Alice C. LinsleyNoah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave. (Gen. 9:20-27)
Noah’s cursing and blessing of his three sons parallels Jacob’s cursing and blessing of his twelve sons at the end of Genesis. The two accounts highlight the reality that fathers are often displeased by the actions of their sons. In both narratives there may also be an element of self-loathing.
There are other interesting similarities as well. Noah was angry because his son Ham had looked upon his nakedness. Jacob was angry because his son Reuben has slept with his concubine. In both cases we find the idea of exposing the father's nakedness. Noah’s curse falls on Canaan, Ham’s son, which is a deflection of guilt. Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s sons falls on the youngest, a deflection of blessing. The excuse given for Jacob’s behavior is that he was blind. The excuse given for Noah’s behavior is that he was drunk. (The theme of drunken fathers in Genesis is taken up here.)
Another parallel exists between the curse of Canaan and the curse of Cain (Gen. 4:11). Cain’s curse involves his being expelled from his homeland. The curse of Canaan is clearly intended to justify Israel’s conquest of the land of Canaan by the driving out of the inhabitants know as the Canaanites. Although it is clear that some Israelites married Canaanites. Rahab’s marriage to Salmon, of the tribe of Judah, is but one example. More importantly, the Genesis genealogical information makes it clear that the descendents of Ham regularly intermarried with the descendents of Shem.
Since the rulers of the lines of Ham and Shem intermarried, the curse of Ham falls on the descendents of Shem as well. In this sense Noah’s curse falls upon both his Hamitic and Semitic descendents, which is what happens when a father acts out of self-loathing.
The fact that we can’t racially separate the Hamites from the Semites in Genesis underscores the stupidity of claiming the curse involves only people of black or dark-skin. There is no justification of racism in the book of Genesis.
6 comments:
Alice, I forgot to tell you that I saw a village called Ham in Niger.
That's yet another biblical name found in west central Africa. How many is that now? Nok (Enoch), Kano (Cain), Adamah, Ham, Bor'nu (Land of Noah), and the Jebu tribe (Jebusites). That's certainly more than are found in any other region in the world.
I am hoping that you will elaborate your commentary on this story further, including about what the parallels we find with the other famous Genesis "curses" are telling us. I take it that, when you mention the element of a father's self-loathing, you are trying to express that we don't have to accept all the gravity of the curses which have been imposed as necessarily having been justly imposed as far as God's economy is concerned. In other words, when we study about the account of how it was that Cain committed the murder of his brother, and how it got discovered, and what happened next, we may be open to the idea that that the one doing the cursing on that occasion, wasn't God: isn't it, rather, more like that Cain had received a just recompense "from the earth" (Gen. 4:11)? ... Which would no longer be able to continue to give her strength to Cain? Because the "ground had opened her mouth to receive his brother's blood," itn't it more like that the ground itself had begun to reject Cain, make him a fugitive (Gen. 4:12)? And what God was actually doing was providing Cain with a mercy by marking him out for protection? So, with the marking of Ham, or with Noah's relegating of Canaan to be the slave of Shem, would we be able to find that the commentators have maybe taken Noah's verdict about Canaan too readily as the vindication of God's justice, rather than a gross breach of justice? ... which would need to be corrected?
I will be posting on Cain and Abel later this week, so I won't say much here. However, I believe that Abel's blood cried out to the Father for justice and that the Father heard and punished Cain justly, mixing mercy with punishment. This foreshadows how the Father heard Jesus' prayer to have mercy upon those who were executing Him.
How certain are we that Canaan the "servant" in vs. 26 & 27 goes with the preposition "of" [his brothers]? I don't think the possessive pronoun "his" appears in Hebrew: "Canaan shall be servant" could be read "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem;
and let Canaan be his [Jahweh's] servant," couldn't it?
Yes, it could and that would parallel it to similar statements in Scripture that appear to be curses but are really blessings. The curse of Cain is an example. By God's law of a life for life, Cain should have been put to death.
Post a Comment