Noah figure (Nereus: The Old and wise Man of the Sea) wearing a robe of stars, symbolizing his authority. Only when someone like Herekles (Nimrod?) seizes Nereus cloak or Chiron (Ham?) is wearing it is Nereus depicted without his cloak. See Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. The Parthenon Code: Mankind s History in Marble. Annapolis: Maryland, Solving Light Books, 2004.

6 now makes sense to us), the promise given in Genesis 3:15 will continue God s way until finally the Lord Jesus Christ himself would appear to finally crush the head of the serpent. Bibliography Bassett, F. W. Noah s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan: A Case of Incest? Vetus Testamentum 21 [1971]: Bergsma John Sietze. Noah s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan (Gen 9:20-27). Journal of Biblical Literature 124/1 (2005): Boice, James Montgomery. Genesis: An Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, Enyart, Bob. Why was Canaan Cursed, Johnson, Robert Bowie Jr. The Parthenon Code: Mankind s History in Marble. Annapolis: Maryland, Solving Light Books, Kline, Meredith G. Kingdom Prologue. Eugene, OF: Wipf & Stock, Robertson, O. Palmer. Current Critical Questions Concerning the Curse of Ham. JETS 41.2 (June 1998): Ross, Allen P. The Curse of Canaan. Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September, 1980):